Cross posting from the MRCA thread - because I receive my copy of Vayu two weeks after Philip.
Philip wrote:Guys,get hold of the latest VAYU and read the fine article calling for simpler fighters,which has a mine of info of all types,east and west used in all the major conflicts .Some points in it have been reflected in BR and in this thread in particular.The overburdening of tech in a "multi-role" aircraft,making it a "jack-of-all-trades and master of none".The speed at which most combat occurs,the myth of BVR missiles,need for cannon/guns,quantity/numbers having its own value,twin-engined advantage during peacetime (5 times survival rate) as against single-engined aircraft,crash stats during peacetime,war losses,myth of stealth,longevity,costs,etc.,etc.There is also some info about the Jaguar upgrade and our history with the Gnat,HF-24,MIG-21s,what succeeded and what didn't.
I second Philip's view on this "must read" article by a Prof Prodyut Das. Reading it I was reminded of watching a soccer match where a goalie picks up a ball and delivers an almighty kick that lands the ball close to the "D" of the other goal. Did Shaheed Nayakudddddin scan this?
He picks up every single "must have" feature of "5th generation aircraft" and shows why those features tend to end up being expensive millstones around an air force's neck rather than an advantage.
1) Stealth: Since aircraft have to have everything internally it vastly increases their size like a woman with twins in her belly. Small size is also a stealth feature and the measures needed to make an elephant stealthy are far more difficult and expensive than making a cat stealthy.
2) Supercruise: Even the HF 24 could reach 1.04 Mach in level flight without afterburner. The downside for all supercruise is fuel consumption. And in supersonic flight the surfaces of the aircraft reach temperatures in excess of 90 deg C making it stand out like a beacon in the surrounding cold air. Stealth and supercruise are incompatible.
3) BVR missiles: BVR missiles work at 60 km only if the plane that needs to get shot down cooperates by coming straight at the launch aircraft maintaining course and speed while the missile homes in. If the target is uncooperative the BVR's effective range drops to 20 km
4) High AoA: The "high angle of attack" requirement came from the Vietnam war in which F-4 Phantoms in tight turns during combat would stall and spin at an AoA greater than 11 degrees. So the AoA requirement has now gone up to 28 degrees which is too much according to the author.
5) Composites: Composites are an unknown and untested material and their behavior after 30 years is unknown. Designers tend to overcompensate for this in terms of strength leading to loss of any weight advantage.
6) Thrust vectoring: TV works well for huge Su 30 aircraft at low speed. An LCA would be unflyable
7) Fly by Wire: Ironically the "Tailless delta" design of the LCA is most dependent on FBW to make it flyable
The author points out that numbers is the most important thing. If you combine the entire history of air combat and peacetime flying most aircraft are lost in peacetime accidents so larger numbers and twin engines are the best bet. It is far better to have great transonic acceleration than supercruise. 16 Concordes have put in more supersonic flight hours than tens of thousands of supresonic fighters.
A small fighter with some situational awareness and large numbers is better than huge, expensive figthers. For years the US used the F-5 as "a MiG 21 type aggressor" aircraft versus the F-15
The theory was that the aggressor would be shot down so long before he got anywhere near that the odds in favor of the F-15 would be about 800:1. In reality the odds came down to 1:1.4 or so in a situation of 4 F-15s versus 4 F-5s. (No wonder the MiG 21 bis gave the F-15s a scare)
The conclusion is that large numbers of small, less sophisticated fighters with twin engines are a far better bet than huge supercruising stealthy aircraft.
be serious my friend
