LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

ks_sachin · Post by **ks_sachin** » 18 Dec 2017 10:23

shiv wrote:
ks_sachin wrote: What range are we envisaging the Jags bombing in a deep strike mission? The range is the only thing that strikes me as being a real advantage ATM.
Jags were selected to cover all of Pakistan in an era when we were not looking at China at all. We will need a completely new platform - heavier than Tejas. Rafale fits the bill. Su-30 works - but it is more of an air dominance platform. That said we made our "interceptor" MiG 21s into effective ground attack platforms - so why not Su 30?

But when we talk of China we cannot simply look at platforms first. We need to look at what are the types of targets and where they are and what we need to achieve i a conflict. .

The nearest eastern China cities are 2000 plus km away. It is unlikely that we will be hitting China cities in a war. During the Doklam crisis it was argued that since Indian cities are within range of Chinese aircraft, India should aim to put their cities within range of our aircraft. As a rhetorical argument this is good.

But when you look at practice you find that Chinese aircraft that refuels over Tibet that can fly 500 km into India puts a lot of Indian cities within their range. But for an Indian aircraft to do that we not only need planes with over 2000 km radius (radius, not range) - those 2000 will be flown over Chinese controlled territory.

So if we are planning to simply drop 6x 500 kg bombs then it is not worth it.

In a war with China, it is my opinion that we will simply have to crush Chinese warfighting ability in Tibet. For that purpose we need lots of aircraft with 500 km radius of action and some planes with 1000 km radius to reach places like Golmud where the Lhasa railway line starts. So I see a good role for Tejas over Tibet. No one seems to talk about it much (other than Indranil) but I think Tejas will have excellent high altitude performance. It will be able to dance in the sky at 15,000 to 18,000 feet better than most aircraft and will be small and stealthy and difficult to detect in mountain clutter.

Shiv saar,

Do we still Jags for that role is the question - thinking only of Pakistan. China and your argument is a no brainer...

Kersi · Post by **Kersi** » 18 Dec 2017 18:25

shiv wrote:
ks_sachin wrote: Question to all - based on the above how does the LCA compare with the Jaguar in the ground attack role?
Jag advantages:
1. Longer range
2. heavier load
3. safety of twin engine

Tejas advantages:
1. Better high altitude performance
2. Ability to take off and operate from airfields where Jaguar cannot take off
3. Potential to integrate new smart munitions

More agile ? Faster ?? Multi-role ????

srai · Post by **srai** » 18 Dec 2017 20:20

^^^
Payload is the same -> 4000kg

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 18 Dec 2017 20:39

srai wrote:^^^
Payload is the same -> 4000kg

Please produce data

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 18 Dec 2017 20:42

Kersi wrote: More agile ? Faster ?? Multi-role ????

Kersi - agility is not going to be great for any fully loaded plane.

I think that for its role - i.e low level penetration - nap of earth under the radar - the Jaguar performs well with low gust response - ie it is not shaking and juddering from air currents close to the earth. I don't know about the equivalent performance of the Tejas.

Yes Tejas is multirole - but the question from sachin was a comparison of the ground attack performance

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 18 Dec 2017 22:14

Philip wrote:Rakesh, is that what was earlier described as an "engineering nightmare"? At what point does concurrent engr. end and a full fledged bird arrive with its manuals just like a motorcar?

For a military weapons system it never ends. The design gets tweaked for eternal produciblity changes.

When black boxes get changed or major structural mods happen then its a different

Having said that a final production baseline version will be released. I guess this is the SOP version that HAL keeps talking about.

My point is even after that there will be changes to accommodate minor tweaks which make it easier to mfg.

For instance there could be bend radii or fillet radii to allow more efficient fastener installation. This gets discovered only in production is started. As previous ones are more like custom built.

Trikaal · Post by **Trikaal** » 18 Dec 2017 22:14

According to wikipedia,
Jag payload- 4.7 tonne
LCA payload- 4 tonne

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 18 Dec 2017 22:35

Jag:
Dry thrust: 22.75x2 = 45.5 kN
Thrust with afterburner: 65 kN
Wing Area: = 24.18 m sq

LCA Tejas
Dry thrust: 54 kN
Thrust with afterburner: 89 kN
Wing Area: = 34 m sq

The Jag may have more payload on paper, but in real life in Indian hot-high conditions, LCA will lift more and go farther. It will also be much more survivable as a strike platform than the Jag with better missiles and radar. The only area Jag may have an advantage is high speed lower level flight.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 18 Dec 2017 23:52

I want Abhibhushan saar to weigh in on the Jaguar.

I think its real performance is not so hot.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 19 Dec 2017 00:14

Thus the reason for the Honeywell F125 engine, which the MoD has yet to sign the contract. So frustrating!

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 19 Dec 2017 00:24

Rakesh wrote:Thus the reason for the Honeywell F125 engine, which the MoD has yet to sign the contract. So frustrating!

MoD has tied up in own ropes after Bofors and numerous scams of single vendor situation.
Govt has to take a stand and buy the engines if they want an air force strike capability or stick with anemic RR engines.

In fact RR played the spoilers when they withdrew knowing the single vendor rule fiasco in MoD.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 19 Dec 2017 01:03

1. Jags can be loaded to the gills with payload. But that is on a favorable day at the plains. Ask a Jag to take off with near 3 tons of payload in summer at Leh and then have some fun.
2. Jags definitely have further reach than the LCA. That is great for the western border. For the majority of the Eastern border, it has to take off from further inland cutting down on its reach.
3. All that aside, I love the Jags.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 19 Dec 2017 01:23

I just love the fact that an aircraft meant to replace the Mig-21 is being compared with everything from Mig-27s and Mirage 2000s to Jaguars now all the while having on-par or better BVR air-to-air capability (and better HMCS for close combat) than the Mig-29 which was our premier air-superiority fighter for a long time. Just goes to show how versatile the platform is even before the much awaited FOC.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 19 Dec 2017 01:36

Hakeem,

LCA has already demonstrated near 4000 kgs. I think it can go further.

config 1) 2 X R73 (105 kg) + 2X 500 kg LGB + 2X 1200 ltr (972 kgs) + 1X 725 ltr (587 kg) + 1 X LDP (208 kg) = 3949 kgs. And If you add the weight of the fuel tanks it will be near 4250 kgs.

config 2) 2 X R73 (105 kg) + 2X 800 ltr (648 kgs) + 2 X 2 X 450 kg bombs (in tandem) + 1X 725 ltr (587 kg) + 1 X LDP (208 kg) = 4101 kgs. And If you add the weight of the fuel tanks it will be near 4300 kgs.

Additionally on Mk1A, they might be able to carry 1 more R73 and one SPJ pod extra. They are also considering a larger centerline tank.

Why does anybody doubt that LCA with the same power as the Gripen C/D and lower wing loading can lift any less?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 19 Dec 2017 02:35

Indranil, I think the Jaguar can carry 4000kg (~10,000 lbs) of ordnance and not all the pods etc.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 19 Dec 2017 02:48

The Jaguar has 5 hardpoints (not counting the overwing ones). Does it have a separate one for the LDP like the LCA? Despite having a higher payload the lower number of hardpoints will impact flexibility in carrying various types of ordnance.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 19 Dec 2017 03:06

LCA allows much more flexibility than the Jags. Jags were not designed for multi-role swing-role capabilities of LCA. It was designed for one role and one role only. And it can do that satisfactorily. But in 2020s, it is in desperate need of more power.

That F125IN upgrade is a no brainer. I have no idea why something so low lying and performance enhancing is not prioritized instead of motley of projects that we are undertaking.

Akshay Kapoor · Post by **Akshay Kapoor** » 19 Dec 2017 04:00

Jaguar re engineing has been a top priority of IAF for a decade and its been close to resolution many times right from ACM NAK Browne's times. I have heard it from a very senior source that atleast twice they thought it was sorted out but unfortunately our byzantian rules played snakes and ladder again. The problem is single vendor situation. And Procurement rules cannot be changed without CCS approval. And who will bell the cat and initiate the process for change ? It took us what 3 years to even formulate a DPP and that is after impetus from Parikkar and Modi.

The problem in the words of a moderately close relative who served in MoD some time ago 'our system assumes that no one's integrity can be trusted, therefore rules are made to cover every situation and get so complex that the snake ends up eating its own tail. But when someone wants to do fraud they do manage to find a way'. This guy is a fairly intelligent and reasonably clean IAS officer. One of the better ones.

PM is the only authority that can over rule and take decision but I am not aware how he is viewing this case.

Akshay Kapoor · Post by **Akshay Kapoor** » 19 Dec 2017 04:13

My two bits about LCA payload etc. Its a small aircraft meant for a specific role which it is to doing quite well. So let it do its job and lets consolidate that role and do it properly. Ladening it with 4 tonnes will serve no purpose - it wont be able to fly too far to deliver to deliver the ordinance in a deep strike mission. I think a 2 tonne payload is max I would ever use it with. As I have shown more than once before we have several airfields close to the western border from where it can stage and fulfill a very useful role in both air defence, local air dominance and tactical strikes of key targets like Rahim Yar Khan rail head, north south road link, Corps and Dvi concentration and logistics points etc upto 100 km in depth. These are all very important roles. We don't need it to do more than that. Jags and Su 30s are available for a deep strike role of strategic targets.

Plus the flexibility of taking off from Leh needs to be exploited intelligently. And I know for a fact that this is how IAF is thinking.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 19 Dec 2017 04:43

Akshay Kapoor wrote:My two bits about LCA payload etc. Its a small aircraft meant for a specific role which it is to doing quite well. So let it do its job and lets consolidate that role and do it properly. Ladening it with 4 tonnes will serve no purpose - it wont be able to fly too far to deliver to deliver the ordinance in a deep strike mission. I think a 2 tonne payload is max I would ever use it with. As I have shown more than once before we have several airfields close to the western border from where it can stage and fulfill a very useful role in both air defence, local air dominance and tactical strikes of key targets like Rahim Yar Khan rail head, north south road link, Corps and Dvi concentration and logistics points etc upto 100 km in depth. These are all very important roles. We don't need it to do more than that. Jags and Su 30s are available for a deep strike role of strategic targets.

Plus the flexibility of taking off from Leh needs to be exploited intelligently. And I know for a fact that this is how IAF is thinking.

Kapoor saab, what you said about LCA being a small aircraft meant for a specific role was even more true for the Mig-21 when it was originally acquired. It was meant for air defence and short range escort duties. The IAF used them to perform steep glide bombing attacks on Tezgaon and Kurmitola with devastating effect.

The Mirage-2000 was acquired as an air-superiority fighter to counter the PAF's F-16s. It saved our bacon in Kargil by performing a very different role for which we seemingly had other aircraft available but they were found to be inadequate.

So chances are, if the Tejas can lift 4000kgs of payload, the IAF will probably end up using that capability in the next war.

Khalsa · Post by **Khalsa** » 19 Dec 2017 05:00

While I laud the IAF effort to change aircraft from their original role at the time of purchase to a different.
I think including the aircraft's ability to change as a requirement (even as a thought process) prevents it from taking off in mass numbers.

Tejas will free up the upper pylons of the Jags (of AAMs) to carry more load or allow them to be escorted by the Sukhois and Mig-29s because they were freed up from Defence or Air Superiority duties. Thats where I see it making the effect.

Tejas will breed a new generation of air warriors who will believe in the our product as well.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 19 Dec 2017 05:09

Khalsa wrote:While I laud the IAF effort to change aircraft from their original role at the time of purchase to a different.
I think including the aircraft's ability to change as a requirement (even as a thought process) prevents it from taking off in mass numbers.

The capability being talked about is what exists as of now. How is this thought process preventing its induction in mass numbers? We often lament here that the Tejas isn't marketed anywhere as well as for example how Saab markets the Gripen. No good can come of hiding the true capabilities of the aircraft.

Tejas will free up the upper pylons of the Jags (of AAMs) to carry more load or allow them to be escorted by the Sukhois and Mig-29s because they were freed up from Defence or Air Superiority duties. Thats where I see it making the effect.
Tejas will breed a new generation of air warriors who will believe in the our product as well.

This reminds me that the Mig-29 itself was derided for its low endurance and range. This did not prevent it from having a long service life in the IAF as our frontline air defence fighter. I would be most interested in comparing the range and endurance of the LCA with the Mig-29, both upgraded and non-upgraded.

ks_sachin · Post by **ks_sachin** » 19 Dec 2017 05:14

shiv wrote:
Kersi wrote: More agile ? Faster ?? Multi-role ????
Kersi - agility is not going to be great for any fully loaded plane.

I think that for its role - i.e low level penetration - nap of earth under the radar - the Jaguar performs well with low gust response - ie it is not shaking and juddering from air currents close to the earth. I don't know about the equivalent performance of the Tejas.

Yes Tejas is multirole - but the question from sachin was a comparison of the ground attack performance

Thanks Shiv saar.

I understand well the merits of the Jag and its DSP role. The question I asked was more to elicit reponses on the the ground attack perfomance and low level flight. We keep talking about the LCA and Mig 21 but a Jag replacement was something I wanted to explore.

Hypothetically if the low level flight / ground attack performance was good could it be possible that as older Jags reach their shelf life the IAF decided that the LCA could do that role?

Also point to be noted is that todays tactical environment may be different to what it was when the Jags were inducted.

ArjunPandit · Post by **ArjunPandit** » 19 Dec 2017 05:28

Khalsa wrote:Tejas will breed a new generation of air warriors who will believe in the our product as well.

These air warriors will also realize how easy it will be to customize the plane for their specific needs, If Tejas has can serve IAF in many ways then other way round is very true too. This is where the IAF can spawn a range of proverbial "horses for courses" from the same platform. This breed is more keen on plane/capabilities rather than anything else, this breed will actually lead to a true MIC in India.
If a SEF deal is not closed within next 1 year then the case for it will become weaker and weaker and only TEF/Raffle will be bought

mod note - edited to remove uncalled for words

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 19 Dec 2017 05:32

Akshay sir, this exactly how the designers designed the aircraft: a truly swing role light aircraft with roughly 2 Ton of payload plus up to 2 Tons of external fuel. Unfortunately to many this is not enough. According to them, LCA Mk1 is underpowered, while the Gripen C/D with higher empty mass and 5% less thrust is not. The Gripen E with 16% more thrust and 23% more mass is not!

I am sure these people can do basic math and understand the physics. And yet! That's what frustrates me most. I would actually like to critically discuss the plane and the program. But, I don't even get a chance, given the abysmal and willful mudslinging outside.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 19 Dec 2017 06:02

Indranil, You should tell them how to rate an aircraft.
Take off weight by thrust to give power ratio etc....

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 19 Dec 2017 06:15

And with that, you have shut me up.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 19 Dec 2017 08:36

ks_sachin wrote:[

I understand well the merits of the Jag and its DSP role. The question I asked was more to elicit reponses on the the ground attack perfomance and low level flight. We keep talking about the LCA and Mig 21 but a Jag replacement was something I wanted to explore.

Hypothetically if the low level flight / ground attack performance was good could it be possible that as older Jags reach their shelf life the IAF decided that the LCA could do that role?

Also point to be noted is that todays tactical environment may be different to what it was when the Jags were inducted.

Sachin my views about Tejas vs Jaguar in the attack role are moulded by ideas in my mind that come from different sources.

Some of what I say may be disputed/supported by people such as Indranil who have more insight into aerodynamics than I do but I will say it nevertheless - it gives me a chance to correct my own views.

Both Jaguar and the HF -24 were praised as platforms that remain stable in very low level flight. "Stability in low level flight" is a big thing because even if great avionics enable one to aim at a target, munition release gets affected by bumping and buffeting of an aircraft in very low level flight. There are currents and updrafts very close to the ground and if a plane is less responsive to that - then it remains more steady as a weapon delivery platform.

Now the following is where I would like to know real data from the Tejas because the paragraph below is my own extrapolation.

I think the LCA has been designed as an agile aircraft with low wing loading. I believe that a delta like the Tejas with a large wing area acts like a kite that catches the wind at low levels. Planes with low wing loading inevitably try to gain altitude if flown very fast at low levels. The only way to fly them very low is to go slower or fix the controls to keep it low. If forced to fly low the LCA will likely be a gas guzzler and may not be able to fly as fast as the Jag.

There was an anecdote about the HF 24 which I will link again later. When flying at very low levels in the desert the underpowered HF 24 would leave the MiG 21 behind. I will post that link. But LCA is not MiG 21 and Jaguar is not HF 24. But I think similar principles may be applicable.

So, without data about the Tejas's performance in duplicating the Jag's specific strengths - I can't really guess how well it might perform.

But in medium to high altitude delivery of standoff weapons - the Tejas may far exceed the Jaguar in capability. IOW two airctaft with different strengths and capabilities by design

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 19 Dec 2017 11:28

Hakeem,

What you say is right. Near the ground the Jaguar is incredibly difficult to take out even in air-2-air.

But that bumpy part is about olden planes. Modern fighter aircrafts are artificially stabled. For example LCA cannot afford the bumps to change its attitude. It's mean time to double amplitude is 0.2 seconds. Also having a flexible composite frame also works a bit like a shock absorber.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 19 Dec 2017 11:52

IR,

Please explain more. what does your above statement mean? cannot afford bumps to change it attitude??

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 19 Dec 2017 12:59

In a statically unstable aircraft, the amplitude of oscillation will continue to increase if left unchecked. In the LCA, it will grow by 32 times in a second. So, the sensors and flight computer sample the flight parameters at 80 hz and correct the deviation almost instantly.

Akshay Kapoor · Post by **Akshay Kapoor** » 19 Dec 2017 13:16

Indranil wrote:Akshay sir, this exactly how the designers designed the aircraft: a truly swing role light aircraft with roughly 2 Ton of payload plus up to 2 Tons of external fuel. Unfortunately to many this is not enough. According to them, LCA Mk1 is underpowered, while the Gripen C/D with higher empty mass and 5% less thrust is not. The Gripen E with 16% more thrust and 23% more mass is not!

I am sure these people can do basic math and understand the physics. And yet! That's what frustrates me most. I would actually like to critically discuss the plane and the program. But, I don't even get a chance, given the abysmal and willful mudslinging outside.

Yes, internet perpetuates many stupidities and idiocies and drowns out sense. Media is also very stupid. Vivek Ahuja's blog is my reference for Tejas loads, capabilities and ranges. Its clear that 2 tonne is max load for a sensible range. I also want to have a sensible discussion, learn and citique any issues that seem worthy of critique. But for that one needs to drop ego and become like a true sishya, read up, think things through and visualise. People prefer lazy comments. Some unsolicited advice if I may - Don't respond to media stories and don't allow the worst offenders to be posted. On the thread be harsh with stupidity and lack of knowledge. Don;t waste energy correcting stupidity 100 times. Enough has been said. Wield the sword of dharma. Delete messages that are idiotic and ban nonsense. By not doing that we end up penalising sensible discussion and those who want to learn. Lastly do not tolerate any stupid comments against armed forces and do not encourage them yourself. There are a couple of moderators who are guilty of serious prejudice against armed forces. If you do these things (and I am happy to help) this thread (and slowly a lot of BR) will transform into a genuine repository of good posts and a safe and happy place for high quality discussion.

Akshay Kapoor · Post by **Akshay Kapoor** » 19 Dec 2017 13:23

Shivji, Ks Sachin, thanks for the dialogue on air support and Jag characteristics. I found it illuminating. Will read again when I have time to digest properly.

srai · Post by **srai** » 19 Dec 2017 14:00

Indranil wrote:Akshay sir, this exactly how the designers designed the aircraft: a truly swing role light aircraft with roughly 2 Ton of payload plus up to 2 Tons of external fuel. Unfortunately to many this is not enough. According to them, LCA Mk1 is underpowered, while the Gripen C/D with higher empty mass and 5% less thrust is not. The Gripen E with 16% more thrust and 23% more mass is not!

I am sure these people can do basic math and understand the physics. And yet! That's what frustrates me most. I would actually like to critically discuss the plane and the program. But, I don't even get a chance, given the abysmal and willful mudslinging outside.

Brochuritist should be tackled with brochure values only

Everyone markets their best values (even if not practical for most scenarios). LCA marketing needs to do the same. Practical values don't get the "oohs"/"wow"/"awesome" reactions and hence don't sell the product.

manjgu · Post by **manjgu** » 19 Dec 2017 14:44

I have a house in punjab..Jags regularly overfly my house...if one is on the first floor, you can almost see the helmets...the planes almost come noiseless and then there is a big boom and in a sec they are gone.. truly scary and amazing. i dont know how long does it take to aim a stinger type weapon but they are gone in a flash...

srai · Post by **srai** » 19 Dec 2017 15:07

manjgu wrote:I have a house in punjab..Jags regularly overfly my house...if one is on the first floor, you can almost see the helmets...the planes almost come noiseless and then there is a big boom and in a sec they are gone.. truly scary and amazing. i dont know how long does it take to aim a stinger type weapon but they are gone in a flash...

MANPADS work with early warning radars typically. That gives them time to setup and orient towards the incoming/outgoing target.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 19 Dec 2017 15:19

srai wrote:
manjgu wrote:I have a house in punjab..Jags regularly overfly my house...if one is on the first floor, you can almost see the helmets...the planes almost come noiseless and then there is a big boom and in a sec they are gone.. truly scary and amazing. i dont know how long does it take to aim a stinger type weapon but they are gone in a flash...
MANPADS work with early warning radars typically. That gives them time to setup and orient towards the incoming/outgoing target.

The idea of flying so low is to avoid those early warning radars. And at 900 kmph no one hears the plane till it is almost overhead and it has passed before one can aim a camera - let alone a manpad.

Akshay Kapoor · Post by **Akshay Kapoor** » 19 Dec 2017 15:50

shiv wrote:
srai wrote: And at 900 kmph no one hears the plane till it is almost overhead and it has passed before one can aim a camera - let alone a manpad.

No doubt you have tried sir - aiming a camera I mean.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 19 Dec 2017 16:37

Some general comments.

shiv wrote: Both Jaguar and the HF -24 were praised as platforms that remain stable in very low level flight. "Stability in low level flight" is a big thing because even if great avionics enable one to aim at a target, munition release gets affected by bumping and buffeting of an aircraft in very low level flight. There are currents and updrafts very close to the ground and if a plane is less responsive to that - then it remains more steady as a weapon delivery platform.

Gust response is quite critical while flying low. And due to low wing-loading, LCA might be at a little disadvantage vis-à-vis Jaguar but lets not forget about the FCS that LCA has. Its quite capable of keeping it steady (IR has already mentioned about time to double amplitude and so on). Arguably LCA should be much easier and less tiring for pilots to keep steady than jaguar due to its state-of-the-art FCS.

shiv wrote: I think the LCA has been designed as an agile aircraft with low wing loading. I believe that a delta like the Tejas with a large wing area acts like a kite that catches the wind at low levels. Planes with low wing loading inevitably try to gain altitude if flown very fast at low levels. The only way to fly them very low is to go slower or fix the controls to keep it low. If forced to fly low the LCA will likely be a gas guzzler and may not be able to fly as fast as the Jag.

Bolded part doesn't make sense to me. One can always fly an aircraft at such combination of speed and AoA that it will maintain steady constant altitude, constant Mach flight, at low altitudes we are talking about here. If you wanna fly faster, reduce AoA. If you want to go slower, increase AoA and still produce same lift, enough to just balance the weight.

shiv wrote: There was an anecdote about the HF 24 which I will link again later. When flying at very low levels in the desert the underpowered HF 24 would leave the MiG 21 behind. I will post that link. But LCA is not MiG 21 and Jaguar is not HF 24. But I think similar principles may be applicable.

Just thinking aloud - From wiki, HF-24's dry thrust is 2x21.6kN while for MiG21 its 40.2kN. Considering that MiG21 has almost 17% less wing area, for same flying weight, HF-24 would have 15-20% lower wing loading (both have similar empty weight). I suppose in the scenario you mentioned, HF24 are loaded with A2G mission while MiG21 were escorting. So even if we consider that total flying weight of HF24 was ~15-20% higher than the MiG21 accompanying it, HF24 would still have lower or comparable wing-loading. Lower wing-loading better is cruise performance. So unless MiG21 go on A/B, obviously it will find it difficult to keep up with HF24, given larger drag for it while same/slightly lower dry thrust. Add to that the fact that MiG 21 is a small delta wing aircraft optimized for high speed dash at high altitude flight and is sub-optimal at low altitudes and subsonic speeds.

If similar comparison is done for Jag vs LCA, LCA has dual advantage, lower wing loading and slightly higher dry thrust. I am only talking about speed and drag at low altitude for similar flying weight. While it has one disadvantage that its delta wing vs rectangular wing of Jag.

shiv wrote: So, without data about the Tejas's performance in duplicating the Jag's specific strengths - I can't really guess how well it might perform.

But in medium to high altitude delivery of standoff weapons - the Tejas may far exceed the Jaguar in capability. IOW two airctaft with different strengths and capabilities by design

The question is not whether LCA is better than/equivalent to Jag. IMO the right question to ask is - Can LCA fulfill what IAF would like from it in the low altitude missions. Unless IAF does some comparative flight testing of LCA and Jags for same mission profile, its difficult for anyone to say anything conclusively.

Kersi · Post by **Kersi** » 19 Dec 2017 17:23

shiv wrote:
srai wrote: MANPADS work with early warning radars typically. That gives them time to setup and orient towards the incoming/outgoing target.
The idea of flying so low is to avoid those early warning radars. And at 900 kmph no one hears the plane till it is almost overhead and it has passed before one can aim a camera - let alone a manpad.

Dr Shiv. Where did you get the MANPADS ? Can I too get a few ?