My argument was mirage 2000 and tejas are almost completely identical and this was further reinforced by the fact that Dassault was the consultant.
:
Your argument has little or no basis. Just because the Tejas and mirage 2000 lack canards. Great.
But the reality isn't what YOU make of it.
The research and development of the Tejas is a mixture of the technologies available since the late 80's. The Tejas unlike the mirage 2000 is highly unstable unlike the mirage 2000, which is why it has reduced top speeds.
1) Claiming it as indigenous.
2) Claiming it as bleeding edge.
3) Claiming it as being comparable to Gripen and F-16XL. See quote below of you claiming it with same performance as Gripen.
4) Claiming that an Indian was the 'DESIGNER' of F-16XL.
I have something to gain when I dissect your argument and find the flaws, but you did not gain anything if you had not seen the reality of the LCA. If all Indians think like you, the trend will continue where more and more things are imported and no indigenous capabilities are developed. Indians will forever be oblivious to the fact that they actually do not possess any real indigenous capability and keep on living in denial. If your own ACM can call it Mig-21+ and yet you keep on trumpeting it as 4.5 gen. I have nothing to say but to congratulate Indians.
and indian was part of the development of the f-16xl. you want to spin my words around than your an ignorant idoit.
I didn't cliam anything like a 4.5 gen aircraft. you brought it up.
You chinese like to cliam everything is china is super power, if it was the Pakistani's wouldn't have modified the jf-17 and the Type 90. THey are not buying chinese things as is. Because we all know the truth.
And may I ask how did you know all these? OO, tphuang told you that and he ‘speculated’ it? So this is your source, an online dude with a nickname called tphuang. Hey, my real name is Vivek and I have a relative’s relative who works in DRDO and he told me LCA is bleeding edge.
tphuang is chinese who acted just like because he has no real evidence of anything. so he kept repeating that the j-10 is 4.5 generation with a payload of 6 tons. all off baseless speculating just like you.
I know what is HMDS. You were the one thinking LCA was cool with it, but I was telling you the point is you have to make them. And J-10 has got HMDS too. WE MAKE THEM!!!! Only ELBIT makes them? You need to learn more and know more. No point having it on LCA and not making them…comprehendo?
Helmet mounted display sight (HMDS) differs from HMS which is just a targeting input device on use first on the mig29 usually heat guided.
HMDS is whats used on the jsf project and replaces the convientional HUD. The tejas uses the same but keeps the HUD as well.
If china produces HMDS great, but i highly doubt it does.
You claim LCA had nearly the same capability as Gripen and then you claim LCA has got oxy gen but not Gripen. If this is not boasting, what else can I say. And then I prove to you Gripen has got oxy gen and then you come back to me and tell me about OBOGS and GRIPEN A.
Yes, as i said. THe gripen A does not have onboard oxgyen generator, the C varients will recieve it.
Call it boasting. But what your doing for your self is exactly that.
1) Gripen A has yet to receive OBOGS?
2) Gripen has yet to receive OBOGS.
Either way, Gripen A was upgraded to to C/D standards, so all Gripens now have OBOGS. How can you say Gripen has ‘YET’ to receive OBOGS. And at which phase did LCA get OBOGS? I could say the initial test LCA had no radars and has yet to receive radars in the same manner. The point is you are comparing an aircraft in production blocks to an aircraft which has not even been inducted. If this is not living in Bollywood land. Who else is?
You know i just fixed 2 mistakes of yours and probabily more.
This tells me that you don't do your research. YOu rant.
If you didn't know that the gripen does not have OBAGs thats your problem. Im not going to clarify for an idoit who twists my words.
And Tejas is inducted. Like the Rafale, who recently just recieved full operation clearence the Tejas is on its way. Theres a difference of induction and actually being operational. But in the mean time one can compare, because as it stands, I pointed out a difference.
So prove to me that the J-10 has HMDS? otherwise your not informed and your just an idoit.
1) LCA was based on Mirage 2000 design with Dassault involvement.
2) LCA performance does not equate Mirage 2000. Could be worse?
3) Why was there an evolution away from delta? Any other new modern Gen 4 or 5 planes with delta?
4) There is no clear definition that qualifies LCA as a ‘cranked delta’.
1. no , no no...the tejas was based off the earlier project 1.4 (if that is the correct project designation) which is very similar to the Gripen. The UK was in the initial concept of the project but bailed when the needs where for a heavier aircraft and the Typhoon emerged. That earlier project with canards went fundemental wing changes. The aircraft was given a larger compound delta wing with a slight crank to it. Evolved to what is no the Tejas. Your entire point isn't to discredit ADA but to make the LCA sound obsolete. That is your true intention. With out actually understanding it.
The mirage 2000 design was not used. Had it been used, the Tejas would have wings placed lower to the body instead of what you see now, where the wings are mounted to above the instakes. The readers can not that the Mirage 2k has its wings below the intakes.
2) because you said so? given your limited knowledge, i think id trust the pilots of the Tejas who said the handling capabilities of the tejas are superior to the mirage.
because you said so the j-10 is super advanced even though you know less about the aircraf than myself.
3) there was no evolution away from delta.
You see deltas in the raptor with tails, in the typhoon with a revolutionary canard. Delta is a type of of wing. Weather it has tails or canards does not matter because the wing is very common.
4) you got that right. Thats what was said by LCA project member who happened to say it.
Aside from all this , your a troll.
Here are some facts.
wing loading and thrust per aircraft as per wiki, and sinodefence as well as avaition monthly
j-10 =335 kg/m^2 thats awfully not that great
thrust to weight=0.98
maximum speed= mach 2
usefull load = 4.5 tons down from a PLA fan boy speculated 6 tons. lol
mirage 2000 = 337 thats awfully not that great
thrust to weight = .91
f-16 =431
thrust to weight =1.095
max speed = mach 2
gripen D <--- just so you know cause your a ignorant
wing loading =283
thrust to weight 0.97
max speed mach 2
rafale wing loading 306
thrust to weight 1.1
max speed mach 2
Tejas
wing loading 221.4
thrust to weight 0.91
max speed mach 1.6
now you might wanna note that the goal has been to have a low wing loading.
The tejas has achieved it. But the other guys wanted extra agility, expecially the typhoon, which had to reduce the wing area for the special canards.
Having no room for large canards like the typhoon and rafale means the tejas isn't as agile in the air but doesn't mean its less than a mirage or a jf17
The Gripen and Tejas are the 2 aircraft to note.
Both have nearly the same dimensions.
Considering weight, wing area and engine.
But ones max speed is mach 2 while the other a modest 1.6.
One might assume its because the tejas design is so flawed that it created drag. but that is actually the case. Its no a flaw but a design. "Staticaly" Unstable. While the gripen is is unstable because of its large canards, the tejas wings are unstable all the time. Which means it create large amounts of lift all the time and needs the fbw to fly.
Even to myself this logic is sound but its hell of a lot better than yours.
That’s the point isn’t it? Smaller aircraft has got smaller RCS. So, why are blurting so much about it as a LCA advantage. L-15 is a small trainer and has got smaller RCS. What difference does it make?
You mean the radar can’t detect LCA? What advantage does it imbue? If it is out of your knowledge, then don’t blurt it out. Don’t talk just for the sake of talking.
If both a Mig-29 and LCA were flying, most radars would pick up both aircrafts. Comprehendo? So do you still want to point out RCS reduction as a super duper LCA design characteristic?
Comprehendo you super genuis because RCS is not relevant expecially the type on the j-20 which is super stealth like the f-22. and rafale was designed with no RCS in mind! right! comprendo!
Let me correct my statement, you didn’t even have the ability to design the controls for a delta aircraft. FBW is from Lockheed, composites from the Swedes, glass, no idea. I think most aircraft used glass as cockpit material right? Or you can show me an example of plastic cockpit. You ‘conceived’ LCA back before Rafale was having the first flight. You think the French would offer you state of the art technology? Don’t be so naïve.
fbw is indian in ADA. unlike your fc-1 which is c+
compisotes built in India with Italian machinary.
thats why the French want to sell ToT and so do the Europeans with their Typhoons and Rafales right?
India is not in the same position as China.
Indians are the only ones claiming it has got the same Multi-role function as Gripen. But again, compare the weapons load and performance, can it ‘ACHIEVE’ that claim? Features, hey J-10 supposedly has got the same features as SU-30MKI too, are they the same? And best of all most stuff is made in China.
really
Besides HDMS the j-10 has a 8 ton payload and high endurance? hmmmm i believe you cause China superpower!
My original point was to dismiss your claim that LCA is having advantage by being lighter. Smaller, more agile, less RCS. If this was the case, L-15 is smaller, more agile and also less RCS. And your previous statement of making comparison with J-10, Mig-29 and Gripen wing loading. When you yourself admit the performance of Gripen compared to LCA cannot be verified. How does your supposedly advantages be relevant. You are comparing poodle to a bulldog.
yes. Lighter is better.
Thats why you are charged for your extra luggage on flights. Having more thrust to weight is better too.
HMDS for all, put it on your fc-1 for pakistan!
for all
Haha, so now you claim it lacks critical components to be operational. So how can you verify it can do it’s task when you don’t even have the critical components. Am I wrong in claiming it to be a half baked foreign designed and made plane? What is indigenous? So in essence, because LCA is not achieving it’s supposedly design role, it is now no more advanced than a Mig-21 Bison? I didn’t say it, you just did. LOL. OMG!! This is funny.
Let me summarize my claims:
1) You have not proven to me LCA is indigenous.
2) You just admit it is half baked.
theres a differnce between induction and operational.
like i said. just recently the rafale has just opened up all its flight envolopes.
1) The aircraft is foreign
2) The design is outdated.
the j-10 is forign. and out dated.
look at the metal! and rivits! the RCS must be huge! the engine must burn a lot of fuel!
but it still has HMDS! right! superpower china
Super power China!
HDMS, thrust vectoring! for all J-10s!