LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

[Prem Kumar]

Parikkar can show leadership by using a technique used in Armies/SFs to build teamwork. During grueling long marches or drills, if 1 of the men in a unit doesn't make his time, then everyone in the team gets extra punishment. It incentivizes every member of the team to help/push their weakest comrades.

His message to HAL, ADA & IAF could be this:

1) To all: "Tejas-MK1 is the Mig-21 replacement. We are going to order X more squadrons of this & it needs to be inducted by Y time. I need all of you to make this a success"
2) HAL: "If you don't perform, I will restructure you, which might include a break-up and a diffusion of staff into private industries"
3) ADA: "Without success in MK-1, you can kiss AMCA good-bye"
4) IAF: "You will have to make do with your depleted squadron strength if you don't ensure success with MK-1. Forget MK-2 for the moment"

Forget the past. Collective punishment going forward!

[Vayutuvan]

but I thought Namo does not like to demolish, sell or close PSU/Govt undertakings that are not in optimal shape...he likes to fix them from within and make them perform.

Takes time, doesn't it?

[vivek_ahuja]

New article on my blog:

LCA versus F-16 in combat (part-I)



As always, feedback is welcome.

Notes:

1. I have been running busy last week and haven't had a chance to address the comments and queries on this thread as much as I would have liked to. Pliss to give this mujahid a little time.
2. I did an analysis of the flow-field around my Mirage-2000 solutions in FlightStream and found that the drag is getting underpredicted at higher angles of attack. I am investigating this anomaly.
3. The Dassault Mirage-2000C flight data numbers are bullshit. They have almost certainly messed (knowingly?) the range and radius definitions.
4. The LCA is far closer to the Mirage-2000 than earlier estimates. I will post that article with the analysis when I have a suitable explanation on why my delta wing solutions are under-predicting the drag.
5. The F-16A/B data used for the above article has been validated through different wind tunnel results. So its accurate. And its compared with the LCA data provided by ADA.
6. This article I have posted above compares the LCA with the PAF early "block" F-16s in the horizontal plane only. Part-II will expand on the vertical plane analysis and more instantaneous turn rata evaluations.

Pliss to read the article and enjoy onlee.

-Vivek

[pragnya]

New article on my blog:

.................

As always, feedback is welcome.

Notes:

1. I have been running busy last week and haven't had a chance to address the comments and queries on this thread as much as I would have liked to. Pliss to give this mujahid a little time.
2. I did an analysis of the flow-field around my Mirage-2000 solutions in FlightStream and found that the drag is getting underpredicted at higher angles of attack. I am investigating this anomaly.
3. The Dassault Mirage-2000C flight data numbers are bullshit. They have almost certainly messed (knowingly?) the range and radius definitions.
4. The LCA is far closer to the Mirage-2000 than earlier estimates. I will post that article with the analysis when I have a suitable explanation on why my delta wing solutions are under-predicting the drag.
5. The F-16A/B data used for the above article has been validated through different wind tunnel results. So its accurate. And its compared with the LCA data provided by ADA.
6. This article I have posted above compares the LCA with the PAF early "block" F-16s in the horizontal plane only. Part-II will expand on the vertical plane analysis and more instantaneous turn rata evaluations.

Pliss to read the article and enjoy onlee.

-Vivek

regards #4 above, confirmation from NFTC test pilot -

Said an NFTC test pilot during the IOC ceremony on December 20: "As a multi-role fighter, the Tejas is at least the equal of the IAF's upgraded Mirage-2000. It can more than hold its own in our operational scenario."

from here

[Singha]

why is the F16 horizontal STR so bad? I thought it the best among the current crop in usaf and it has no disadvantages of delta wing in str.

are you sure about this conclusion?

[member_28652]

Vivek, your analysis is great news to this mango abdul. Thanks.

[Philip]

Frankly,the most cost-effective interim solution to the depleting numbers and LCA delays is acquiring another 60+ MIG-29s to UPG std. They are equiv or superior to Block 50 F-16s (Western sources) and will come in at a far lower cost than even Gripens. The RuAF odered its last lot last yr. for just under $29M.Our navalised 29Ks cost us $32M. I don't see the cost going above $40M today,as the upgrade of all 64 MIG-29s cost just under $1B.There will be no extra expenditure in setting up infrastructure/training etc. The engines are already being manufactured here,all upgrades now being done in India as well and the entire lot if need be manufactured in India! This will be the cheapest solution of all.

60 MIG-29UPGs,about 40 Rafales and 2 more MKI sqds. (40,also made in India) will meet the 126+ requirement,while whatever LCAs HAL can deliver will be gobbled up by the IAF.From the current situ not more than 40 before 2020. By then we would have also had at least one FGFA sqd. too. This will all amount to approx. 200 aircraft,good enough replacements for the 200 MIG-21/27s being pensioned off.

[Singha]

>> The engines are already being manufactured here

afaik the rd33 engines were never manufactured in india.

[Viv S]

Frankly,the most cost-effective interim solution to the depleting numbers and LCA delays is acquiring another 60+ MIG-29s to UPG std.

The most cost effective solution is to invest in the Tejas' production line.

The RuAF odered its last lot last yr. for just under $29M.

The RuAF ordered Su-30SMs (near identical to the Su-30MKI) for just $45 mil. Unfortunately, those costs are probably not comprehensive and don't apply to an export order.

Our navalised 29Ks cost us $32M.

Not supported by the records of our contracts with Russia.

There will be no extra expenditure in setting up infrastructure/training etc. The engines are already being manufactured here,all upgrades now being done in India as well and the entire lot if need be manufactured in India! This will be the cheapest solution of all.

- The engines have been failing repeatedly in service with the MiG-29K. Unsurprisingly perhaps, Russia now sticks to two-engine designs even on AJTs.
- By inducting new build MiG-29s, the IAF forgoes its plan of retiring the type in 2030, and complicates logistics over the long term.

[Viv S]

>> The engines are already being manufactured here

afaik the rd33 engines were never manufactured in india.

Just local overhaul and that too not without the obligatory headache (holding back on ToT for more money).

_______________________________________________________________

Ingenious efforts on for overhauling MiG 29 engines


The division has been on the threshold of successfully launching home-grown solutions while overhauling the RD-33 (Series-3) engines of MiG 29 fighters.

"There was no ToT (transfer of technology) with Russians for six uncommon aggregators (accessories) of the RD-33 (Series-3) engines. The ToT was getting delayed as the Russians were demanding additional funds. The ToT would have come only by 2016, prompting us to initiate the indigenous programme," says Arup Chatterjee, Officiating Chief of Project (Engines), while interacting with the media.

He said the IAF had bought over 100 engines from the Russians in 2007. "With the engines started coming for overhaul, we developed technologies for three out of the six uncommon aggregators successfully. The remaining three are targeted to be developed within HAL by June 2015. This has given us self-confidence for meeting our indigenous missions," Chatterjee added.

Similarly, HAL also developed an overhaul technology for the KSA-2 accessory gearbox of RD-33 engines, which has been cleared by the certifying agencies now.

Link

[Philip]

Where is the IAF retiring the MIG-29 in 2030? The service life has now been extended by 30-40 years depending upon the usage.

http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/ind ... 570064.ece

Kuala Lumpur, Apr 1:

Six of the 69 MiG-29 fighter planes of the Indian Air Force have been upgraded in Russia and the remaining jets will be upgraded in India, a Russian official has said.

The official from the Russian Aircraft Corporation MiG made the comments at the Langkawi International Maritime and Aerospace Exhibition 2013 in Malaysia on Saturday, the closing day of the exhibition.

The official said the modernisation is carried out in two stages. At the first stage, six planes were flown to Russia, accompanied by an Indian project team, which will then teach specialists in India, Russian news agency Itar-Tass reported.

Three of the six planes have already gone back home. The other three are being upgraded at Nizhny Novgorod’s Sokol, which is part of MiG. They will be handed over to India before the end of the year, the official was quoted as saying.

At the second stage, the remaining 63 fighter planes will be upgraded in India by Indian specialists, the official said.

The modernisation programme was launched in 2009 in cooperation with India’s HAL (Hindustan Aeronautics Limited).

The IAF has awarded the MiG corporation a $900 million contract to upgrade all of its 69 operational MiG-29s.

These upgrades include a new avionics kit, with the N-109 radar being replaced by a Phazatron Zhuk-M radar. The aircraft is also being equipped to enhance beyond-visual-range combat ability and for air-to-air refuelling to increase flying time.

The service life of the modernised aircraft has been extended to 40 years, Russian media reports had said. In 2007, Russia gave HAL a license to manufacture 120 RD-33 series 3 turbo-jet engines for the upgrade.

From VayuSena.
http://vayu-sena.tripod.com/comparison-f16-mig29-1.html

In combat provided that the MiG-29's 7.5g above 0.85 mach can be avoided it should beat any F-16 due to its BVR capability , higher thrust/weight ratio and lower wing loading. While in recent exercises between USAF F-16 and German MiG-29A's showed that in ACM the greatest advantage the MiG-29 had was it's helmet mounted sight coupled with the AA-11 Archer which gives it a kill zone greater than any aircraft serving. F-16 pilots found that any aircraft within 45deg's of the nose of a MiG-29 was always under grave threat. The ability to target aircraft well of boresight has proved to be such a success that helmet mounted sights have become requirements on any new fighter program.

Luftwaffe MiG-29s and USAF F-16s have engaged in intense DACT exercises

While both aircraft have short-comings those of the MiG-29 have effectively been solved with newer versions ( MiG-29 S/M/K and MiG-33 ) which have increased the fuel capacity of the MiG as well as adding an in-flight refueling system. The number of hard points has also been increased by two and the max warload has been doubled, along with the inclusion of a fly-by-wire flight control system and a new radar that allowed two targets to be engaged simultaneously with the new AA-12 Adder active radar missile as well as full clearance for flight at 9 g's . Most of these upgrades have been offered to current users of the MiG-29 with the Russian and Indian airforces conducting some upgrades.

The F-16 by comparison has had few of it's problems solved in the past few years. One of it's greatest drawbacks the lack of a BVR capability was solved with the clearance of the AMRAAM for use on the F-16 but the second major problem of insufficient wing area on the F-16C has never been solved.

[brar_w]

Where is the IAF retiring the MIG-29 in 2030? The service life has now been extended by 30-40 years depending upon the usage.

Its been extended till up to 40 years depending upon the usage. Extending by 40 years is going to be next to impossible regardless of whether it is Mig-29, F-16 or the F-15C. The only fighter aircraft that has the airframe life in built to last 50-60 years of service at current usage (250 hours per year) is the F-15E.

In combat provided that the MiG-29's 7.5g above 0.85 mach can be avoided it should beat any F-16 due to its BVR capability , higher thrust/weight ratio and lower wing loading. While in recent exercises between USAF F-16 and German MiG-29A's showed that in ACM the greatest advantage the MiG-29 had was it's helmet mounted sight coupled with the AA-11 Archer which gives it a kill zone greater than any aircraft serving. F-16 pilots found that any aircraft within 45deg's of the nose of a MiG-29 was always under grave threat. The ability to target aircraft well of boresight has proved to be such a success that helmet mounted sights have become requirements on any new fighter program.

Luftwaffe MiG-29s and USAF F-16s have engaged in intense DACT exercises

While both aircraft have short-comings those of the MiG-29 have effectively been solved with newer versions ( MiG-29 S/M/K and MiG-33 ) which have increased the fuel capacity of the MiG as well as adding an in-flight refueling system. The number of hard points has also been increased by two and the max warload has been doubled, along with the inclusion of a fly-by-wire flight control system and a new radar that allowed two targets to be engaged simultaneously with the new AA-12 Adder active radar missile as well as full clearance for flight at 9 g's . Most of these upgrades have been offered to current users of the MiG-29 with the Russian and Indian airforces conducting some upgrades.

The F-16 by comparison has had few of it's problems solved in the past few years. One of it's greatest drawbacks the lack of a BVR capability was solved with the clearance of the AMRAAM for use on the F-16 but the second major problem of insufficient wing area on the F-16C has never been solved.

I have earlier provided you an account from the horse's mouth. The Pilot that flew as a part of the Luftwaffe squadron and has hundreds of hours on the very same Mig-29's mentioned in the article. He also few a couple of thousand hours on the F-16, and flew a lot of DACT against the F-16 as a Mig-29 pilot, and flew against the Mig-29 as an F-16 pilot.

[Philip]

That is from the IAF's website.And here is a much more sober US assessment of the two aircraft,that too the earliest version of the MIG-29,not the heavily upgraded MIG-29UGs.

http://vnfawing.com/F-16-vs-MiG-29.htm

In weapons systems, there is a gulf. Despite the attempts to paint a rosy picture of F-16s hosing multiple AMRAAMs off into a furball of Fulcrums in a "real-life fight," this is uncertain as to effectiveness. Getting a target sort on multiple bogies is rough, and the chances of dropping multiple Fulcrums with AMRAAMs before they can answer with an R-27 or R-73 is pretty slim. Due to delays in acquisition, unrealistic performance requirements, budgetary constraints, and just plain arrogance, Russian aircraft have the ability to field better missiles than we had given them credit for.

The other gulf is in sensors. Although the F-16 has a superior radar, the MiG has an IRSTS(Infra Red Targeting System). With this, the MiG can _passively_ track the Falcon from surprisingly long range. I have read many authors belittling the capabilities of IRSTSs, remembering the old AN/AAR-4 used on Century-Series fighters, but the new IRSTS are a different breed. Blazing away with a radar not only makes you a hunter, but it makes you a target. You can't always run silent and rely on AWACS, either. With the advent and fielding of aerial-ARMs like the R-27P, R-24P, Kh-31P and KS-172, anything with a radar running--especially an AWACS--is being set up for a surprise attack. For those who are uninitiated, Russian missiles can outrange AMRAAMs if they are not limited by the requirement to home on a radar return off of an F-15 and F-16. However this option certainly would be curtailed in a heavy ECM/ECCM environment.

I don't want to come off as critical of US equipment, which I believe is still superior to any other nation's. I just want to point out that the US can't afford to deny its equipment's shortcomings. The US should take the results of the F-16 vs. MiG-29 training as a warning. Imagine if they had been facing Su-37s!

"BTW article in AW&ST states something like this: "F-16 can get on tail of MiG-29 after all, blah blah..... .....But we should remember that MiG-29 were carrying underbelly tanks(!) and six pylons and two mock/training AA missiles (as opposite to clean F-16(?))" I wonder how things would look if the MiG's driver will jettison the fuel tank. (I don't think you can even use the cannon on MiG-29 with underbelly fuel tank, so no one with get into furball dogfight with one)"

The underbelly tanks were undoubtedly empty, and therefore had a minimal impact on flight performance. The MiGs were carrying six pylons because they _always_ carry six pylons. F-16s can jettison their pylons, and their fuel tanks have a built-in pylon. The MiGs needed that fuel tank because of their very short range. In marked contrast to the F-16--which has surprisingly long legs (longer than the F-15A, surprise!)--the MiG can't go far without fuel tanks. To my knowledge, none of the Luftwaffe's MiGs have been modified to carry underwing fuel tanks, so they went into battle carrying their max fuel load. Later MiGs were modified to carry underwing tanks, and to fire their cannon with the belly tank in place. All Fulcrum engines smoke like locomotives, and have a disturbingly short TBO.

Another Xcpt:
http://www.flyfighterjet.com/jetflights ... r-jet.html

It is always hard to clearly point which jet is better, or assess the quality of the aircraft. There are number of crucial differences between MiG-29 and F-16 not even mentioned here. But both of them are great aircraft: in general older pilots tend to favor the MiGs as when they control the stick they “feel” the jet, in opposite to the joystick of the F-16.
What about the cannons? The Western M61 Vulcan has much higher rate of fire (6,000 rounds per minute comparing to GSz-30-1 1,500 rounds/min) but the Eastern GSz-30-1 is 30mm caliber (comparing to M61 is 20mm). So one Russian bullet makes much more damage than the American one. It is worth mentioning that combined with its laser rangefinding GSz-30-1 is extremely accurate and able to destroy the target with as little as 3 to 5 rounds. Another interesting feature of the eastern MiG-29 and Sukhoi Su-29 Flanker is the IRST (Infra-red search and track). It was most successful when the Indian Air Force Su-27 had 9:1 wins against the American Air Force F-15 in a joint exercise.
So it appears for the compared versions that F-16 should be more successful at medium distance air combat, but MiG-29 in short distance dogfight. But the results of combat missions really depend on possessed weapon system options and commander’s skills (superior pilot training). It strongly depends how much training the fighter pilot gets, and what quality of training

[brar_w]

The second link is a blog post. As I said, you can go and talk to the person that has flown both and respects both for what they are. He is very particular that he only speaks about the version he flew and does not judge other versions that may be better. Since he stopped flying the F-16 it too has received an HMD, multiple HOBS missiles, radar upgrades, avionics upgrades, IRST and other features. But he restricts his comparison to the 2 versions he flew.

[vivek_ahuja]

why is the F16 horizontal STR so bad? I thought it the best among the current crop in usaf and it has no disadvantages of delta wing in str.

are you sure about this conclusion?

Why are you so surprised at these numbers? These are sustained turn rates in the horizontal plane, and that's why they are low compared to snap turn rates. If the pilot just wants to turn and doesn't care about the altitude drop off, they can obviously do a much tighter turn. But you can't do that at low-altitude combat conditions.

Also, note that the F-16 is heavier than the LCA by a decent margin.

-Vivek

[Gyan]

F-16 was always thought to have much better range compared to Mirage 2000. Remember Osirak raid where F-16s dropped 2 tons of bombs at a target 1100km away in lo-lo-hi mode. If LCA is close to F-16 than it is better than or equal to Mirage 2000 in range. Also some fuel efficiency features of F404 engine which is 2 gen ahead of Miarge engines may not show in rough calculations. Hence my guess is that LCA is better in range compared to Mirage 2000 and equal to F-16 As.

[Shalav]

The Osirak raid was Hi-Lo-Hi.

3 fuel tanks on each F16 / F15. Fuel tanks were jettisoned over Saudi Arabia en-route to target. 2 Mk 84's (2000 lb) on each F16 for the actual attack + 2 wingtip sidewinders & standard cannon ammo.

[pragnya]

Vivek, that was great article. i was just making a rough calculation (based on your graph) on range with internal fuel only (F 16 - 3350 litre), there is hardly anything to choose between.

LCA - a touch above 800km and f 16 - 880km!!

CR (@40% as per your calc..) LCA ~ 320km, F16 ~ 350km.

[Gyan]

Then it is very possible that based on situation like Osirak raid, radius of action of LCA may be better than F-16 and near to 1000-1200km.

[NRao]

Not fan of this web site, but ........................

FGFA Spec to be downgraded

While customization of the aircraft will be an ongoing process which can spread over a decade, a similar process which was used on Su-30MKI aircrafts which got added capabilities and were upgraded from MK-1 to MK-3 over the years after its induction

IF true, the IAF should afford the same for the LCA: LCA MK-I V01/V02/V03.....

Incremental improvements - or a sliding IOC/FOC.

[Rakesh]

NRao Saar....that is wishful thinking. Only desi maal has to be top notch on the day of induction. Phoren maal can take its own sweet time.

[deejay]

from writetake's twitter feed:

[Cain Marko]

New article on my blog:

LCA versus F-16 in combat (part-I)



As always, feedback is welcome.

Notes:

1. I have been running busy last week and haven't had a chance to address the comments and queries on this thread as much as I would have liked to. Pliss to give this mujahid a little time.
2. I did an analysis of the flow-field around my Mirage-2000 solutions in FlightStream and found that the drag is getting underpredicted at higher angles of attack. I am investigating this anomaly.
3. The Dassault Mirage-2000C flight data numbers are bullshit. They have almost certainly messed (knowingly?) the range and radius definitions.
4. The LCA is far closer to the Mirage-2000 than earlier estimates. I will post that article with the analysis when I have a suitable explanation on why my delta wing solutions are under-predicting the drag.
5. The F-16A/B data used for the above article has been validated through different wind tunnel results. So its accurate. And its compared with the LCA data provided by ADA.
6. This article I have posted above compares the LCA with the PAF early "block" F-16s in the horizontal plane only. Part-II will expand on the vertical plane analysis and more instantaneous turn rata evaluations.

Pliss to read the article and enjoy onlee.

-Vivek

Nice work Vivekji, couple of points to consider:

In the analysis you use the assumption of F-16A having an empty weight of 8500kg. IIRC, the early blocks were at least 1000kg less if not more - my guesstimate would be between 7000-7500kg at most.

I assume, this would affect the STR performance for the solah and probably the range as well

Also, would it be possible to do this analysis on purely internal fuel?

Vivek, that was great article. i was just making a rough calculation (based on your graph) on range with internal fuel only (F 16 - 3350 litre), there is hardly anything to choose between.

LCA - a touch above 800km and f 16 - 880km!!

CR (@40% as per your calc..) LCA ~ 320km, F16 ~ 350km.

Pragya, the calculation might be off. IIRC, the F-16 carries about 3250kg (not liters) of fuel. Similar to the 2000 and even the 29. As a result, the solah always had the best range figures between the three:

The 29 had the lowest fuel fraction but the RD33s were economical nevertheless, range on internal fuel ~ 1500km
The M2k had a decent fuel fraction but the M53s were guzzlers, range on internal fuel ~ 1800km
The f16 had the perfect combination - great fuel fraction + engines ~ 2000km. - only the F-16B suffered because it carried less fuel thanks to the extra pilot space.

My guess would be that the LCA should fall close to the M2k range above.

More relevant in India's context is that the PAF Solah will have the heavier weight of 8500kg+ for the blk 50+ BUT also have a more powerful engine so perhaps the STR performance will be maintained, however, range performance might be negatively affected.

Me no aero-man so take this fwiw. Most of my sources come from sites such as:
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/fighter/f16/

Another thing to note is that if the LCA is so much better than the F-16 (arguably the best single engined fighter ever) in terms of STR in the horizontal plane, why would the IAF criticize it in this area - would be insane if they expected any better.

[pragnya]

CM,

It is 2685 kg. I took it from lockheedmartin site.

[Karan M]

>> The engines are already being manufactured here

afaik the rd33 engines were never manufactured in india.

The MiG-29 UPG program had RD-33 to be manufactured at HAL.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/ind ... nes-02584/

There is no proposal for advancement of engine of MiG-29 aircraft which are powered with RD-33 Series – I and Series – II engines. These engines are no longer in production. To meet the future requirement of replacement engines for the MiG-29 fleet, an Inter Governmental Agreement (IGA) has been signed between the Government of India and the Government of Russian Federation for license manufacture of RD-33 Series – III engines at Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL). RD-33 Series – III engine is the latest version of RD-33 engine and has higher Total Technical Life (TTL) and Time Between Overhauls (TBO). HAL has signed a general contract with the Russian side for Transfer of Technology (TOT) for license manufacture of these engines at HAL.”

[Karan M]

STR etc at 15k feet, 0.9M

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-nRSaf017MXw/U ... T+to+W.jpg

Source http://books.google.co.in/books/about/F ... edir_esc=y

[vivek_ahuja]

STR etc at 15k feet, 0.9M

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-nRSaf017MXw/U ... T+to+W.jpg

Source http://books.google.co.in/books/about/F ... edir_esc=y

Hmm. I should do some runs for the 15,000 ft altitude and reduce my assumption of the F-16A empty mass from 8,500 kg to 7,000 kg and see what I get. Basically, that's a big difference and the overall performance of the aircraft will easily improve a good bit. Need to see how close it gets to the LCA, however.

Another point of note: all of the NASA published data on the aerodynamics of the F-16 is from the YF-16. Does anyone know if they changed a lot on the aerodynamics between the YF-16 and the F-16A (other than the empty weight)? The plot presented above shows the YF-16 has being lower performance than that of the F-16A.

Goddamn all this obfuscation of data in the public domain. Nobody allows for a clear comparison of their airplanes. For good reason too, I suppose.

-Vivek

[brar_w]

^ F-16 A Empty Weight is 7317 Kg (16131 lb).

[vivek_ahuja]

So I updated the F-16A empty mass at 7,300 kg and the improvement in performance is dramatic. I also added the F-16C/D with their higher masses (~8,500 kg) and the improved engines and that analysis remains the same as what I had reported before.





Notes:

1. These numbers do not involve afterburner for any of these aircraft. I will add that plot with afterburners in a separate plot.
2. These do not include fuel mass, so the numbers are comparative but not necessarily a real-life scenario.
3. The results posted in the links provided by Karan M seem to be with afterburner rather than without. Need to look some more into that.

I also updated the results in the article based on the distinguishing between F-16A/B and F-16C/D results.

LCA versus F-16 in combat (part-I)

-Vivek

[Cain Marko]

CM,

It is 2685 kg. I took it from lockheedmartin site.

Yes, I noticed that too - my guess is that the LM site is giving internal fuel data based on the two seat trainer version (F-16B) - they had to delete some fuel cells to allow for the extra pilot and in doing so the fuel capacity reduced quite a bit. But for the most part, single seaters were produced, so would be safer to go with that 31XX figure.

As suspected, Vivek's figures changed considerably once the above changes were made. It is very interesting to note however, that the figures for the F-16C/D remain well below LCA numbers, which is absolutely fantastic news in the TSP scenario. No wonder then that the IAF stayed away from the F-16E/F blk-60, which is even heavier although with a more powerful engine.

[Cain Marko]

So I updated the F-16A empty mass at 7,300 kg and the improvement in performance is dramatic. I also added the F-16C/D with their higher masses (~8,500 kg) and the improved engines and that analysis remains the same as what I had reported before.





Notes:

1. These numbers do not involve afterburner for any of these aircraft. I will add that plot with afterburners in a separate plot.
2. These do not include fuel mass, so the numbers are comparative but not necessarily a real-life scenario.
3. The results posted in the links provided by Karan M seem to be with afterburner rather than without. Need to look some more into that.

I also updated the results in the article based on the distinguishing between F-16A/B and F-16C/D results.

LCA versus F-16 in combat (part-I)

-Vivek

Super, great to see the LCA ahead of the blk-50, which is no mean achievement. Big question to me is what happens when ABs are engaged - I assume this would be the norm in turning fights. The F-16 has tremendous AB thrust in its newer versions with the 229s. This is again an area where the M2K suffers quite a bit as per AM Masand (the use of ABs increases SFC quite dramatically for the M2k vis a vis the fulcrum, and I assume the Solah as well, reducing the endurance considerably).

Another very interesting part is that the LCA seems to pull ahead of the solah the faster it gets, which means that the LCA might be able to finish the fight much earlier - not only does it turn faster, it also is also has a much smaller visual signature.

[pragnya]

CM,

It is 2685 kg. I took it from lockheedmartin site.

Yes, I noticed that too - my guess is that the LM site is giving internal fuel data based on the two seat trainer version (F-16B) - they had to delete some fuel cells to allow for the extra pilot and in doing so the fuel capacity reduced quite a bit. But for the most part, single seaters were produced, so would be safer to go with that 31XX figure.

right CM. i too checked out your link (which seems to be good one to bank on) and also the one by brar. even though there are minor differences even here, they are pretty close. it is a nightmare to get the right figures among so many - not one matching the other.

As suspected, Vivek's figures changed considerably once the above changes were made. It is very interesting to note however, that the figures for the F-16C/D remain well below LCA numbers, which is absolutely fantastic news in the TSP scenario. No wonder then that the IAF stayed away from the F-16E/F blk-60, which is even heavier although with a more powerful engine.

yes. for PAF, A/B's for air combat, C/Ds for strike i guess.

however these A/B's with PAF are quite old and though they have been upgraded i am not sure how they will hold up against the newer LCAs or other aircrafts of IAF. PAF had trouble maintaining these F 16s for many years now. is it sorted?

[shiv]

The problem always is that heavily laden attack aircraft at long distances from their home bases will meet lightly loaded defenders over their own home territory.

[Cain Marko]

right CM. i too checked out your link (which seems to be good one to bank on) and also the one by brar. even though there are minor differences even here, they are pretty close. it is a nightmare to get the right figures among so many - not one matching the other.

As suspected, Vivek's figures changed considerably once the above changes were made. It is very interesting to note however, that the figures for the F-16C/D remain well below LCA numbers, which is absolutely fantastic news in the TSP scenario. No wonder then that the IAF stayed away from the F-16E/F blk-60, which is even heavier although with a more powerful engine.

yes. for PAF, A/B's for air combat, C/Ds for strike i guess.

however these A/B's with PAF are quite old and though they have been upgraded i am not sure how they will hold up against the newer LCAs or other aircrafts of IAF. PAF had trouble maintaining these F 16s for many years now. is it sorted?

Pragya, IIRC, all PAF F-16A/Bs would be converted to blk 50 std. via some kind of MLU - via Turkey?

While the F-16A is no doubt an awesome dog fighter, it was a poor BVR fighter - lacked a radar to begin with I think. Otoh, the C/D versions, heavy as they are, are far more potent in a number of other roles including BVR (v.good radar and mijjile combo). They also have an excellent HMD to overcome that poor turn performance in WVR. More importantly, Vivek's analysis does not include afterburner performance, which might change the analysis further in the fat viper's favor in a turning match considering that the F-16 blk 50 has respectable TWR on ABs, and this is not the LCA's forte.

All in all, the PAF F-16C - blk 50+ will be a very potent opponent. Far more than the JF-17. Read somewhere that PLAAF J10s are quite competent too - possibly much better than the blk 50 in A2A. Should hardly be surprising - the J10 was derived from the Israeli Lavi, which was designed to improve upon the IAF F-16s.

[brar_w]

it was a poor BVR fighter - lacked a radar to begin with I think

The early version (IOC around 1979-1980) had just the sidewinder capability but it had the AN/APG-66 radar. BVR capability came through upgrades to the Radar but they planned to skip the Sparrow and move straight to the AMRAAM. Because the AMRAAM was delayed they eventually integrated the Sparrow but true multi role capability came much later. It went into service as a Daytime dogfighter but they always planned to rapidly upgrade it. It went through plenty of concurrency changes (keep the F-35 in mind here) and block upgrades with he AMRAAM finally showing up in 1992, one year after it went "live" on the F-15 fleet. The F-16 Blk 30's that were basically the first useful versions began showing up in the and around 1887-1988 but the production was obviously very high and capability was added quickly from there on in.

More importantly, Vivek's analysis does not include afterburner performance, which might change the analysis further in the fat viper's favor in a turning match considering that the F-16 blk 50 has respectable TWR on ABs, and this is not the LCA's forte.

The F16C is a very potent fighter when it comes to transonic acceleration. In its original LWF avatar (2-3 missiles, 40-50% internal fuel) it will do very well when compared even to the zippy Typhoon's and Raptors (loaded) when it comes to transonic acceleration. Where it goes down the drain is when you add fuel tanks, or CFT's and heavy weapons.

Ultimately when comparing fighters it is best to compare on missions...Define the mission, whether that is air base defense, CAS, 200 nm interception, CAP, asset support etc etc. Put a useful fuel, define tanker support and ROE and see how they do. Of course the F-16 is a very old aircraft and the larger Viper fleets are on the verge of retirement so more advanced aircraft will no doubt better it.

All in all, the PAF F-16C - blk 50+ will be a very potent opponent.

Depends upon tactics, there are the heavies to take out their AEW fleets and then those F-16's will be flying blind...

[Cain Marko]

^ yes, it is a given that tactics are critical. Point was, the PAF Solah is as good as it gets for the PAF, and it is fairly good. I'd rather we'd have nothing but JF-17s to tangle with. Still, with Bisons fairing quite nicely against the USAF blk 50s, I can see the LCAs presenting a major problem.

Another issue is the stand off munitions they have been working on - is the Barber integrated on the solah?

[pragnya]

Pragya, IIRC, all PAF F-16A/Bs would be converted to blk 50 std. via some kind of MLU - via Turkey?

no CM, the turkish upg was basically avionics upg as part of an MLU. don't think they were converted to 50/52 versions. these A/B versions are very old and pakistan got the last platforms before the prod ended. i am not even sure they could be upgraded to 50/52. that too without a newer high thrust engine that 50/52 blocks have. may be brar_w would tell better. the only 50/52's they have are 18 in number.

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_users_article14.html

[Cain Marko]

^ Interesting - PAF Solah procurement has been a bit conphujing wonlee. Here is something interesting - unbelievable what the US is doing to preserve its Munna.

VAdm Wieringa described this upgrade as "very similar to that provided to other F-16A/B customers" and as replacing "critical structural components in the F-16 required to return the A/B airframe to a structural life of 8,000 spectrum hours", while the "MLU avionics upgrade kits are being designed to provide the Pakistan Block 15A/B aircraft with many of the same capabilities as the new Block 52 F-16s that the PAF is procuring".

According to his statement, the MLU upgrade kits included: Northrop Grumman APG-68(V)9 radars; Embedded GPS/INS (EGI); Link 16 datalink; APX-113 Advanced Identify Friend or Foe (AIFF); Color Cockpit with Color Moving Map; ALQ- 211(V)9 Advanced Integrated Defensive Electronic Warfare Suite (AIDEWS) pod; Night Vision Imaging System (NVIS) Cockpit and External Lighting; Sniper Advanced Targeting Pod; Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System (JHMCS); reconnaissance pod capability; improved avionics systems; JDAM capability; EGBU capability; AIM-120 AMRAAM capability; and AGM-84 Harpoon capability.

VAdm Wieringa added: "While many of the avionics systems and capabilities are common with the new Block 52s and the MLU, some significant differences remain between the MLU F-16 Block 15s and the new PAF Block 52s: there are no improvements to the Block 15s mission range and loiter time; there are no engine improvements; and there are no improvements to payload capacity."

That is some serious capability especially, A2A. If I read it correctly, it basically means they retain a highly agile and powerful F-16A (since the airframe has not been tinkered with to increase payload) but with a very respectable BVR setup in the ApG-68V9/Amraam C5 combo. Add to this the JHMCS and it becomes a rather lethal fighter up close. Strike capability as you had indicated, seems secondary but still quite capable.

All for free! Nice work Munna.

[Aditya_V]

Off topic. Thats with those 72 F-16's PAF is a potent force. And thats why we cant order US aircraft, especially fighters. Since the US establishment is against us being miltarily strong.

Hope LCA is able to Ovehelm this.

[vina]

The problem always is that heavily laden attack aircraft at long distances from their home bases will meet lightly loaded defenders over their own home territory.

Well, the new thing is that a true multi role aircraft can do both attack and A2A at the same time, if it is has a true scanned array radar at it's nose. Provide guidance to radar guided a2a weapons, do volume search, also ground targeting. That sort of equalises things.