tsarkar wrote:So what are these factors. There are vague references to scope creep but no examples other than this one.
Kindly reread the post, it has the exact points.
61.5 kg, to be precise.
Per missile, without taking into account the exact amount of strengthening for the aircraft structure, the launcher weight & other requirements..
This is a Hajmola statement, as I would tell my children. If some overweight Air Commodore or the "healthy" P V Naik himself flew the plane, will the STR, AoA, acceleration, etc drop? This line of reasoning, viz, new weapons is incorrect, and lets not continue in this path. R-60 too needed cooling, and a few grams of liquid nitrogen more doesnt result in massive weight gain.
Ah, out with the digestive innuendoes again! Lets be more clear here, what you are doing is taking extreme positions & then using them to imply all sorts of statements. And no, the R-60 may have needed cooling but its launcher was different & even the current launcher, beefed up for heavier weapons too is being redesigned. You can attempt to dismiss that fact as well, but it remains true.
Sorry, but weight counts & the LCA wing redesign did add weight, you may try to dismiss it using rhetor e.g. "healthy" PV Naik - but I'll take the word of the test crew/designers anyday...they say it added weight, Parliamentary records note it added time & complexity to the redesign & sorry, i'll go with these two statements in toto.
To cut a long story short, you or me or no one among us has seen a Tejas EW system. Now, reality check. Tarang simply warns the pilot. Tempest offers very basic EW functions, and is described in detail here, including the LRU and where it is installed in MiG-27
http://www.prdomain.com/mediaroom/aeroi ... OCHURE.pdf This is being modified for the Tejas. And it wont weigh so high that acceleration, STR, AoA is affected. Anyways, there is no Tempest or derivative on the Tejas to account for the present performance.
No, the more accurate statement would be that you haven't seen or heard about a Tejas EW system or a development path but thats not necessarily true for everyone else, otherwise how would nobodies like me know about it. Many have seen an actual layout in public of the individual Tx/Rx receive apertures, their placements & even the rationale. Am I going to bother to dig it up, run around for the sake of winning an internet argument? Nope, too tiring. But those here interested in the program can be aware of whats been planned for the aircraft and whats currently on trials.
Second, Tempest offers "basic EW functions" - yes, sure, but which were reportedly enough to jam every threat radar the system faced when it was developed, in which case I would say more power indeed to such basic "EW systems", which performed well against even respectable threats. Tempest was actually a program, with systems and technologies developed under Tempest.
Third, from where did you get the idea that the basic Tempest is being modified for the Tejas? This is typical of the kind of categorical statements you make, and which can be mistaken. Of course, when provided data to the contrary, you don't accept it in the spirit with which it was given, but respond with sarcasm & anger.
To the point, the Tempest has little to do with the LCA system! The LCA system is a brand new system with multiple channels, multiple Tx/Rx paths, with associated DRFM. It is a next generation program which was launched with a clean sheet in mind!
In terms of architecture, capability, and performance, it makes the Tempest look archaic (and well it should, it is the next generation) & it can handle far more targets than the limited ELTA 8222 SPJ.
Unfortunately, that internet link of Tempest is also limited (typical ham handed Govt agency PR) & does not contain all the details of the system & program & the technologies it developed. More details are publically available though if you spend some time digging for them, or even better via open events e.g., what one of its developers presented four years back at a public event, albeit in a sanitized fashion. Long story short, it is more than that report. The details I have provided are more than sufficient to dig it out.
Lots of speculation here, however the hard fact is the system under development wont provide full scale jamming like US systems, nor is it an IAF requirement to have that kind of capability in the LCA. The system under development will offer minimal features similar to Tempest. And in the Indian context, pods will offer better jamming capabilities for a long time.
Hardly any speculation. Everything I wrote was a fact. That you do not accept it - basically thats exactly why I find your debating "style" so counterproductive. Its all about "winning the argument" as versus "share knowledge". This is a sad reflection about the level of debate & entirely why I somewhat stay away from topics on this forum since it usually disintegrates into more of these dubious -
i said it so it must be true kind of situations. There is no discussion in the actual meaning of the term.
You say it will offer minimal features similar to Tempest, without even having noted the architecture, the performance or what its to be capable of, nor did you even ask about this. Further, you note "it wont provide full scale jamming like the US systems" - as if there are any generic US systems that provide full scale jamming! There aren't. The US operates a plethora of systems. Some are onboard SPJs. Some are support jammers. Some are optimized for surveillance systems, some for fire control..
Fighter aircraft typically carry self protection jammers able to operate/jam in critical bands, namely X, seeker bands, and the more capable ones even include S, L bands for surveillance radars. More pods are used for niche bands or for higher power requirements in dense threat environments. But as a self protection system as versus the pod festooned support & CSM jammer the Growler reportedly is, the LCA & MiG-27s suite, is every bit the superior of current pod systems the IAF has.
That you state "nor is it an IAF requirement to have that kind of capability in the LCA"? Where is this given? IAF requirements are world class & no, they don't compromise on many aspects. I just spoke to an European OEM executive for the MMRCA who noted that some of the specifications given for the MMRCA are things they have never had anyone else come up with. Those requirements btw, were derived after seeing current state of technology viz the LCA - so, long story short, just because the LCA has the Light moniker, that its systems are being given a less stringent performance index, thats wrong. As such the IAF has asked for a derivative of the same system to be on the MiG-29 as well, for which it & BEL have both contributed development funds to DARE. Do you have to accept this? No - but its a fact.
And in any case, the moot point is the jammer isnt present in the LCA today to account for the performance exhibited.
All weights being shown for the LCA are projected weights, with all systems taken into account.
The reason I quoted the Cobham system is to show that components, that go into making an OBOGS, are small. For all the verbosity above drifting into two front wars, there is no way the Tejas OBOGS weighs like a Shaktiman truck, and account for the sluggish performance.
The Cobham system is not germane because the systems on the LCA are unique to it, given IAF requirements. You cannot use generic comparisons because these back of the envelope comparisons go nowhere. Eg, the Kopyo on the Bison versus the MMR on the LCA. Both of them have the same functions, arguably similar architecture, but that is where the similarity ends, in terms of power drawn, weight/volume, even performance expected, there is a significant differential. Pretty much every system on the LCA, bar a few exceptions such as the engine, is a bespoke system, with its own pros and cons.
The gross inaccuracies and factual incorrectness, led to my using words like nonsense and myth, like unknown-but-present systems, weapons, or OBOGS weight causing sluggish performance. These words are hardly unparliamentary.
For my part I too find
some of your statements to have gross inaccuracies and factual incorrectness (thats a lot of c's and a lot of s's- i found it hard to spell so i copied your post, lol) as well. However, I endeavour to counter your points by sharing information, however I find your posts to be over aggressive. Surely we can disagree without being disagreeable.
So, as you finally admit in your own words, if the weight gain is not for the above reasons, then where is this extra weight coming from?
I have not admitted anything! Again - a typical case of rhetoric & which misinterprets what I said.
All I said was that for your statement to be true, the weight gain would have to be from risk averse design alone or to the extent that the weight gain from other systems was immaterial. As things stand though, I cannot buy your argument as it does not dovetail with any of the information that I have discussed with several folks.
From my understanding, the weight gain is a combination of all three factors - redesign for munitions, additional systems, risk averse design, with multiple systems & components on the LCA being redesigned & reincorporated making the actual percentage split between all three sections fairly distributed. Weight optimization on the LCA is also an ever moving task & as of early 2010, a new list of areas was being drawn up where gains could be achieved, they were even considering systems which actually met original design goals but could be supplanted by newer, lighter, unified items, but some of that weight might again go to other systems, which is what makes this entire debate so ironic.
Now, I might have actually gone ahead & spent a ton load of my time, valuable to me, to actually trace out each one of those things & discuss them. Unfortunately, given the tone & tenor of your response - hajmola, myth, nonsense, this that, I really dont think my effort would be worth it. Do consider though, what your end objective is. If your end objective is to "be right" that's one thing. But if you want a civil debate, I really dont think your responses reflect the same, semantics about language being "unparliamentary or not" being irrelevant.
have nothing against LCA being packed. It doesnt matter as long as performance is unimpaired. However, point I'm making here is that if layout, including weight, volume, area, isnt managed, performance will be affected. So despite the overweight Tejas weighing the same as the Gripen, is unable to perform is because there are external and internal design deficiencies. Which is what no one wants to admit, despite every fact pointing so. Instead, a further myth is propogated that Mk2 will have more features and more performance over & above Mk1 design specifications. No, Mk 2 objective is to iron out present deficiencies to come close to Mk1 design specificatons, and maybe add some incremental performance over & above Mk1 design specifications.
Sorry, but this is your view, which I disagree with, that there are internal & external design deficiencies because of which the Gripen excels across the board. For one, I would not touch that assertion or its opposite point, unless I have data on the entire envelope, publically released that compares the LCA's flight envelope with that of the Gripen & second, after all systems and weapons are incorporated, what will be the LCA's combat effectiveness in similar conditions versus similar challenges vis a vis the Gripen. I am well aware of certain features incorporated on the LCA which are pretty good, but the comparable system on the Gripen is so hyped..
What the Gripen undoubtedly has, is design maturity, and is well along the product lifecycle. To compare it with the LCA, which is just entering IOC, is besides the point and patently unfair to the latter.
Second, you note that the MK2 will not have more features & more performance above and beyond MK1 and that a myth is being propogated to this effect. Who is propogating this myth?
To my mind, this just reiterates the point that you have an idealogical point of view & are not really interested in an exploratory debate about the LCA MK2!
Of course the LCA MK1 has performance issues which the MK2 has to solve, but that does not mean the MK2 will remain still in terms of other onboard systems, and will be for all practical purposes a MK1 either! For one, the primary radar sensor will be AESA, with its attendant advantages over the MK1 & there are several other systems in development for the TD phase which the IAF has expressed interest in! That these will provide advantages over the current LCA MK1 systems is a given, but the entire package will have to deliver, that too is a given, so where exactly is this myth.
Maybe. Will the airframe offer clear advantages of a Spitfire vis-a-vis Me109? No.
How do you know this? Have you or I flown the LCA? Are we aware of the LCA's performance envelope & what advantages it can & cannot provide. This is another of those areas where I find such statements to be amazingly categorical about a topic only one who has flown the LCA can judge.
I have spoken to several folks who flew the LCA, here & there using the odd opportunity. One in particular was certain that once the LCA got into IAF hands, perceptions would change. But dont take my word for it. A current LCA TP - the head of the NFTC in the Week article above, judges it as exceptionally agile and a delight to fly & that it still surprises him from time to time. The India Strategic article has a unnamed test pilot saying the LCA is a better aircraft to fly than the MiG-21, "“It is small and tight but more comfortable, powerful and fun than a Mig 21,” said one test pilot." Given the bulk of the PAF still flies the ancient J-7, Mirage 3, and that most aircraft have their own pros and cons, so much so that even the current MMRCA aircraft will have performance pluses and minuses versus other peers, I find your statements to be untenable.
Can the pilot be confident of the aircraft if caught in a turning match? No. Can the pilot be confident to out-turn in a dogfight? No. Can the pilot pull a high g manoeuver to pull a fast shot when the target is outside HMDS FoV? No Can the pilot go high AoA, to pull a fast shot when the target is outside HMDS FoV, without engine flaming out? No
Again, these are issues which a combat pilot can judge and to make the kind of statements that you have...well, I really cant agree. Because it is again topical to the aircraft, the type of threat and the situation in context. Heck, even the Mirage 2000 pilot of today cannot be confident he can out-turn any rival in a dogfight, given the aircraft has less STR versus some of its peers. The aircraft is built for fast passes & relies on its high ITR & nose pointing ability to get the first shot in. Does that mean the IAF should dump the Mirage 2000?
In IAF service, the MiG-29s have long required fuel tanks to get any respectable range to escort strikers. If a MiG-29 has tanks its maneuvering limited to a huge degree. So, given the rhetorical questions you have asked, what happens if a MiG-29 is caught unawares by a prowling J-7? Should the IAF ditch the MiG-29 then? Their avionics deficiencies were legion..
Several MiG-27 pilots described as a single pass lorry, a very hard aircraft to manage let alone multitask - so should the IAF have just dropped these aircraft..
All three of these aircraft have significant issues versus an upgraded Flanker in several criteria. They also offer certain advantages.
Sorry, but the rhetorical questions you have asked - they really don't merit an answer because they are rhetorical. I am kind of surprised you even raise these.
There is not a single weapons system in the IAF today - which even after upgrade - does not have significant shortfalls in some arena or the other, bar to some extent the MKI. What the IAF does is to train its pilots to exploit its strengths to optimal effect while attempting to minimize the weaknesses. The LCA is well in line with that approach & its superior onboard systems should give it an advantage versus an adversary in a dissimilar type. If the pilot can exploit them to the maximum potential.
Tunnel testing only gives you datapoints for model building & then you have to validate, finesse the model using test flights and recheck.
Another Hajmola statement. Raison d’être of wind tunnels is testing aerodynamic performance of the design.
Hajmola statement to you perhaps because, you apparently the term is an insult and that suffices for debate wherein you could have asked for more details instead.
To the rest however, its the reality, that tunnel testing, with models & CFD codes for areas of the envelope not available for simplified tunnel testing can only be validated by real world testing. You can continue with the insults all you want, but it wont change the reality that the US, Russia, and now India are discovering that real world testing has significant deviations from wind tunnels and predictive models! Sometimes we are lucky, sometimes, we are not.
They were foolish to rely on computer simulation. It is not possible to simulate every real life situation in the computer.
Really? Wasn't that what you described as a hajmola statement? Here you have one of the worlds most experienced fighter design teams, having cut its teeth on the F-22, attempting to use those lessons for the JSF, overstretching & then going back to traditional methods. In other words, even they followed the same path as Indian designers, albeit even more so & are today facing severe challenges despite their funding and experience.
Given that the plane was unstable, testing without validating FBW software being proven was risky. Which brings us to a basic question, which is - Was the incremental better manoeuverability offered by unstable airframe worth it vis-a-vis long time taken to open flight envelope and test basic aerodynamic performance, consequently design deficiencies noticed too late
Hindsight from me on this topic would be, as Boeings Dinesh Keskar put it, Monday morning quarterbacking, when the LCA plan was postulated, Rajiv Gandhi had got a testimony of full cooperation from the US, birds were singing, the sky was blue. Unfortunately, neither he nor the developers could foresee the collapse of the Indian economy in the years thereafter & nor did he anticipate US sanctions circa 1998. These things happen & we have to deal with it. While you are noting the FBW, do note that we ultimately developed it - the real mistake was not the FBW, but the unproven engine + LCA combination, and also agreeing to unrealistic performance specifications. The only person who pointed this out, Idris Hassan Latif commented that it would really trouble the program, and he was right.
econdly, the drag is mostly in transonic regime, and LCA has been going supersonic for a long time. So the acceleration issues would have definitely been reported by the test pilots.
Might have but the issue gained particular relevance in sea level trials, whichever year that took place in.
The assumption is with HMDS, maneuvering is unnecessary. Wrong. It is necessary to get your enemy within the HMDS FoV, and that will require hard maneuvering. Anyway, lets wait & see.
My assumption is based on the discussions with of one of the test pilots of the LCA who flew with the HMDS. So, yes, I do take his points at face value as I presume he knows what he is talking about, especially about utilizing the LCA's ITR & nose pointing ability + HMDS to take the first shot.
He simply stated that with useful load, g-limits decrease. IAF is well aware of this fact, and when it says LCA does only +6g, then it is in clean configuration. And one structural component not able to make the mark will take the rest of it will fail. Hence the requirement of fully testing the envelope and structurally certifying every part to 8g by FOC. Still below 9g design specification.
Kartiks post pointed out hard & soft limits for FCS, load limits etc with payload as I recall with a direct correlation to the LCA. And the current LCA's full G limits, whatever they be, will be validated by FOC per plan. So I really dont think this is that germane.
Systems, yes. Not requirements. That part is a myth.
Myth for you perhaps but not for me & I will have to disagree with you there.
Having said this, I really dont think I am going to continue with this, if the debate gets more vicious, something which I have no interest in.
For the rest, anyone who has queries on specific aspects - to what limited extent I have information, that I'll share.