Nick_76Much cheaper, because the US money has to be mostly used to buy US equipment, so an AIM-9M is effectively free (only an opportunity cost, can’t buy another US weapon with that money), but a Python costs real shekels.
Yes, the famous Shekel vs $ budget, but still the point stands – that the IDF is skimping on the quality of armament it usually adheres to, by going for AIM-9Ms when it could have gone for Aim-9X’s or even its own Pythons. Point I was making was – theres a limited amount of money to go around, and its going for A2G stuff and more UAVs and eyes & recce. More on that in the next para..
Nick, take a look at Israels situation. It is far more powerful militarily than all its neighbours combined, even with the aid they might get from other states. Take away US aid to both sides, & Israel still has considerable superiority, easily enough to be safe. The USSR is no longer giving (or selling on never-to-be-repaid loans) weapons to Egypt & Syria.
I don’t know where this idea of Israel on the edge of survival comes from. Look back at the 1950s & 1960s, compare the ratios of forces, & what actually happened. Everything – money, manpower, technology – is more in Israels favour now than then, EVEN WITHOUT US HELP. It won then. It would win now.
You failed to get my point Swerve. You are making the same mistake Israels leadership did in the recent war (and which my country’s MOD does 24/7). You are looking at the total war scenario and ignoring whats the current state, lets be clear here, Israel is in a quasi-war situation, it has been for long and will stay there for a long time to come. A nation like India overcomes such issues by throwing bodies at the problem with a sprinkling of tech, till the problem is sufficiently swamped and becomes “manageable”, and even if its not, there are always more troops. In the case of Israel, whats happening is that the current rocket attacks, the now you see it, now you dont terror attacks constantly force the IDF to seek a way to prevent them from happening. And when they cant, they have to- for both political and morale purposes, as well as to exact some amount of retaliation, respond with overwhelming military force. And what this means is that the good old days of one brawl every “x” years are gone. That Israel could manage- as you have said it could & I agree. What it cant, is this constant attrition warfare. Why?
Because as I pointed out, Israel is a small country which is forced to depend on technology as it cant throw cheap men & material at the problem (like India & PRC can, like the US could at one time, but no longer can). And there is no upper limit. Take a look at the stuff they have deployed in theater, and its ever more expensive and never ending. The latest stroke of genius is to deploy an antimissile system with units worth tens of thousands to down the Katyusha/Kassam ripoffs hitting their cities, jury rigged from sewage pipes!
Without US aid, the Israelis will quickly find themselves at the sharp end of a stick, because the US aid is allowing them to manage this constant battle of attrition by deploying more and more high end gear, such as UAVs to this to that, WITHOUT compromising on their conventional army, or stopping Merk4 production, still acquiring F-35’s and what not.
That is the point I was making.
If the security perception for Israel were so simple as to have their once a decade brawl with the neighbouring states, sure – they can stock, prepare and win. But an army constantly attrited over a peacetime, which is anything but – it wont win this battle, and Hamas/ Hezb et al will promptly prove the cliche “terror doesnt win”, wrong, by demonstrating that they can make Israel buckle. Again, an issue for most states who dont want these two orgs & terror sponsoring states to get emboldened. The morale boost from the Afghan jihad & what not, has been felt by many states for a decade plus now, it aint pretty.
Not to mention the morale issues in Israel of the “invulnerable” Israel defence forces getting hammered during peacetime and ending up in a stalemate. This last war itself, many reservists took up cudgels against the Govt for all sorts of things. One can only imagine what will happen when these guys face a funding restricted scenario..
So, to cut a long ramble short, basically, those 2.6 B$ do matter to the Israelis. They allow them to punch far above their economic and demographic weight, which was what I was getting at. Without that money, the Israelis would have to make many many more compromises. Some of which would not be in the US’s interest either or so it appears. For better or worse, the US wants Israel to have a certain level of capability in the ME to call upon, if, when, ever – without that extra cash, that capability wont exist.
Edited: Sens explained the eco/ demo bit in more detail!
Nick_76Israel isnt exactly rolling in money.
Their biggest limitation is lack of manpower, which + the inability to take and sustain attrition (internal politics, demographics and profile of the IDF) forces them to choose the technology heavy solution time and time around (same issue which the US is facing in Iraq).
This is expensive.
Result is that there is never enough to go around – again, something which all militaries face, but which Israel is facing more often because of the use a hammer to crack a nut method which they have been (forced?) to adopt.
The latest IDFAFs chief comment is that PGMs are the new focus of the IDF- goes to show that despite substantial local ability, less expensive US made ones (economies of scale & all) are required, and even those need substantial budgeting, given the way stock burn occurs in conflicts like the one we saw recently.
In other news, the IDFAF went on to procure 500 AIM-9Ms- one reason being they were far cheaper and hence affordable, than the local Python 4/5s!
So gentlemen – trust me – that $ 2.6 Bn which the Israelis get from the US, goes a loooooooooooooooooong way, and is much appreciated! (one hopes so – given how much they need it)!
Nick_76Indeed but in such a conflict there will be no winner as such because the result will if not immediately then in time decided by ICBM/SLBM/strategic bomber. The results of the air battle will have very little to do with the outcome of that.
I wonder. I think there will definitely be a substantial effort put in by both sides not to go to “n’clear”..and hence there might be a solid brawl which still ends shy of armageddon.
Hense we can safely say that the stealth planes would not be much use in a WWIII scenario… simply because no planes will be much use.
Thats what..they might be of use in an A2A scenario where the AWACS is not sufficiently powerful to detect them and the more powerful GBAD radars are disabled by CMs. But if the GBAD takes out the CMs and the radars remain in play..
Beyond the Russians what other country has the integrated air defence that is comparable… and that answer is easy. No one.
I pretty much think that over the coming decades we’ll see both the PRC & India fielding substantial AD networks with many layers of SAMs, capable of engaging high flying targets.
Well for most of their “interventions” they can rely on UK support, plus of course not all users are as competant as the Serbs… you do need to give credit where it is due.
Apart from the ME’ & the ramshackle African (bar SA) operators, many militaries in the world are quite competent. I dont think the Serbians did any better than the Poles would have for that matter (in a matter of speaking) or what the E Germans would have done @ time of war, if they were similarly constrained (ie for arguements sake WP cant help them)..
Also, my point was that the high numbers of ALARMs needed would make any UK inventory more of a face saving measure..if anything.
The new ARMs being worked upon by the US, including the ramjet one look more promising than the HARM current std.
But unless they stockpile thousands, doubt whether it will be that useful!!
Nick_76Not really, in many ways it was a success, it forced the Serbs to keep there radar sets switched off, many SAM systems are not too usefull are they with no radar to use.
Learn to read.
HARM iirc was a failure in some ways,
Some. Ways.
Not all.
It was a failure at knocking out radars, ie DEAD. As compared to SEAD.
The rest of your post is generic pfaffle which everyone on this board already knows.
And in case you still dont understand, go back & research how Scott O Grady was shot down. There remains no viable alternative against taking out the physical guidance unit for proper airspace sanitisation.
Nick_76Garry, yet another reasonable post!!
Launch a few CAP with lots of fighters armed with 2 AMRAAMs and 2 Sidewinders each, and the rest of their pylons they can carry HARMs. Any aircraft gets airborne you will know via AWACS. Their radar will not be working well because of your jamming aircraft.
Any SAMs light up you fire HARMs, any planes take off you fire AMRAAMs first then Sidewinders next.
If nothing comes up then your cruise missiles will likely make it to their targets… ie communications centres, HQs, Hardened aircraft shelters if they have any, radars, large fixed SAM sites.
The whole thing presupposes though that one has control of the air. Which is the part the USAF would find a bit tough against say a Russian IADS funded and back in shape.
With MiG-31s, Flankers, MiGs and the “future” PAK-FAs and what not, airspace management will be heck to work with, not to mention that all the S-3XX series SAMs are mobile and the Russians have hundreds of presurveyed launch sites.
Otherthing is that the HARM iirc was a failure in some ways, though the GPS update in the latest version should help some, and it was the ALARM which did a surprise in Serbia. Even so, seeing the missile consumption in that conflict vs a primitive, underfunded and barely operable AD system (albeit kept alive by some very competent operators), I wonder how any AF, including the USAF would budget a war against someone like the VVS, or even the PRC, which is acquiring battalion after battalion of Russian SAMs and making its own ones too.
Nick_76I’m curious, if cruise missiles are as fantastic as you make them out to be why do you always claim they are incredibly vunerable to Russian air defence systems like the tunguska which can swat the pesky cruise missiles out of the sky without so much as breaking into a sweat, which one is it?
Current gen CMs are indeed vulnerable to a well planned IADS, but then losing a CM is far better than losing a 200 $ M fighter!
The point GarryB was making, was that its better to invest in small stealthy munitions and use them as stand off weapons from launch platforms which remain out of harms way.
Nick_76Ok then, what about if i were a Serb and we had faced Russian inplace of NATO forces and only downed a couple of flankers and a few fencers. Yeah same result we get our asses kicked, as RuAF jets roam the skys unmolested destroying targets at will eventually we lose the conflict. A very very small almost worthless victory traded for the destruction of my nation, yeah not a good deal eh and not a very impressive result at all. 🙁
Given the odds the Serbs faced, its a flat out miracle they managed to down anything at all. But they did and didnt back down either. That marks them as professionals in my book, and well deserving of respect, something which you curiously seem unable to understand.
Nick_76Yeah, which leads me to the second thought, all this jazz of the F-22A being the door kicker of any IADS (read Russia) is pure BS and marketing agitprop since in a real conflict against the likes of a fully developed IADS with S-400s and S-300s, the F-22 might well be toast, especially with those new long wave radars coming out.
At the end of the day, what the F-22A was developed for, is basically to do what the jocks in the AF who are now in staff, wanted – ie the uber fancy A2A battle so that they could brag about having the fanciest, bestest, and nicest doodad aircraft..
Even there, a new gen of F-15s could have handled the emerging air threat.
Nick_76yeahh, a dumb comparison, lots of if…..but not surprising from him at all.
Not to mention that the NATO air campaign was a flop, in terms of only inconveniencing the General serb populace and having practically no effect on the actual inventory of the Serbian army/ paramils.
And the more one reads about the entire campaign, the more it becomes clear it was “politics”, even though it was sold as a selfless campaign to save the poor xyz chappies (KLA yeah, right!) from the bad Serbs.
Nick_76The fact that the Serbs could do it with ancient missiles and no airforce to speak of suggests that the Warsaw Pact airforce with supporting PVO could probably make the F-117 useless over Europe.
Yeah, I do wonder. With those literally hundreds of radars all over the place, would NATO Mission Planners be able to make safe passage for the F-117?
Doubt it.
Also with the new GBAD/ ABM system radars developed, such as the GreenPine and French Master series, I seriously doubt whether even the F-22A can remain undetected.
The only way “stealth” will work is if cruise missiles first take out the big eyes and then the F-22A comes in to play..
Nick_76Whole article…
Confirms what we all knew…
Chinese J-10 ‘benefited from the Lavi project’
Russian aerospace engineers have confirmed to Jane’s that China’s Chengdu J-10 fighter aircraft benefited from significant, direct input from Israel’s Lavi programme – including access to the Israel Aircraft Industries (IAI) Lavi aircraft itself.
In a number of interviews Jane’s has talked at length with several engineers, designers and technical specialists – some of whom have been working with their Chinese counterparts for decades and have had first-hand experience on Chinese military projects. They have provided detailed accounts of the assistance given to various Chinese manufacturers and their military aircraft projects. This has included extensive design and performance modelling, wind-tunnel testing and advanced aerodynamic design input.
Senior Russian engineers who spoke to Jane’s recalled their many visits to Chengdu, and elsewhere in China, some of which began in the 1980s. Jane’s was told how Chengdu officials of the highest level stated how they had one of the IAI Lavi prototypes in their facilities. Describing his conversations with Chengdu concerning possession of a Lavi aircraft, one Jane’s source commented: “I did not consider that to be a revelation … doesn’t everyone know that already?” 😉
It is not possible to independently verify the Russian comments. The charge of Lavi technology transfer has been made before, but this time the claims come from individuals with sustained personal experience of the programme. Both Chinese and Israeli officials have long refuted any purported links between the J-10 and the Lavi.
Neither is it clear whether a Lavi aircraft was permanently transferred to China or if one was given to Chengdu for a specific period of time. When asked, the same Russian engineer commented that he had never heard anyone in Chengdu suggest that China had a acquired a Pakistan Air Force Lockheed Martin F-16 for study to inform J-10 development – a claim that has been made elsewhere in the past.
Officials from Israel Aerospace Industries, previously Israel Aircraft Industries, declined to comment on the Russian claims. 😎
Jane’s has heard how Russian engineers met Israeli counterparts at Chinese facilities and often saw documentation and technical drawings marked in Hebrew. When asked about the J-10, one Russian department head remarked: “What Chengdu aircraft? There is no Chengdu aircraft. Everything they have came from somebody else.”
There is no doubt that some J-10 design and development work was done in Russia. For example, in 2000 – when there were still flaws in the basic aircraft – Chengdu engineers took a number of different J-10 models to Russia for extensive wind-tunnel testing. A key Russian skill was the ability to conduct detailed spin and high-angle-of-attack testing in a horizontal wind tunnel.
One Russian specialist involved in those and other tests said: “They had already had a lot of help from Israel and what they wanted most of all was to validate their own people and their testing methods rather than the design. Chengdu already has access to a huge aerodynamics facility with underground wind tunnels.”
Those Russian specialists who have worked in China are often scathing about China’s real level of design capabilities and have become more so as China relies less and less on foreign industrial input. They remain impressed, however, by the scale of resources and funding that has been poured into China’s programmes.
“The advance in facilities at Chengdu has been astonishing over the last 20 years. They now have a huge site with completely new test and development facilities, laboratories and an entirely new production line – quite apart from what was there to begin with. Chengdu is the only Chinese manufacturer to maintain its own design bureau. At Shenyang they have only a small office that can make small changes. Chengdu on the other hand is sitting in China’s Silicon Valley. The nearby town of Mianyang is a major centre for China’s electronics industry and also has a big aerodynamics research facility of its own [the China Air Dynamics Research and Development Centre],” Jane’s was told.
However, the potential impact of the Sichuan earthquake of 11 May on the aviation industry centred around Chengdu could be severe. There were particular fears for the research facility at Mianyang, one of the towns close to the epicentre of the quake reported to have been completely destroyed. With the disaster striking at the heart of China’s aviation hub, it was hard not to see the J-10 project – and China’s aviation industry as a whole – suffering considerable setbacks.
Nick_76It may be mentioned that all the above was implied in full by Arthur, because IFR involves not only a standalone probe, but also the above mentioned mechanisms to make possible the act of IFR.
Gee, let Arthur speak for himself will you?!
Arthur contended that IFR is an inseparable part of the empty weight. In my view, the only possible explanation could be that although this contention is correct, we can still include the addition of IFR (and it’s mechanisms) to Tejas’ naked weight of 5,680 kgs, because it may not have been in the original ASRs in the first place.
That is not the point!! What matters is what ADA thought the IFR would cost in 1995 when they began estimates, versus what they know today, when the practical experience of actually designing & executing fuel systems exists!!
Similarly, I may reiterate that planes which don’t have IFR now, like the JF-17, will see a significant increase in their current empty weights.
Lets leave the JF-17 out of it!! I dont know, I dont care, lets stick to the LCA!
The other facilities like buddy-refuelling as discussed earlier, may involve insignificant weight increase, besides being impractical for a small plane like Tejas (as mentioned by Arthur).
Other factors for Tejas’ weight gain may be mechanisms for hot-refueling and on-board oxygen system (as mentioned earlier by someone), which may be termed as “add-ons”, and not necessarily implicitly built-in to the empty weight.
Shoot, get to the point! OBOGs & several other features are being added – they will not be talked about, because ADA cares 2 hoots about PR and media management! GOI funds, IAF knows, who are you (and I) to bother about!
As the addition of newer avionics LRUs has reached a peak, there is also a subsequent process of increasing redundancy in the various LRUs to reduce their number (and hence weight) without loss in functionality.
Which is why I said weight is dynamic! But dont ever assume that the number of LRUs can be just decreased! Because the IAF will keep asking for more and more stuff! Do you know, for instance about IRDE’s IRST project and the insane range requirements they are shooting for?!
It can be safely said now that technologically, the Tejas is inferior in no way to the Mirage-x series.
Lets not bother about all that..
The above was infact the technological ‘challenge’ undertaken by GTRE. As per news reports, the Kaveri has reached full expected dry thrust and 90% of after burning thrust. The only issue remaining is the 15% extra weight, which is possibly the cause of the yet unrealized wet thrust.
As discussed above, the Tejas has met G specifications. As per news reports and ADA itself, it has already reached Mach 1.6 and can carry over 3,000 kgs of external load. Hence, it’s current physical specifications are equivalent to that of the JF-17.
Dont feed the troll!! You are wasting your time on someone who is not worth it!
TinWing, I think it may have not come to your notice that the auhor, Air Marshal MSD Wollen was the project director of HAL, which currently manufactures the Tejas. He is an established authority on the Tejas.
Besides, as Mr. Boot quoted by you clearly stated that BaE was involved in initial negotiations only. This is consistent with Mr. Wollen’s article that prior to 1985, 3 contenders had submitted feasibility studies to ADA. Of these and one more contender, all of which bid in 1987, Dassault was selected. This company helped in the development of the Project Definition itself, which culminated in the 1/7 scale model by 1989, and subsequently, the first prototype in 1995.
Oh, it doesnt matter – you see Wollen is an “Indian nationalist” – whatever sleight of hand that is supposed to mean!!
Nick_76I can not understand why so many insists on comparing the Tejas with Gripen (or T-50) just because they happen to be single-engined, light weight airplanes. They are two different fighters, with different designs, manufacturers, engines, origins of country etc.
Last year a small trivia report from the SwAF was released. It contained a small summarize about the Gripen performance after 10 years in service versus the required specifications from the Swedish MoD when they ordered the Gripen. Despite all wind-tunnel testings and advanced computers in the world you can´t truly see how an aircraft performs until you have up and flying.
With the Gripen they found out that it had at least 10% less drag then anticipated, this off course affected things like fuel-consumption, range etc (in a positive way).
Here´s a list of different categories and the results over the years. (100% is the required specifications from MoD, over 100% is positive, below is negative)
– Take off runway: 128%
– Landing, slippery runway: 117%
– Range, reconnaissance missions: 152%
– Range, attack missions: 147%
– Range, fighter missions: 147%
– Turning rate: 105%
– Radar range, against air targets: 115-140%
– Radar range, against surface targets: 120%
– Accuracy of radar: 150%I would guess that in some points the results were not so good but these are the only one that was listed. Specially in the points about range where the Gripen exceeded its expectations by so much I would guess that the drag issue was very important.
In the early 80´s it was a heated debate in Sweden regarding which engine to chose to the Gripen. The ideal engine would be a thrust around 90-100 kN, something between a F404 and F100. So P&W developed the PW1120 (which was to be used in the Lavi). Volvo Aero and GE then offered an upgraded version of the F404 and this version was picked, but many people still thought it was underpowered. A couple of reasons of that choice it was believed to have greater upgrading possibilities in the future (which turned out to be true) and it was more fuel-efficient. One wonder what would happen if they had chose the PW1120 (considering the Lavi was canceled in 1987).
Today the choice of the F404 seems to be the right one, specially now with the F414 in the Gripen NG. But what would have happened if the Gripen turned out to have more drag, instead of less, then anticipated? I don´t dare to think the thought…
Good post!!
And much food for thought!!
Which is why testing remains the be-all and end-all!!
In related terms, the test graphs of the LCA flight performance vs simulations could be of interest- in the words of a LCA TP who conducted the seminar, they are – till date- quite true to form, ie the actual performance has matched the simulations quite well.
The avionics, as far as weaponisation is concerned, hasnt done so in terms of A2G. In terms of A2A yes, but the IAF is not willing to wait for a batch to batch MMR update, and wants a fully capable set from day 1, so the Elta set has been chosen, as it is known to the IAF (Jag IM).
If the LCA achieves similar stellar performance as the Gripens, as your post details – it would be good news, but if it achieves expected ASRs alone, that would be sufficient, provided the ASRs havent been revised upwards yet once more, which is all too plausible.
Nick_76In the absence of supporting facts, anti-Chinese sentiments are always raised. I am not Chinese, or even pro-Chinese, but simply fair and balanced in my assessments.
Please dont make me roll on the floor laughing! Your Chinese ethnicity and pro China attitude is well documented on this forum via your own behaviour. I wouldnt give a damn, but for the fact that it seems to influence your behaviour to a degree that you behave irrationally and makes you troll repeatedly. Push come to shove, I can well look under your profile & point out specific instances, but why bother, eh? Just do better & I wouldnt give a darn. Grow up, in other words, & find a better use for your time (and mine!)
So in other words, the work of another IAF Air Marshal similarly ignores the early 1980s connection between the LCA and BAe’s P.106B? This hardly refutes the very real proof of the relationship between BAe and the early LCA program. On the face of it, Wollen and Rajkumars are guilty of the omission of very real and pertinent historical details.
Your lack of reading comprehension does you no credit at all. Both Wollen & Rajkumar (especially the latter) heap praise on BAe as necessary but dont regard the early cooperation as anything remarkable. Anyone sensible, and with a basic understanding of the LCA program would realise that is because the P.106B didnt play any vital role in the program genesis! In contrast, the role of BAe in deputing a consultant early on to the LCA program to jaw-jaw with the LCA team, and to provide pointers on what all the LCA program would have to benchmark against & the stages it would have to hit (to be successful) is mentioned by Rajkumar (as is the fact that the same couldnt be done later on as the BAe team was busy with the EF) – because it was important, to the LCA team! Credit where it is due and all that!
In contrast, Roy Boot was writing as a disinterested participant, without any Indian-nationalist or Indian military agenda. He apparently made repeated visits to India in the early 1980s, and judging by the NAL wind tunnel model, BAe had a very significant influence on the early design history of the LCA.
My goodness, your puissant behaviour has to be remarkable – “indian nationalist” agenda or “indian military agenda” indeed! Roy Boot, as important as he may have thought he was to India, didnt merit sufficient importance to the LCA team, in real time! For all we know, the ADA may have conducted more detailed assessments with MIG for their failed MiG light fighter program or with umpteen others such as Singapore or what not, but in real terms, it didnt matter much! What did matter, and what assistance did have an affect has been catalogued and remarked upon & appreciated. Get a copy of the LCA Tejas Story by Rajkumar to understand what dignity, grace & giving credit where it is due is all about, instead of standing upon the sidelines and making silly remarks without a basis in fact!
Nick_76There would have to be some plumming for an IFR probe, but considering buddy-buddy refuellng is going to be done with a refuelling pod, that is not going to put on extra weight on the LCA. Besides, with the LCA already on the small (and heavy) side, i doubt it would make any use whatsoever as a buddy refueller. Unless the naval-LCA grows into something operational, where it would be a possible fuel picket loitering around the carrier (similar to the buddy-refuelling A4Ds on the CVLs). Many IFs in that scenario though.
Correct. But the issue is not just of plumbing for an IFR probe – there has to be a pressure refuelling system and additional rerouting of tubes (replication), plus CoG issues etc. All in all, it complicates matters in the LCAs compact airframe. Fuel is not just used for …fuel, it also acts as a coolant to a limited degree for some avionics items, whereas the system LRUs also need to be accessible and placed so that a fuel system rupture doesnt cause a catastrophic failure – this was a redesign point earlier.
Adding test-related gear as additional weight is fair enough for the development aircraft, but it won’t make any sense if this weight is somehow taken along in the official presentation of the aircraft’s specifics. On the other hand, leaving out the weight of the radar in those very same presentations makes even less sense. I know you’re clutching at straws left and right and doing all the creative thinking you’re capable of to come up with a reasonable (yet uncritical) explanation for the weight issues, but all you seem to do is dance around the obvious fact that there seems to be a serious weight issue with the Tejas. Whether that’s due to impossible demands set by the IAF, incompetence at ADA, or simply a poor noise-to-signal ration in all the LCA-banter, I don’t know.
I think you need to reread my post. I dont know what Abhimanyu made of it, but the issue is not of weight but weight increase, ie relative.
The original MMR, as with all things LCA, was grossly ambitious. A 100 Km radar at << 100 kg weight. As the recent designs show, this remains a blue sky aim, even for experienced OEMs worldwide, especially for a full BVR capable set and range requirements have zoomed. As the LCA program grew, and the IAF understood what it really wanted, the aims grew. Current aims are at the Zhuk ME level, with full A2G modes etc, and leading worldclass radars are easily 1.5 – 2X the original weight requirements. Not to mention additional cooling and associated eqpt, ie upgraded generators. An AESA is even heavier, for obvious reasons.
Other additions have been a fully internal EW suite, which if the IAF ends up with its usual, might have to have APA jammers with TRMs.
Additional reinforcement of superstructure and wings (avionics, fuel and more load carrying ability)
More avionics LRUs have been added dime a dozen, moving the LCA from useful point interceptor with secondary A2G capability to full blown ‘we want Mirage 2000-x” land.
All this has to be done keeping in mind estate management and current test instrumentation.
All theory, no evidence whatsoever. I guess for the next weight increase, we need to subtract the weight of the tyres and ejection seat as well?
There were no subtractions. However, mondo estimates were made – the most glaring of which was the Kaveri. As the program developed, the estimates were finetuned. Original MC specs called for a single one of approx double the weight of one of the dual ones in the TDs, and which will now be replaced by a single OAC replacing some 5 avionics LRUs!
But the concern is a very viable one. An LCA which is small but not all that light will not be able to fulfill the requirements as they were stated for the original light combat aircraft. Fuzzy maths won’t change that.
The requirements changed quite some time back. See above.
Now what does this mean? Maximum AoA is 20deg, unless certain conditions are met? The maximum of 22deg has only been achieved under special circumstanses which don’t occur in ‘normal’ flights? I know you’re trying to give a positive spin to the whole program (which I have no problem with), but only a little critical reading of your posts actually puts the LCA in a more negative light.
The LCAs max AoA has been achieved IIRC and so have most of its KPIs. What remains is to redo certain of those with separation studies and in differing climatic criteria. As far as the flight envelope is concerned, they are ok with the progress and it has been very successful. Its the slow progress in weaponisation that made the IAF push the developers, especially HAL, which wasnt able to fix the A2G modes in the MMR in time, forcing the interim Elta 2032.
Lavishly Consulted Aircraft?
The Gripen remains ahead in that criteria. If anything, the LCA developers should have taken more assistance to speed up the program early on.
Sign In
