LCA Tejas MK 1 VS Gripen C/D

[Kompromat]

F/A-50 Is a 'fighter' air craft.

Both F/A-50 and and Tejas are 'LCAs'

Other jets that i mentioned are 'Medium Weight' fighter air crafts.

EDAS once wanted to build an LCA called MAKO.

 

[Water Car Engineer]

F/A-50 Is a 'fighter' air craft.

Both F/A-50 and and Tejas are 'LCAs'

Other jets that i mentioned are 'Medium Weight' fighter air crafts.

EDAS once wanted to build an LCA called MAKO.

JF-17, Griphen, and LCA are all "LCAs".

 

[Dash]

@HariPrasad

More 'fairer' comparison would be Tejas VS F/A-50 Golden eagle, which is the fighter version of the trainer golden eagle.

IMHO Gripens are in the same weight class as the Mirage 2000, JF-17s, J-10s and F-16s.

If you want to debate the 'wing' and flight characteristics then further argument can be made since both jets have a 'simmilarish' delta wing.

LCA v/s Mirage, to some extent? based on common denominations (at least 50%) on all characterstics?

 

[HariPrasad]

@HariPrasad

More 'fairer' comparison would be Tejas VS F/A-50 Golden eagle, which is the fighter version of the trainer golden eagle.

IMHO Gripens are in the same weight class as the Mirage 2000, JF-17s, J-10s and F-16s.

If you want to debate the 'wing' and flight characteristics then further argument can be made since both jets have a 'simmilarish' delta wing.

Man,

I am comparing the capability and not the weight. So Comparison is very correct.

 

[gslv mk3]

F/A-50 Is a 'fighter' air craft.

Both F/A-50 and and Tejas are 'LCAs'

Other jets that i mentioned are 'Medium Weight' fighter air crafts.

EDAS once wanted to build an LCA called MAKO.

We have 3 fighters here of around 13000kg MTOW,and how can one be Light & other two (gripen & JF 17 ) be Medium Weight fighters?

A ' Medium weight aircraft ' is like J 10,F 16 ,Mig 29,Rafale,hornet etc

 

[Kompromat]

We have 3 fighters here of around 13000kg MTOW,and how can one be Light & other two (gripen & JF 17 ) be Medium Weight fighters?

A ' Medium weight aircraft ' is like J 10,F 16 ,Mig 29,Rafale,hornet etc

You are wrongly stuck on MTOW alone. Please go and check other critical capabilities of the air crafts you have been comparing, ie ferry range, combat radius etc - Classifications are not done on weight, loaded, empty or both , alone.

 

[gslv mk3]

You are wrongly stuck on MTOW alone. Please go and check other critical capabilities of the air crafts you have been comparing, ie ferry range, combat radius etc - Classifications are not done on weight, loaded, empty or both , alone.

Ferry range are almost the same for the three.

 

[Kompromat]

@Dash @HariPrasad

As i stated before. The question of 'air frame' shouldn't be discussed if this thread is to end in some fruitful result.

We can safely discuss about the 'wing', aerodynamics, flight performance, electronics and weapon systems, their capabilities vis a vis cost-benefit ratio.

Please keep in mind that the two air crafts in question are DIFFERENT, like apples and oranges. Gripen's design philosophy was to build an alternative for Mirage-2000s and the F-16s.

Gripens were DESIGNED to be 'frontline' truly multirole air crafts. The Tejas's design philosophy is similar to K/A-50, which was to build a complementory 'force multiplier'.

@Dash l Wings, flight performance, sub systems yes, otherwise this debate is not getting anywhere.

 

[Dash]

@Dash @HariPrasad

As i stated before. The question of 'air frame' shouldn't be discussed if this thread is to end in some fruitful result.

We can safely discuss about the 'wing', aerodynamics, flight performance, electronics and weapon systems, their capabilities vis a vis cost-benefit ratio.

Please keep in mind that the two air crafts in question are DIFFERENT, like apples and oranges. Gripen's design philosophy was to build an alternative for Mirage-2000s and the F-16s.

Gripens were DESIGNED to be 'frontline' truly multirole air crafts. The Tejas's design philosophy is similar to K/A-50, which was to build a complementory 'force multiplier'.

@Dash l Wings, flight performance, sub systems yes, otherwise this debate is not getting anywhere.

I have already said that before.....I guess we will need to wait for some time until Mk2 comes and then we can compare this with Mirage.

But in case you have not noticed, there is a reason why LCA's air inlets and Mirage's air inlet are in different positions, even if its the same wing but different characteristics!.

I know this will not go anywhere if we dont stick to its role in their respective forces, like @sancho said.

 

[HariPrasad]

Please keep in mind that the two air crafts in question are DIFFERENT, like apples and oranges. Gripen's design philosophy was to build an alternative for Mirage-2000s and the F-16s.

All air crafts are different. We are not discussing any philosophies hare. This is a pure technical discussion where we can discuss technical Parameters and capabilities. If you have something to contribute, you are well come.

 

[Kompromat]

@Dash

It will 'evolve' when it goes in full gear. Thunders started as 'force multipliers', now they are heading towards a '
'swing/multirole' operational philosophy in Block-2. Greater range, more payload, new avionics, new more sophisticated weapons, integration with a larger force assets, on the bround, sea or space.

These factors will also change Tejas. I'm sure it will be a 'very different' air craft in 2020.

 

[Kompromat]

@HariPrasad

You must Understnd that the design/operational philosophy outlines the technical requirements, for any program.

Some air crafts sacrifice certain elements for some other advantages because they have been designed to serve a specified role.

In flight performance, the Tejas is modeled after the Mirage-III design family leading up to Mirage-2000 design, with certain elements of SAAB Viggen's wing cropped delta wing design.

The Tejas has its wings mounted on the upper fusalage with wing intakes beneath, instead of wings mounted in the middle of the fusalage with 'integrated' inlets, like the Mirage-III/V/2000.

Its because Tejas sacrifices high speed normally associated to the delta wings for a better load carrying capability vis a vis its air frame's stress levels.

Canard delta wings fly under a different set of flight control laws than singluar deltas. If Tejas was to be compared to any other cropped delta wing air craft of the modern day, for the argument's sake.

If you remove the forward mounted Canards on Rafale, you might get close to a 'similarish' flight performance to that of the Tejas, due to Rafale's lower mounted inlets, its cropped delta wing and a single tail.

However, I wouldn't compare the flight performance of Tejas and other deltas like the J-10 family, SAAB JAS-39 GRIPEN, EF Typhoons and F-16V for that matter. Its because they fly under different flight laws and have a different center of gravity.

It would have made a big difference if Canards was introduced to the Tejas air frame, however it will require a total redesign of Tejas's current aerodynamics layout.

 

[MilSpec]

@HariPrasad

You must Understnd that the design/operational philosophy outlines the technical requirements, for any program.

Some air crafts sacrifice certain elements for some other advantages because they have been designed to serve a specified role.

In flight performance, the Tejas is modeled after the Mirage-III design family leading up to Mirage-2000 design, with certain elements of SAAB Viggen's wing cropped delta wing design.

The Tejas has its wings mounted on the upper fusalage with wing intakes beneath, instead of wings mounted in the middle of the fusalage with 'integrated' inlets, like the Mirage-III/V/2000.

Its because Tejas sacrifices high speed normally associated to the delta wings for a better load carrying capability vis a vis its air frame's stress levels.

Canard delta wings fly under a different set of flight control laws than singluar deltas. If Tejas was to be compared to any other cropped delta wing air craft of the modern day, for the argument's sake.

If you remove the forward mounted Canards on Rafale, you might get close to a 'similarish' flight performance to that of the Tejas, due to Rafale's lower mounted inlets, its cropped delta wing and a single tail.

However, I wouldn't compare the flight performance of Tejas and other deltas like the J-10 family, SAAB JAS-39 GRIPEN, EF Typhoons and F-16V for that matter. Its because they fly under different flight laws and have a different center of gravity.

It would have made a big difference if Canards was introduced to the Tejas air frame, however it will require a total redesign of Tejas's current aerodynamics layout.

Very interesting post. Correct me if I am wrong but you seem to be suggesting that the the Flight control laws associated with delta wing aircrafts are different from Sweptback wing planiform or canard mounted airframes.

My understanding of in flight normal laws associated with banking angles, load limit factor (G load), pitch attitude and flight speed works on the basis of Closed loop feedback correction for the input to control surfaces. In other words in my humble opinion a single system can be configured to provide the same Flight mode control characteristics as the output is flight characteristics from the adaptive control input on the hydraulic actuators IS WHAT manipulates the control surfaces.

My understanding of flying conepts suggests, the same flight mode laws are used to control the fly by wire system on f16 as on the f16XL, the derrived tags programmed on the PLC or the micro-controller will change due to the difference in the control surface area. Additional surfaces introduces additional control variables in the equation which gives you the resultant output to which you control your flight.

Coming back to the last statement, I would beg to differ as introducing additional control surfaces on LCA such as canards would all but require, an additional set hydraulic actuators, (i.e. 6 channels on input control for the 2 Linear variable differential transformers, and Hydraulic cylinders, 2 for digital servo valves), correction compensated values for Input control calculations to the set output values of the aforementioned derived tags for the controller to read from to give the in flight mode control parameters of resultant pitch attitude, Load limiting factor, flight speed, banking angles etc (popularly called flight control laws)

just my 2 rupees

 

[HariPrasad]

@HariPrasad

You must Understnd that the design/operational philosophy outlines the technical requirements, for any program.

Some air crafts sacrifice certain elements for some other advantages because they have been designed to serve a specified role.

In flight performance, the Tejas is modeled after the Mirage-III design family leading up to Mirage-2000 design, with certain elements of SAAB Viggen's wing cropped delta wing design.

The Tejas has its wings mounted on the upper fusalage with wing intakes beneath, instead of wings mounted in the middle of the fusalage with 'integrated' inlets, like the Mirage-III/V/2000.

Its because Tejas sacrifices high speed normally associated to the delta wings for a better load carrying capability vis a vis its air frame's stress levels.

Canard delta wings fly under a different set of flight control laws than singluar deltas. If Tejas was to be compared to any other cropped delta wing air craft of the modern day, for the argument's sake.

If you remove the forward mounted Canards on Rafale, you might get close to a 'similarish' flight performance to that of the Tejas, due to Rafale's lower mounted inlets, its cropped delta wing and a single tail.

However, I wouldn't compare the flight performance of Tejas and other deltas like the J-10 family, SAAB JAS-39 GRIPEN, EF Typhoons and F-16V for that matter. Its because they fly under different flight laws and have a different center of gravity.

It would have made a big difference if Canards was introduced to the Tejas air frame, however it will require a total redesign of Tejas's current aerodynamics layout.

You are right man I do not deny but as I said the point of discussion is capability and not philosophy.

Canard design was tried and extensively tested in wind tunnel. It offered no significant advantage over the current design and hence dropped. This is what ADA guys say.

I specifically compare Tejas MK1 with Gripen C/D


Please see the wind tunnel model.

 

[Kompromat]

@sandy_3126

Yes

..

You see when the Mirages or SAAB Viggens hit the market the machanical hydraulics, 2nd gen jet engines with a single stage after burner, aluminium alloy built airframe and FCS (Flight control surfaces), were the name of the game.

Back then, the design/deployment philosophy was to build high speed interceptors that can engage and shoot down soviet bombers.

As the evolution continued the 'cropped delta wing' appeared in the likes of the Mirage-2000, Rafale, Typhoon, J-10 and Gripens. Thats because the design and deployment philosophy of the recent day is about 'air combat, ground attacks, surface attacks' and many other complex operations.

These are what we call the 'Swing role/Multirole' air crafts. Today stand off weapons, very powerful jet engines, composite matetial air frames, high TWR, sophisticated radars and avionics have been fusioned with 'aerodynamically unstable air frames' which wouldn't be able to fly without the super fast flight computers, softwares and a fully digital fly by electrical wire control system.

Tejas fits into an age of the above fusion of technology. Today its under development, but in 2020 it would be very different air craft, mark my words.