Bharat Rakshak

Vinaji, actually the interesting thing to find out will be what prompted MiG to introduce FBW in the non-thrust-vectoring 29Ks - not sure if the added internal fuel and armaments capability would have pushed the CoG away from the CoP. Not sure though!!

On the 35s, with the thrust-vectoring introduced, it's given that a FBW will be mandatory.

The F-18A/b/c had excellent range and equal to that of the F-16 on purely internal fuel - and the proportion of fuel:weight was just about the same (3250:7000 for the f-16 and 4900:10600 for the f-18). It lost out on range mainly because of some design flaws such, which added considerable drag once they were loaded! And no, the F-18 clean had much better range than the MiG-29, which carried a proportionately smaller amount of fuel.



As for "big" weight growth on the MiG-29, it allowed for a much better internal fuel capacity, increased thrust and even better range. And TWR advantage would be negated (and that too barely) only if both a/c were loaded to full internal capacity. Otoh, the M/35 would achieve similar range of the 29 with much less fuel and thereby have a better TWR.


You are probly right, I am no aero guru - for me FF is v.similar to fuel weight:empty weight. Do explain the difference, gyan is appreciated.


ARe you suggesting that unstable a/c require less TWR? But then you point out that the M2K, despite having unstable config, had poor TWR. What is your point here cause obviously I am missing it. Seems to me that your whole argument is that the F-16 is the best, and it is actually what the IAF secretly wanted as a MiG-21 replacement, that too a lot smaller, and anything otherwise would never have been acceptable. Total conspiracy theory, and I am not buying it without some v.clear evidence/logic.


Huh! Are you suggesting that India should have instead locally developed the HMS + R-73 equivalent instead and that would have been the end of all things ? Why we don't have that even today and are putting an Israeli HMD in the Tejas ! I think the IAF would have taken a very very dim view of things if that was what was proposed.[/quote]
Uhh no, what I am suggesting is that a simpler way could have been taken, and TKS is suggesting the same. Cannot specify details obviously since we don't even have ASRs. IAF was not looking for LCA sized F-16, which is what you are insisting - there is little proof to this. That would be plain dumb.


Why would you stick a MiG-21 class engine in a 7 ton frame? The RD-33 was surely available, hell even the AL-31 might have been for a slight weight penalty to empty weight.


Precisely - since there are no shortcuts, IAF was not demanding fancy doodads - something simpler would have worked!


How bad is the performance shortfall - anyone know? Btw, if you follow my posts, I'd already said that around 2000s is when IAF mistakes become rather clear, they should have ordered more of the mk1s.


Instead why don't you think of 6.5 ton fighter with RD-33s (8.5 ton engines) + HMS OR 7.5 ton fighter with AL-31s + HMS and active weapons. Radar, engine etc could have been imported in initial batches and slowly been manufactured from raw materials as in the case of the AL - 31 or BARS. IMVHO, this could have been possible by 2000, and the IAF would have jumped on it, even as late as that.

Possibly.


Define fuel fraction please. I ask because I am quite confused about this. Also, please tell me why a twin engined bird necessarily has to compromise on FF. Does the flanker have a poor FF? I mean there is reason to believe that at one point F-18s did have better FF than Solah. I was under the impression that a larger internal fuel load (in proportion to empty weight) would contribute to greater FF. And in this regard, I see no such rule that two engines have to compromise on FF, MiG-31 is supposed to have excellent FF.


Just a data point: the R73 was in service by 1984, the upgraded version by 1994. The Aim 9X with JHMCS came within a couple of decades (not years) - 2003.


From what is open source, air superiority and point defense were the LCA's main objectives. Ground attack was secondary. Not unlike a MiG-21, but much more comprehensive to be sure.


Perhaps, but the Mig-29 has evolved into a bird that CAN do all the above profiles, and that is my point. It can start off limited but then move on to greater things so long as it comes close to the time frames required/indicated. Hell even the Rafale and Tiffy started out A2A and A2G was slowly added.



Debatable that the requirements were of such a nature - especially to begin with. In fact, evidence suggests that the IAF felt the program was too ambitious.

Just a note: 35s don't have TVC! FBW was introduced because of relaxed stability iirc of the M airframe (again no TVC here). TVC is an option though but so far only the OVT (another M airframe) has demoed it.

Well, this kind of calculation assumes that the fuel is sitting on the ground and the plane is feeding from a very long pipe connecting it in the air! . How about something more sensible that acknowledges that the fuel it self has wt.. so fuelwt /(fuel+empty weight).. or better still, at the extreme total fuel possible /MTOW ? I think if you do the last, it will show up that the F-18 A/B has some 4 to 5% less than the F-16 and those are the kind that is relevant to real world mission planning to seeing how much armament you can carry to what range and to plan for aerial refueling!

Also, factor the better tsfc of the F-16 engine (higher by pass ratio) it works more in the F-16 favor.

Anyway, my last post on this. It is way OT here. But do the same math for the LCA (around 2850kg internal fuel I estimate) and around 13 tons MTOW and find out how it will compare in range with the F-16 and the Mig-21!

OT Please...
About Chitra durga

Sweet! In all this gloom and doom on this thread, some good news.

Hope Derby trials soon!

Cain ji, please define 'comprehensive'. Unless done so, this line of debate does not hold. If the aim was just secondary ground attack (assuming rocket firing, dumb bomb dropping abilities), IAF would not have asked for a LDP. Requirement of LDP brings the role of Jaguars/ Mirage into picture which supports Maitya ji's premise.

IMHO all details need not be black and white in ASRs. Many details would have been fleshed out before/ during Project Definition Phase in the discussions between IAF and DRDO. IAF may not have used the words 'composites', 'FBW', etc. But using 'manoeuvrable', 'interceptor', 'LDP' and 'ground attack' would have led to such design choices.
And your example of Mig-29 and Eurofighter does not hold good because they were primarily designed as Interceptors (corrected later Air superiority Fighters and not Interceptors) (EF being called Flanker killer for no other reason). Their 'multi-role' ability was discovered or worked upon only later after their design was frozen.

Mig-29/Eurofighters were Air Superiority fighter not interceptors.

Thanks for the correction. However, the point stays the same.

I am happy with weapons trial, and wish for everything goes smooth to completion. We have already good experience with Elta systems and israeli missiles along with russkie ones being fired from Jags. So, I am expecting the learning from there be transfered here.

thumbs up!

I would like to see Mk2 in some real form soon!

i have not read 'tejas story'. even if one were to agree with your contention, point is IAF went with it!! remember they knew it in 1982 itself and was debated - as told by tks tales article. besides from the same article he clears mentions IAF desired 'modern' fighter from DRDO.



yes IAF was supportive in the intitial phase when ACM Idris Latif was there. they lost steam post his exit. IMO this was changed when Fali S Major became the chief. now they are enthusiatic and it is good.



yes the first goal has been achieved and in my opinion even the second goal too!! but yes with delay but you have to remember the road is never easy for a country trying its hand first time with absolutely zero MIC!! and if you look at the timeline it is not bad!! even EF had a rough road in its development!! still you compare, it is definitely not bad at all. from 1993 to 2012 will be 19 years!! by any stertch and for a first timer you consider it bad?? besides LCA programme has already paid back and now we have an infra backed by datapoints!! you are looking at it glass half empty but i look at it as glass full. i guess the total delay would be about 3-4 years but consider the sanctions, meagre budgets, technology being reinvented!!! i say it is fantastic but you have a right to your opinion which i respect.



it does not but the fact that DRDO outlined it and was debated at the conference and still post 1985 LCA programme did sport FBW/COMPOSITES simply means IAF went with it. i don't think there is any confusion reagarding this. also speaks volumes of ACM Idris Latif being a visionary and saw the big picture so early.



your comment refers to Wollen's article. yes. the IAF did have reservations in 1988/89 which is why review committee was set up which went into technical ability of indian infra of the day and found it was good enough and gave a go ahead and phase 1 of FSED was sanctioned. IAF went along here too if you look at the whole programme uptill now.



no it does not work like that. the idea was create a 'modern' MIC capable of producing a modern aircraft of your choice which meant you had to create infra and at the same time create datapoints/database for an actual programme so your future programme will have a sound base and cuts your development time in your future projects and which are current for the day. now look you have a goldmine of database right from FBW, COMPOSITES, RADAR, ENGINE, EW etc.. is it not sound?? your next project will be that much simpler because you already have everything as a backup to bank on.

it has not missed the 2nd goal but there is 3-4 year delay for which we should not be so hard on ADA. they were working against great odds!!!



mid 90s was never possible as the funding happend only around that time due to india's precarious financial position in 80s to early 90s. 15 years?? that is being unrealistic but well you have a right to say it.

100 pages up.... time for new LCA dhagha

Flight test update

LCA-Tejas has completed 1846 Test Flights successfully. (08-May-2012). (TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-222,PV3-341,LSP1-74,LSP2-207,PV5-36,LSP3-50,LSP4-52,LSP5-81,LSP7-2,NP1-1)

from

LCA-Tejas has completed 1844 Test Flights successfully. (04-May-2012).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-222,PV3-340,LSP1-74,LSP2-207,PV5-36,LSP3-50,LSP4-51,LSP5-81,LSP7-2,NP1-1)

I don't think this image of the first flight of NP-1 was posted here before. It's taken from the Tejas - LCA Facebook page.

super