Can you tell how conventional was F-22? How do you define conventional? Any preceding plane that looks like F-22? What is conventional design? How does it look lie? Who can authoritatively claim a design is conventional ?
in the same way you degined all delta, mirages 2000s to tejas.
a conventienal swept wing or cropped delta with a common tailplaines.
Now India conceived the 'cranked' delta configuration? So if I cranked the F-22 wings a little, I get a 'cranked conventional' design? how much degree you need to crank to be called a cranked delta? How did India conceived this 'cranked' design? if India conceived it, what were the French doing there? Look at you conceive while getting paid millions? LOL.
concieved it in the design of the tejas, they did not invent it nore do they posses a patent.
i don't know the degree you need to crank the wing, but its the leading edge. it was done to the f-16xl inorder to keep its agility.
the french or dassualt provided more consultation. i wasn't there. maybe you should ask them. but it can be assumed that they provided the bases for the development and insight into future bleeding edge technology that could be implemented. lets say for arguments sake, perhaps composites and cockpit ergonomics.
Since India conceived the 'cranked' delta, you mean US copied it? Wow.
You still don't get it do you? It's a group of people working together that makes it happen.
This not a one man show.
There was a Chinese in the B2 program, he was super duper and made it all happen! This is the reason why India cannot achieve things. No cohesion and team work. All want to be the boss and talk alot while taking all credit.. Boasting conceals a deep inferiority complex.
you don't understand the point.
the indian which is somehow related to the f-16xl program, may have perhaps when having a dinner discussion brought up the idea of a cranked delta wing aircraft to some of his friends in india. or perhaps some one in ADA at the time dicided to consult him. now he didn't give away the design. but he did share a concept..
that is what my post is about. sharing an idea, not the plans to build on. thats treason.
the cranked delta wing, actually is not that complicated. its relativily simple and effective. and would have made sense to the ada lca project team when they where handed the QSR
im not boasting, i have nothing to gain or loose. you may have something to loose.
I don't care how a delta wing compares to a 'cranked' delta. My question was why pure delta wings were replaced by delta canard configuration as seen in all major aircraft makers. Su-20MKI added a canard. And how do you define cranked? How cranky you need to get to be called cranked? The shuttle had crank in a different location with a different degree and so did the F-16XL.
Does being termed 'cranked' like the F-16XL make the LCA comparable in performance?
why canards are needed? extra control surface, greater lift
what is cranked? a variety of configurations. but very similar to the compound delta. the cranked part, actually came right out of the mouth of a team member of the lca project. back in the early areo india shows. between the two, its difficult to know the difference expecially on t he tejas. the f-16xl is an extreme example a cranked wing.,
having the same wing doesn't make the aircraft have the same performance. rather similiar in aerodynamics and effecenency of the airframe.
engines, extra control surfaces etc, will make the other major differences as well as the weight of the aircraft
Nobody knows the performance of the J-10, its state secret. It is either super or suck. LCA is not even operational.
enough to now know the wing area and the empty weight of the aircraft, and the result is the sing loading.
5 years ago, i remember tphuang speculating that the j-10 had a weapons payload of 6 tons, i guess that smashed his observation abilities. but thats a story for another time.
Alot of plane uses HMDS. The point is do you MAKE THEM!!!
helmet mounted display sights?
i can only think of one manufacture.
the other planes you speak of use helmet mounted targetting.
and no i don't make them.
neither does india, but they have bought them from elbiet to put on their tejas as requested by the buyer.
For ease of maintenance, I suggest you use propeller planes. Don't use jet engines, less moving parts, less complexity. Jet planes moves faster, more stress my man. Propeller planes are slow and steady. Why not but a propeller plane light trainer, those Cessnas seems like a good idea man. Hook up some missiles with a wire, no complex FBW. Just release the wire to drop the missile.
okay. i stated an example, you roll it into a shite fest.
Gripen no oxy gen? Then what is this?
Gripen Multirole Fighter Aircraft - Air Force Technology
200 Gripens were made, LCA? What are you guys smoking? Please don't live in Bollywood land. Don't be like the boy that says he is proud to be a slum dog. "I am starving so what....at least I am proud and happy". I am shitting in the streets, so what? I am proud of it. LCA sucks so what, I am proud of it.
the gripen c has obogs (i finally remembered the abbreviation) not the gripen a. thats what i stated. the tejas has obogs.
lol, i think your living in bollywood land. don't worry about me.
this was just explain to you the extra wieght attributed to the canards.
Aww, now you compare to Gripen. How much is the RCS reduced? It's small so less RCS? You mean the radar can't see you with those 'cranked' delta wings?
My toy plane has low RCS too.
are you a child.
a aircraft which is smaller, will most likily have a smaller rcs, except some radar phenomenas here and there which is out of reach of my knowledge.
You avoid canards because you have no experience in it and is unable to create a stable control system. Why not put it in another way, cars are fast but it's less stable, so lets cycle.
than ada should have avoided fbw, glass cockpits and compisotes.
if ada and hal dicided on a canard design, they could have consultated dessault. instead they avoided the canards most likily to meet the qsr.
Who told you LCA is as good as Gripen? My friend, you claim all these but then Gripen is operational and is not a rejected half baked foreign designed and made plane. Until now, nobody can give me a definitive answer whether this plane is indigenous. You tell tall tales, how LCA is supposedly lighter, agile, less weight, less RCS. If the solution was so simple, why not make a trainer the next fighter? L-15 is a good choice right?
gripen a and tejas have very similiar features and roles. nearly the same demenisions, i never said the tejas was as good. but pointed out the fact that both provide "nearly" the same features. but the tejas empty wieght is less.
you can make a l-15 a fighter all you want. but by the time your done strengthening the wings and adding thrust, its going to be heavy.
and i dont tell tales,
and im certianly not your friend
My friend, one last crucial question. If the LCA is as super as you claim, how come your own air marshall is calling it a MiG-21+ plane?? Why is it always in testing mode??? Hell, it is comparable to Gripen as you said. You want to knw what I think happened.
because it lacks critical components that would make it combat operational. although it can do tasks, its roles right now are limited.
missing factors may include
technology<--which would still be in development
training<--only 1 trainer
flight envolope<--no tejas has fired a bvr missile or taken part in air force exercises, so it is technically no in service.
the mig-21 bision on the other hand provides that.
you may bash tejas because you disdian indians.
but you have a very bad argument.
India paid the french for a 'cranked' Mirage design, review it and stamped APPROVED. The design contribution is the super duper intense technical talent spent to look at the drawing.Hence, this plane is designed by India. Then they paid a host of other consultants to get the composites, control systems and avionics. Assemble it and called it system integration. Walla you have a plane. But due to crappy design, the air force will not accept it and hence in perpetual testing mode. LOL
i was not arguing how indian the aircraft was.
modern warfare is short. there is a new doctrine since the end of the cold war. read up on it. unless of course you intend on a cold war with proxies.
but all this because i wanted to refute your point.
tejas, is not outdated by your standards. the airframe is releativily advanced, in the same sense the gripen a airframe is advanced.
tejas is a wonderfull achievement, no matter how much indian it is not.
because india, had the choice for collaboration and consultation is very important then beginning a new project. a network is very important to remian current in any field. allows one to bring together difference ways of doing things.
you can refute and repost.
but i've seen a lot of your kind.
no valid point.
just here to throw shite around.
bye..
. Boasting conceals a deep inferiority complex.
So you are trying to say Mig-29 has a high wing loading but then less wing loading does not mean LCA is more agile but because you are small hence you have less wing loading? Pretty obvious isn't it. 
