Indian Military Aviation

Shalav · Post by **Shalav** » 23 Apr 2010 02:28

indranilroy wrote:...
Bala Vignesh wrote:A total of 180 KN thrust for a 25 Ton aircraft.. Its going to be badly underpowered... wonder why IAF wants it like this when aircrafts that are significantly less heavier than them have more thrust...
Though not badly underpowered, but it will be on the lower side for fifth-generation planes, won't it?

Plane --------- MTOW (in tons) ----- Combined thrust (with full afternurner)
PAK-FA ------------ 37 ------------------------ 314 KN (might go upto 350 KN)
F-22 ---------------38 ------------------------ 312 KN
F-35 --------------31.8 ----------------------- 191 KN (seems underpowered compared to the others!)
AMCA --------------25 -------------------------180 KN (at par with EF, if not lower)

I don't know why all this rona dhona about underpowered etc... has anyone even bothered to do the calculations before spouting off?

based on the above table TWRs for the respective aircraft are

PAK-FA - 0.86
F22 - 0.84
F35 - 0.61
AMCA - 0.73

And no, it is not underpowered at all! AND This TWR requirement definitely is not on the lower side for 5G planes as we can clearly see.

PS: EF from wikipedia

MTOW 23.5 t
powerplant: 2x 90kN (AB) = 180kN total

TWR = 0.78 (about the same as the AMCA)

Please lets do some research before typing!

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 23 Apr 2010 05:23

Vivek K wrote:The seller and the person that wrote the contract need to be ashamed. If this was China, the person that wrote the contract would have at lest been imprisoned for life.

I agree, I think there has to be accountabiliy. Someone's gotta take the blame.. but the guilty should be punished in a more 'democratic' fashion

To start off with, I think we need a good set of lawyers..some sort of system in place, where contracts are assessed well enough to avoid loop holes in contracrs of any sort in the future..

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 23 Apr 2010 05:25

shiv wrote:I get the feeling that we don't have all the necessary information. We are missing something.

As an aside, I personally scoff at the word "embarrassing". A person who is shamed is supposed to be embarrassed. An embarrassed person is one who is wrong and knows he is wrong, and feels embarrassed and might correct himself. A shameless person, or a person who has no reason to feel ashamed does not feel embarrassed.

Either Indians are shameless, or they are not guilty. There is nothing in between - so the question of embarrassment does not arise. It is a worthless word in the context of defence import/manufacture in India. Indians spend too much time feeling embarrassed or believing that other Indians should be embarrassed.

I love the way you have so very politely dissected my choice of words

take your point.. promise to try to be more careful with choice of words in the future.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 23 Apr 2010 05:47

Singha wrote:Another idiocy we need to shed is this fetish with the word "light". What is light about the LCA or LCH and why do we take such pride in making light weapons?

light and cheap are words I hate too. shows the apologetic nature of the indian mind
even when making a weapon of war. neither should they use advanced/medium/heavy
words. these are oxymorons and meaningless.

Go light on the requirements, light on features, light on everything?

Juggi G · Post by **Juggi G** » 23 Apr 2010 06:09

LCA Set To Fly With Israeli Radar
AVIATION WEEK

karan_mc · Post by **karan_mc** » 23 Apr 2010 06:19

180kn should be OK for the aircraft it will be in league of Mig-29A (160kn) in size wise and 4 ton more in weight , to be in safer side may be 100/110 kn engines should be developed . IDRW articles does mention redesign of airframe is current design not stealthy enough ?

other then intakes and engines airframe looks stealthy, may be IAF wants more work done on this section to make it pure stealth ?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... craft1.JPG

why only three prototypes for AMCA ? we had almost 6 for lca ?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 23 Apr 2010 06:57

Go light on the requirements, light on features, light on everything

unfortunately thats not the case - heavy on requirements and features, cheap in cost and light in weight is what yindu claims to want. sort of like shoehorning the
capabilities of a Tu160 into a tejas airframe

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 23 Apr 2010 07:01

Singha wrote:Go light on the requirements, light on features, light on everything

unfortunately thats not the case - heavy on requirements and features, cheap in cost and light in weight is what yindu claims to want. sort of like shoehorning the
capabilities of a Tu160 into a tejas airframe

Well I have Rs 100 crores to buy you a Diwali gift - but the box to put it in is only 1 mm cube. Not my fault. onlee.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 23 Apr 2010 07:05

shiv wrote:Go light on the requirements, light on features, light on everything?

Well saar, that is the fair and lovely syndrome - indoos do tend to prefer "wheatish" to dark, outright gora is even better.

CM.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 23 Apr 2010 07:07

Is it also going to make lot of difference that being 5th gen AMCA will be carrying everything in internal bay, so much less drag? Thus 200 KN being enough?

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 23 Apr 2010 07:12

^^^ thank you, this was the very point I was going to make !

Singha wrote:Another idiocy we need to shed is this fetish with the word "light". What is light about the LCA or LCH and why do we take such pride in making light weapons?

light and cheap are words I hate too. shows the apologetic nature of the indian mind
even when making a weapon of war. neither should they use advanced/medium/heavy
words. these are oxymorons and meaningless.

but but, we use advanced too !

David Siegel · Post by **David Siegel** » 23 Apr 2010 13:46

Thales to modernise avionics on Indian Air Force MiG-29s

http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/bus ... 52092.html

Some highlights:

The jet’s manufacturer, Russian Aircraft Corporation, MiG (RSK-MiG), has chosen Thales to provide the Combined Interrogator Transponder (CIT) and Cryptographic National Secure Mode (NSM) as part of the MiG-29’s retrofit to enhance their capabilities and increase their service life, a Thales statement said.

The cryptographic mode will equip India with the first national secure identification capability for protecting its own assets.

...
Thales will also supply the IAF’s MiG-29 fighters with the TOTEM 3000 latest generation Inertial Navigation and Global Positioning System.

...

In addition, Thales is also equipping the Indian Navy’s newly acquired MiG-29KUB aircraft with the Topsight E helmet-mounted sight/display (HMS/D), for which it successfully completed integration phase with the aircraft in November 2009.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 23 Apr 2010 13:56

2052 radar brochure has a document creation date of 13-may-2009

http://www.iai.co.il/sip_storage/FILES/4/36834.pdf

mashallah it is ready...

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 23 Apr 2010 15:18

David Siegel wrote:Thales to modernise avionics on Indian Air Force MiG-29s

Posted yesterday my friend.. probably a good idea to read older submissions before posting..

Juggi G · Post by **Juggi G** » 23 Apr 2010 17:58

Private contractor developing Saras : Report
Shubhadeep Chaudhry

Bala Vignesh · Post by **Bala Vignesh** » 23 Apr 2010 18:15

Rahul M wrote:
Bala Vignesh wrote:A total of 180 KN thrust for a 25 Ton aircraft.. Its going to be badly underpowered... wonder why IAF wants it like this when aircrafts that are significantly less heavier than them have more thrust...
it will end up with a higher thrust than 90kN from day one.

even otherwise, how is it badly underpowered ? doesn't look like that to me.

Rahul sir, the Su-27 which has a MTOW of about 30.5 Tons and a loaded weight of about 25tons has a total thrust of about 245.6 KN ( 122.8KN*2)... that should give a clear prespective on how underpowered the AMCA will be with a total weight of about 25 tons and 180 KN of thrust..

I am not saying it will not be able to fly at all... I am saying the TWR will be very low... And its a Gen 5 aircraft... so it basically can't do much with a low TWR...

karan_mc · Post by **karan_mc** » 23 Apr 2010 19:20

Bench mark should be Dassault Rafale with MTOW of 24,500 kg and with current engine of 75.62 kN X 2 = 151kn , while it will only get M88-3 90kn x 2 = 180kn only this year , or Euro-fighter with MTOW of 23500 which uses 90kn x 2 = 180kn engines .

if we compare sukhoi su 27 with F-18SH

Max takeoff weight: 30,450 kg
122.8 kN x 2 = 244kn

while Sh
Max takeoff weight:29,900 kg
97.9 kN x 2 = 196kn

Both have similar MTOW but the engine power is not the same , i think that Air superiority aircraft's have higher Thrust , since Pak-fa will play the role of Air superiority , AMCA will be more of a multi role stealth fighter

David Siegel · Post by **David Siegel** » 23 Apr 2010 20:18

India says to have fifth-generation jets in 2018

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/new ... 849687.cms
....
The fifth generation aircraft would possess technologies which would provide it (India) the edge over adversaries in future air warfare," PV Naik, the Chief of the Indian Air Force (IAF), said. "China is rapidly modernising its air force ... On our part, the IAF is reviewing its tactics regularly to increase its combat potential," Naik said.
.....

India plans to procure at least 200 of the fifth-generation fighters, each valued at $100 million, in a deal which analysts say is watched with unease by neighbours Pakistan and China. India is looking to spend more than $50 billion over the next five years to modernise its largely Soviet-era weapons systems
....

Officials say that is just a formality and will be completed this year. Production of the stealth jet fighter is a 50-50 joint venture between Russia and India's state-run Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL), which will build a mission computer, cockpit displays and other navigation systems.

Shalav · Post by **Shalav** » 23 Apr 2010 20:31

Bala Vignesh wrote:he Su-27 which has a MTOW of about 30.5 Tons and a loaded weight of about 25tons has a total thrust of about 245.6 KN ( 122.8KN*2)... that should give a clear prespective on how underpowered the AMCA will be with a total weight of about 25 tons and 180 KN of thrust..

I am not saying it will not be able to fly at all... I am saying the TWR will be very low... And its a Gen 5 aircraft... so it basically can't do much with a low TWR...

Those numbers give the Su27 a TWR of 0.82. How is a proposed TWR of 0.73 for the AMCA "very low" even when compared to the Su27? Especially since the F35 has a TWR of 0.61 and the current Eurofighter a TWR of 0.78 based on the same parameters!!!

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 23 Apr 2010 21:14

I think its better to compare the level of thrust used in supercruising at mach1.3 and the fuel consumption also,
rather than just the peak reheat thrust which cannot be maintained for more than few mins. all else being equal,
having a internal weapons bay also helps reduce drag and improves acceleration when reheat is applied.

I guess thats the idea why sher khan is ok with the less-than-spectacular numbers of the JSF. using stealth
and low drag , plus its 360' radar sensors and feeds from the network it should be able to sneak around and
fire bvr aams at more energetic opponents and get away safely.

a strike oriented 5th gen would emphasise stealth, range and loiter time at the expense of raw cheetah pakfa type
sprinting.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 23 Apr 2010 21:35

Bala Vignesh wrote:Rahul sir, the Su-27 which has a MTOW of about 30.5 Tons and a loaded weight of about 25tons has a total thrust of about 245.6 KN ( 122.8KN*2)... that should give a clear prespective on how underpowered the AMCA will be with a total weight of about 25 tons and 180 KN of thrust..

first things first, please drop the sir !

eh, but why not compare the big daddy Su-30MKI itself with the baseline su-27 ?

aircraft..........MTOW(in tonnes)...........Max Thrust..........TWR at MTOW

Mig-29 A/B(?).......21..........................81.4kN*2...............0.791
Mig-29K..............24.5........................87.1kN*2...............0.726
Su-27.................30.5.......................122.8kN*2.............0.821
Su-30mki.............38.8.........................same..................0.646

Su-35BM.............34.5........................142kN*2...............0.84

PAKFA.................37...........................142kN*2..............0.783 (likely to go up with newer engines)
F-16blk30............19.2.......................127kN...................0.675
F-16blk60............22.68.....................142.3kN.................0.64
(similar for F-16IN)
F-15C.................30.85.....................129kN*2................0.853
F-15E.................36.7.......................same.....................0.717
F/A-18E..............29.9.......................97.9kN*2...............0.668
F-35A.................31.8.......................191kN...................0.613
F-22A.................38..........................156kN*2...............0.838
Eurofighter..........23.5........................90kN*2.................0.782
Rafale C..............24.5.......................75.62kN*2.............0.623
Gripen C..............14..........................80.5kN..................0.587
Gripen NG............16..........................97.9kN..................0.624
LCA....................13.5.......................81kN(?).................0.612
AMCA..................25.........................90kN*2.................0.735
J-10...................19.3.......................122.8kN................0.649

to put it simply, TWR of 0.735 will put it ahead of MKI, rafale, grip, F-16Blk60, Mig-29K and even the F-35A as far as TWR is concerned !

IOW, every modern aircraft with the exception of F-22, PAKFA, Su-35BM and EF !
I'm deliberately not mentioning the basic Su-27 and the F-15C because both of those are from a time when fighters could afford to do without a lot of bells and whistles that are absolutely must have in today's world. no wonder you will find that ALL the original versions of earlier aircraft(before 80's) had a much higher TWR than their current counterpart. to put it simply, F-15C and vanilla Su-27 is close to obsolete, as is the original Mig-29A and F-16 versions and that has a close connection to their abnormally high TWR.
and then consider that it will have an internal weapons bay, the stats start looking comparable even to the EF.

so please forgive me if I do a little

at

I am not saying it will not be able to fly at all... I am saying the TWR will be very low... And its a Gen 5 aircraft... so it basically can't do much with a low TWR...

no hard feelings,
cheers !

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 23 Apr 2010 21:38

Exactly what use is supercruise for a combat aircraft?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 23 Apr 2010 21:49

allegedly to fly at low supersonic (mach 1-1.3) most a/c need to use afterburners which use prodigious amt of fuel.
with supercruise, you use dry thrust and save lots of fuel which can be used later. increases combat loiter time.
for missions that call for runs at upto mach1.3 they can avoid afterburner unless attacked by A2A or needing to
evade SAMs. for stuff like accelerating from 900kmph to Mach1.5+ I guess they would still use afterburner to
do it faster in A2A role.

also afterburners attract easy attention from IR missiles and IRST pods vs dry thrust.

generally - a low drag design, internal weapons bay and powerful fuel sippy engines are supposed to get you supercruising.

the SU35BM armed with Irbis-E and a conformal AAM bay between the engines to house 4 BVR AAMs and 4 more BVR AAMs
in a pakfa style stealth housing outboard of the inlets should be a beast of a performer in A2A, albeit with a high RCS vs true 5th gen designs.

Bala Vignesh · Post by **Bala Vignesh** » 23 Apr 2010 23:14

Rahul M wrote:no hard feelings,
cheers !

Absolutely... And also thanks for the literally KickA** lesson...

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 23 Apr 2010 23:56

Shalav wrote:
I don't know why all this rona dhona about underpowered etc... has anyone even bothered to do the calculations before spouting off?

based on the above table TWRs for the respective aircraft are

PAK-FA - 0.86
F22 - 0.84
F35 - 0.61
AMCA - 0.73

And no, it is not underpowered at all! AND This TWR requirement definitely is not on the lower side for 5G planes as we can clearly see.

PS: EF from wikipedia

MTOW 23.5 t
powerplant: 2x 90kN (AB) = 180kN total

TWR = 0.78 (about the same as the AMCA)

Please lets do some research before typing!

I dont like to confront people, but I would do so here. you can bank on me to be able to do the math of simple division! In fact I banked on everybody here to be able to do it, hence I didn't put up an extra column! Besides TWR is not the only thing when it would come to the agility. We don't know anything about the fighter yet, its wing loading, its drag, its fuselage aerodynamics, its planform, control surfaces .... so sir, I didn't comment on the agility at all and didn't put in all the maths. So I would have appreciated your post a little more if you could have been a little less caustic before commenting on others. And mark my word, if a batch 5th gen planes is pitted against a batch of fifth gen planes, some of them would surely reach WVR, where agility would be a HUGE factor. Leave aside evading missiles even in BVR!

Coming back to just the TWR discussion. Leave out the F-35, as I said I don't understand its exact design philosophy and role. I don't know if they are even finalized yet! Last I checked there were groups who saw it in very different roles. Anyways can you not see the difference between ~0.85 and ~0.73! Put in some more math and you would find out that it almost 16% less. If the AMCA comes with aerodynamic characteristics close to the PAK-FA and F-22 (which let me add is going to be very difficult, leave aside bettering them), then can you see the difference. If you are a guy who follows planes and their characteristics, you would realize that based on just that factor it would be a generation backward! All of us are looking at EF as a comparison. EF/Su-30 are not fifth generation planes!! EF is still bettering the AMCA by nearly 7%. We already know that EF is pretty slippy through the air and has a very impressive wing loading!

Also think of a one on one with the other fifth generations. Owing to the size of the other planes, their real estate of the internal bays are going to be bigger. They would have more munition to fire at you considering the higher usable loads!

Anyways lets move on and have no hard feelings. I am sure the people designing the AMCA know much more than most of us here, if not all. I am banking on it!

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 24 Apr 2010 00:51

If the AMCA comes with aerodynamic characteristics close to the PAK-FA and F-22 (which let me add is going to be very difficult, leave aside bettering them), then can you see the difference. If you are a guy who follows planes and their characteristics, you would realize that based on just that factor it would be a generation backward!

indranilroy, it doesn't follow AT ALL. if TWR was the ultimate decider no one would have bothered with the other factors.
by your logic the F-35A would be two generations behind the F-22 and PAKFA since the F-22 has ~36% higher TWR !

you should immediately call LM and tell them they are making an aircraft of the same generation as the F-4 phantom !

secondly, the point behind the AMCA is NOT to make another PAKFA, we already have the PAKFA for that ! the AMCA will have its own niche along with the costlier and more capable PAKFA. if a lesser TWR made an aircraft worthless as compared to its peers, USAF won't have had only ~ 600 F-15's as against double that number of F-16(whose earlier versions had about 20-25% lower TWR than the F-15, so how many generations behind the F-15 is it, by your theory ?

)
the same story is repeated by a number of other fighters throughout aviation history, a fractionally lower TWR has never been a hindrance for an aircraft to serve with distinction. neither is a lower TWR a pointer towards a foregone conclusion in WVR combat.
to quote one example, AdlA mirages routinely bested USAF F-16's in friendly combat exercises and it has a much lower TWR than the F-16.

moving on,however 'slippy' the EF may be it will still have to carry its weapons outside. not so for the AMCA.
coming to impressive wing loadings, perhaps it might come as a surprise to know that the LCA has a more 'impressive' wing loading than the EF ? I guess that puts it a generation ahead of the EF ?

p.s. it is always a good idea to post the numbers and the calculations. that way you can avoid confusion on what figures are being used and cut down on associated noise.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 24 Apr 2010 00:57

Hi-tech Helo Simulator Park To Go Live

India’s first state-of-the-art helicopter simulator facility is expected to go live in Bengaluru next month. The Helicopter Academy to Train by Simulation of Flying (HATSOFF) is an 50/50 joint venture between Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) and simulation technology company CAE, Canada.

Installation and integration work began in early March and infrastructure activities are now in full swing. “The first Bell 412EP cockpit will be ready for training by May after certification by European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA). The Dhruv civil cockpit would be ready by December 2010, Dhruv military cockpit by April 2011 and the Dauphin 365N3 cockpit by June 2011,” Wing Cmdr. (ret.) C.D. Upadhaya, HATSOFF’s CEO, told Aviation Week.

The facility boasts a roll-on/roll-off (RO-RO) type, full-motion Level-D simulator, certified to EASA standards, with a common motion platform and interchangeable cockpit modules for Bell 412EP, Dauphin 365N3 and ALH civil and military variants.
...
..

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 24 Apr 2010 01:37

Rahul M wrote: secondly, the point behind the AMCA is NOT to make another PAKFA, we already have the PAKFA for that ! the AMCA will have its own niche along with the costlier and more capable PAKFA.

The MCA, when the idea was first floated was supposed to replace the Jaguars and Mirages in the IAF wasn't it? A strike aircraft with secondary air-to-air capability would be what the IAF is looking for, similar to the JSF. As long as it has low RCS, internal weapons bays and a powerful multi-mode AESA radar, it should be good enough. A TWR in the same class as the Typhoon is more than adequate IMHO unless the IAF wants to use it for OCA operations as well.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 24 Apr 2010 01:40

Rahul M wrote: indranilroy, it doesn't follow AT ALL. if TWR was the ultimate decider no one would have bothered with the other factors.
by your logic the F-35A would be two generations behind the F-22 and PAKFA since the F-22 has ~36% higher TWR ! you should immediately call LM and tell them they are making an aircraft of the same generation as the F-4 phantom !

That was the exact point of my post! TWR is not everything! I have clearly said that.

But just based on TWR (I had boldened this part before and doing it here again), AMCA doesn't seem to be in the 5th gen league! F-35 is an exception I have maintained that from the beginning. May be the reason for that is that they had to go for a single engine, given that it's naval STOVL version has a lift fan which is connected to the engine through a single engine to fan driveshaft!

Rahul M wrote: secondly, the point behind the AMCA is NOT to make another PAKFA, we already have the PAKFA for that ! the AMCA will have its own niche along with the costlier and more capable PAKFA. if a lesser TWR made an aircraft worthless as compared to its peers, USAF won't have had only ~ 600 F-15's as against double that number of F-16(whose earlier versions had about 20-25% lower TWR than the F-15, so how many generations behind the F-15 is it, by your theory ? )

Never did I say in any of my posts that we shouldn't go for the AMCA or that the AMCA's design policies are flawed. Infact I have always said the opposite. In fact, I think I for one have always maitained that a role-wise and categorised hi-lo mixture is what all airforces should go for. And who am I to say anything! That is a tried and tested theory which every airforce of any stature in the world maintains! I think much more was read in my last post than what was written!

Rahul M wrote: moving on,however 'slippy' the EF may be it will still have to carry its weapons outside. not so for the AMCA.
coming to impressive wing loadings, perhaps it might come as a surprise to know that the LCA has a more 'impressive' wing loading than the EF ? I guess that puts it a generation ahead of the EF ?

does this not tantamount to putting words in my mouth? Again let me point out that I have always said that we shouldn't look at just one aspect! EF has a much better TWR to compensate for the wing loading!

p.s. it is always a good idea to post the numbers and the calculations. that way you can avoid confusion on what figures are being used and cut down on associated noise.

Agreed. That is a lesson I learned the hard way here! I shall follow this hence forth!

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 24 Apr 2010 04:01

TWR varies as the flight goes on - granted for comparison reasons we tend to compute it with data that is the same at a point in time. A good site that provides some good insight: http://eurofighter.airpower.at/vergleich.htm.

(It is a German site.)

A Sharma · Post by **A Sharma** » 24 Apr 2010 04:07

Not sure if posted before
RTA-70

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Apr 2010 06:21

Singha wrote:allegedly to fly at low supersonic (mach 1-1.3) most a/c need to use afterburners which use prodigious amt of fuel.

I have heard that - but Concorde used to do supercruise. What use is it in a combat aircraft? If you look at the India-Pakistan scenario or the India-China air defence scenario we are not looking at the distances and flying times where supercruise will be useful. If we are looking to attack mainland China targets in aircraft it makes some sense. Even a a trans-ocean flight over the Indian ocean to hit someone "out there" would not necessarily need supercruise unless we expected company.

Jagan · Post by **Jagan** » 24 Apr 2010 06:58

I am pretty sure you cant supercruise at low level due to air density and drag.

or at the very least supercruise is efficient only at higher altitudes.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Apr 2010 07:11

Jagan wrote:I am pretty sure you cant supercruise at low level due to air density and drag.

or at the very least supercruise is efficient only at higher altitudes.

Jagan - for some reason (general reading) I got the impression that supercruise is important for the sorts of wars the US envisages and has fought. Attacking targets very far away after overflying miles and miles of ocean or safe overland routes. The US has hitherto used nearby bases or floating bases (aircraft carriers). Both are expensive to maintain and put a lot of US personnel and assets at risk. But long range flights have several disadvantages. Pilot fatigue, multiple refuellings and an increasing risk of being shot down by an Su 27/30 like phenomenon. The way forward for them is to invest in supercruise.

Supercruise has many advantages for the US. The US put in a lot of research to compete with the Concorde but everything was shot down by the overland noise problem. The technology is already there. The US is also ahead in terms of stealth. For supercruise a "clean" aircraft is useful - ie one that does not have things hanging from pylons. That is good for stealth as well. Also, since less munitions can be carried internally, precision guidance is important. The US is already a world leader in GPS targeting and long range UAVs. And money is less of a problem for the US given that the technology and infrastructure is already there in US hands.

Why do we copycats suffer from Americanitis and slobber after stuff that we can only import after the US moves on to some other tech? Can't we think originally to meet OUR requirements rather than lust after something that suits US requirements. Are we really that stupid? Have we no originality to look at our environment, our threats, our responses and then talk about what we need? We protest that Indian knowledge of yore was copied by everyone else, but all we seem to want to do now is copy.

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 24 Apr 2010 07:29

^^
IMHO, supercruise is of paramount importance regardless of the Nation. As you stated, supercruise is useful to get to a far off point with speed while consuming relatively less amount of fuel. You also state that unless we strike deep inside China, it is of relatively less importance to us than US. In all this I agree with. However, supercruise has more roles to play than this. Even to quickly enter and leave pakistani airspace (for any mission), would it not be of huge advantage to be able to do that with great speed without giving out massive amount of IR signature to Paki SAMs and AAMs? Also, while entering an air to air engagement with any other fighter, a fighter with greater speed will always be in advantage. This is because while engaging in sharp turns (either to outmaneuver enemy fighter or missile), the aircraft looses large amount of kinematic energy. This can be of great advantage to enemy a/c and missiles. However, if a fighter enters an engagement with greater amount of kinematic energy, it will have relatively larger amount of kinematic energy left after a particularly taxing maneuver. This will be of no small advantage to the fighter. And to be able to do this without giving out massive IR signature to missiles and guzzling fuel at huge rates is a serious advantage, would you not agree?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Apr 2010 07:41

Gaur wrote:^^
IMHO, supercruise is of paramount importance regardless of the Nation. As you stated, supercruise is useful to get to a far off point with speed while consuming relatively less amount of fuel. You also state that unless we strike deep inside China, it is of relatively less importance to us than US. All this I agree with. However, supercruise has more roles to play than this. Even to quickly enter and leave pakistani airspace (for any mission), would it not be of huge advantage to be able to do that with great speed without giving out massive amount of IR signature to Paki SAMs and AAMs? Also, while entering an air to air engagement with any other fighter, a fighter with greater speed will always be in advantage. This is because while engaging in sharp turns (either to outmaneuver enemy fighter or missile), the aircraft looses large amount of kinematic energy. This can be of great advantage to enemy a/c and missiles. However, if a fighter enters an engagement with greater amount of kinematic energy, it will have relatively larger amount of kinematic energy left after a particularly taxing maneuver. This will be of no small advantage to the fighter. And to be able to do this without giving out massive IR signature to missiles and guzzling fuel at huge rates is a serious advantage, would you not agree?

Gaurji - I sense a lot of problems with your explanation and there is a lot to disagree.

Please look at a map of Pakistan and see how far away most significant Pakistani targets are.

How much time will an aircraft need to accelerate to supercruise. Acceleration is purely dependent upon power available. If you need afterburner to accelerate quickly to supercruise levels it is a waste of fuel and you may already be over your nearby Pakistan target if it is not very far away. If it tales a few minutes to reach supercruising altitude without afterburner - you may again reach your Paki target before you reach those speeds. If you are cruising over Pakistan - your aircraft skin will be glowing hot due to the supersonic speed and will stand out like an IR beacon.

If you do a sudden combat turn at Mach 1.3 the G forces are so high that the pilot will lose consciousness if the aircraft wings can take the strain. Do not imagine that agile combat takes place at supersonic speeds.

Please do not allow my arguments to make you feel different from what you do now. I will be opposed to supercruise until anyone comes up with a good reason why it is good for India. None of the reasons you have stated meet that requirements.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 24 Apr 2010 07:44

but with IAF moving to a deep basing strategy to surge strike a/c from, the old days of 2min alert in amritsar or nalia are coming to an end. these are simply too vulnerable to a strong surprise attack or worse a salvo of babur cruise missiles.

and why should we not attack targets in mainland china like chengdu - being too yindu are we today ?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 24 Apr 2010 07:47

If you need afterburner to accelerate quickly to supercruise levels it is a waste of fuel

I do not think we need afterburners to get to supercruise. It would defeat the purpose of supercruise. ????

Supercruise, as much as I can understand it, is a) get there faster using less fuel and b) it has to do more with aerodynamics than anything else. So, WRT b), it just means that as long as we are designing a plane, then why not achieve a) too. ????

shiv,

I THINK supercruise is a tool that one would use no matter what but would save on fuel. The option is between using afterburners + lot-of-gas OR achieve same speed as with afterburners + less-fuel. Both would heat up the skin of the AC, etc, etc, etc.

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 24 Apr 2010 08:18

shiv wrote: How much time will an aircraft need to accelerate to supercruise. Acceleration is purely dependent upon power available. If you need afterburner to accelerate quickly to supercruise levels it is a waste of fuel and you may already be over your nearby Pakistan target if it is not very far away. If it tales a few minutes to reach supercruising altitude without afterburner - you may again reach your Paki target before you reach those speeds. If you are cruising over Pakistan - your aircraft skin will be glowing hot due to the supersonic speed and will stand out like an IR beacon.

Using afterburner to supercruise? Perhaps you mean that the supercruising a/cs would need afterburner to achieve "supersonic" speed and then maintain supersonic speed without afterburner? But AFAIK, all supercruising a/cs "achive" supersonic speeds without using afterburner. Also, I do not think there are official figures available that give out the time needed by various supercruising a/cs to attain supercruise. So any discussion regarding this is just speculation. Also, regarding the skin heating at supersonic speeds to stand out as IR beacon, this is right. However, supercruise would at least reduce the hot jet plumes given off during afterburner. However, I get your point. It would be far better to fly sub sonic and avoid both the heating issues than supercruise and avoid only one.
Also, negating my own view in favour of supercruise, I would like to give a point against it. The time till which an a/c can sustain supercruise is also a mystery. So, this time may be too less to be of any great significance.

shiv wrote:If you do a sudden combat turn at Mach 1.3 the G forces are so high that the pilot will lose consciousness if the aircraft wings can take the strain. Do not imagine that agile combat takes place at supersonic speeds.

I am aware that the dogfights occur at sub supersonic speed (so it was wrong of me to include aircraft engagement as a benefits of supercruise). It would be too dangerous and also too difficult to accurately fly and achive a lock (leave alone mg kill). Also I would not expect a cobra maneuver at supersonic speeds but I did not know that even the turns needed to outmaneuver an enemy missile would be out of 9g limits. Agreed that both scenarios would require sharp turns but I thought that dogfights occur at sub sonic speeds more due to accuracy and handling issues than g loads. So, if the turns needed to outmaneuver a missile are indeed not possible at supersonic speeds, then I agree with you that supercuise would not be of any help here.

shiv wrote: Please do not allow my arguments to make you feel different from what you do now.....

On the contrary, you have converted me from an absolute believer in benefits of supercruising to a person who is now unsure of its benefits.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 24 Apr 2010 08:47

Supercruise - doesn't hurt to have it - but is it truly critical in combat? Doubtful. Most fighter a/c cruise at v.close to Mach any ways so the range issue is not so significant esp. not if you are only going to supercruise close to Mach 1.2 or thereabouts.

Supercruise makes sense for a bird like the F-22 though. And here it achieves supersonic speed without the use of ABs, iirc, the Concorde (and probly all the MRCA contenders which advertise SC) needed to use ABs to get past the sound barrier. THey do however, manage to maintain greater than Mach speeds on mil power.

Coming back to the F-22 - SC makes sense because supposedly it can do this at close to Mach 1.8

IOWs, apart from all the deal about range, it's speed is significantly more than your EF-2000 or Concorde. That speed is ideal for the release of BVR weapons at long range since it improves missile kinematic range considerably. Then again, the Raptor also cruises at altitudes that no other fighter can manage barring perhaps the MiG-31.

IOWs here is an a/c that cruises well above other fighters, is really teeny on the radar, and can suddenly swoop down after being vectored in, shoot and scoot without (possibly) ever being detected or having touched the AB. That is cool and also simply out of range for anything operational out there. Of course it also means that in case the Raptor does get bogged down in a turn/burn type situation, it has oodles of fuel to use ABs or just disengage.

However, for MRCA type birds is super cruise all that advantageous? - I think not cause none of them can do it at worthwhile speeds with worthwhile loads. JMVVHO of course.

CM.