What's new

The Tejas fighter’s role in war

4 generation fighters entering service between 2005- 2014

Gripen
JAS39Gripen.jpg
J10
CB05X0347H_2008%E8%B3%87%E6%96%99%E7%85%A7%E7%89%87_N71_copy1.JPG


Typhoon & Rafale

rafale-typhoon.png


TEJAS

Indian+Light+Combat+Aircraft+LCA+MK+II+Tejas+Fighter+Jet++drdo+Radar+Development+Establishment++LRDE+To+Develop+AESA+Radar+MKII+2+MI-I+operation+first+flight+deployed+20121314151617181920+%25288%2529.jpg


THE ODD ONE OUT

JF17 THUNDER FC1

jf-17_thunder_wing_parts2.jpg


The thunder is only NON DELTA fighter entering service between 2005-2014...

have the others got it wrong
 
The thunder is only NON DELTA fighter entering service between 2005-2014...

have the others got it wrong

^those fighters have moveable canards as well to generate lift whereas jft has fixed lerx , lca has fixed levcons

ITR of mirages are a big tactical advantage -- so ive read

''The delta's high span loading (W/b) results in very high lift-induced drag in subsonic flight.''
DESIGN FOR AIR COMBAT
By the 1960s the disadvantages of the delta wing planform had begun to make themselves felt as the demand grew for the lifting of larger weapon loads off shorter runways and for greater air combat manoeuvrability. The swept wing had by this time shown itself to be the more versatile, and most designers had dropped the delta. Indeed, even Dassault, the leading exponent of the delta, rejected it when developing an aircraft with reduced landing speeds, improved manoeuvrability and heavier weapon load. This was the Mirage F.I. which, with a swept wing two-thirds the area of that of the Mirage III and only 9kN more thrust, is faster, can loiter subsonically and pursue supersonically for three times as long, can carry much more offensive load over almost twice the distance, is 80% more manoeuvrable and lands 20% slower.

1 With its high leading-edge sweep and very low aspect ratio, the delta is less efficient as a lifting planform. The low lift-curve slope means that it must be flown at much higher angles of attack to generate the same lift. However, the demands of tail clearance and pilot view limit the usable AOA, as shown in Fig 37. Furthermore, the delta is unable to use trailing-edge flaps unless it has a separate tail to trim out the large nose-down pitching moment. These factors combine to give tailless deltas very high landing speeds and poor airfield performance.

2 The delta's high span loading (W/b) results in very high lift-induced drag in subsonic flight. This


The Sukhoi Su-21 Flagon-F "all-weather" interceptor has a tailled delta layout. Early Flagons had shorter-span wings locking the leading-edge kink the high wing loading and very slender, indented fuselage are typical of early long-range interceptors (Swedish Air Force)

p054.jpg


fig044.gif

Fig 44 High lift-induced drag of delta wing. Low aspect ratio and loss of lift due to trimming result in a glide ratio of only 3.7 at 1.4 times stalling speed (in landing configuration).

is a critical drawback in air combat, since very high thrust must be available to avoid a severe drop-off in specific excess power. This is further compounded in manoeuvring by the large trimmed lift loss and associated drag arising from the increasing downloads on the trailing-edge controls as AOA is increased (Fig 44).

3 The low wing loading of the early deltas made them very sensitive to gusts in low-level high-speed flight. This was overcome on the TSR.2 by using, together with a low tail, a very small delta wing of only 65 m2 area with blown flaps and a high thrust/weight ratio. Low-speed manoeuvrability is however invariably compromised whenever high wing loadings (i.e. greater than 500kg/m2) are used on deltas.

4 Supersonic manoeuvrability is greatly restricted by the relative ineffectiveness of the delta's trailing-edge controls, known as elevons (elevators/ailerons), compared with separate tail surfaces. In addition, the aft movement of the aerodynamic centre during transonic acceleration, though reduced by the use of high sweep, is still large in actual distance though appearing small in terms of chord length. Allied to the restricted allowable range of centre-of-gravity position, {56}


p056.jpg

Dassault Mirage 2000 has a variable-camber wing — the high-lift devices are driven by a quadruplex fly-by-wire control system — and has flown at speeds of less than 100km/hr and more than Mach 2.2. The use of wing/body blending and fuselage area-ruling is apparent. (Dassault-Breguet)


{57} arising from the limited trimming power of the elevons, this means that trim drag is high. An up-elevon deflection is needed to produce the restoring download.

Restricted CG range was a problem with the Convair B-58, in which fuel had to be transferred internally in order to maintain the CG near the aft limit throughout the flight, partly to minimise supersonic trim drag. The elevon deflection required for rotation and lift-off at maximum weight was less than –5°, due to the aft CG and the low-slung engines. In supersonic flight at altitude, however, the elevons were never at less than –5°.

In Mach 3 cruise the Lockheed SR-71 minimises its trim drag by pumping fuel aft to shift its centre of gravity. In addition, the forebody chines (see Chapter 4) locate the aerodynamic centre well forward.

5 The combination of high wing sweep and the large AOAs necessary for high lift means that the effective dihedral (i.e. rolling moment due to sideslip) can be excessively high at low speed. Thus if a small dihedral effect is achieved at high speed, then the effective dihedral at low speed or high lift, or even high speed at high altitude, disturbs the desired relationship between lateral and directional stability. Dutch roll may then become exaggerated, requiring low-mounted wings and yaw dampers to move the rudder in opposition to the yawing motion. The YF-12, with its 60° leading-edge sweep and high dihedral effect, has approximately zero wing lift when its nosewheel is in contact with the runway during take-off, in order to minimise cross wind e fleets.

6 Longitudinal (i.e. pitch) damping cannot be as high as for a conventional tailled configuration. Typical resulting problems include the pilot-induced oscillations suffered by the Saab Draken, ultimately remedied by the use of automatic pitch dampers.

Although the addition of a tailplane to a delta would appear to improve longitudinal control and pitch damping, it is in fact the tailplane's vertical position which is all-important. A high-mounted tailplane may improve matters only within the low-AOA pitching envelope, which isn't that troublesome anyway. But at high AOA the separated flow from the wing may actually make a high tailplane destabilising. Aeroelastic problems can also arise from mounting a tailplane on top of a very thin {58} vertical stabiliser. For these reasons all the successful tailled deltas — outstanding examples are the MiG-21 and Su-21 — have featured low-mounted tailplanes.
XBpszpT.jpg
 
LOL! (i had to start like that :lol:)
Felt quite nostalgic reading this thread. When was the last time i saw this much emotional guys really really happy about their first jet fighter...o yes when our first thunders were delivered. Yea all of us cheered back then in 2007! Thunders flew in our national day parade and i joined PDF :-). Glad to see Indian bros finally getting all cheered up.

Tejas is a good plane. I said the same thing a few days ago on LCA news and discussion thread..that we all tend to forget the real benefit of this plane and start comparing it to all the top-notch planes in the world. Its good to feel that way for a moment but foolish if u really believe that. Yea Tejas is better than ours....if that makes u indian bros happy. But wait no...ours is way better! LOL...This is exactly whats going on in this thread. O bhaii...Thunder and LCA are much more than whats currently visible. One day they'll become mature platforms maybe after 10 or 20 blocks..and thats when they'll be compared. And i can tell right now they'll be equal even then. Its about the investment and how they're upgraded over time that'll determine which ones better.

Judging right now LCA is still on ground...while the thunder program is getting a second block. If Tejas and thunder are pitted 1 on 1, they should perform equally in future IMO. The SD-10 is a very potent missile while the Derby is also as good, i'd love to compare their ranges though. Both LCA and thunder don't boast great radars like the Su-30, but their BVRs will be as effective when working with an AWACS.

Comparing Tejas to the PAF F-16s, i think thats unfair. All of the present Falcons are reaching the Blk-52 standard, while some Blk-52s were also bought a few years back along with a high quantity of AMRAAMs. Frankly comparing them is sooo stupid..i've no words to describe it. F-16 is a real-battle-tested plane, which has matured over the ages..its more like a veteran. It wields the super duper aim-120s which do a max of over 100km while the derby boasts a range of 50km. Frankly to my indian bros, guys don't embarrass yourselves by posting those sniper smileys :sniper: and boasting of Derby at the same time! The point being don't compare the Tejas to the Falcons...you're just gonna further make this a troll thread and get sniped by a falcon. Be realistic!

Tejas is a great plane..and will eventually mature to be a great asset. Same can be said for the thunder. They'll be great export aircrafts too. And btw thunder is a very great asset for PAF and our airforce is very happy with its performance. PAF is mostly shaped to be a defensive force i.e fight within our own airspace that is why u see only small single-engine jets in our cute little AF. And in these circumstances the thunders would be patrolling all over our airspace. And so they can always be in the range of an AWAACs and use them for BVR fights while the Tejas won't be accompanied by an AWAACs when it crosses the border...meaning that it'll have to use its own radar for bvr, thus announcing its entry and putting it at a disadvantage. Now Its common knowledge among pilots that using awaacs for bvr is a very stealthy tactic...it puts the thunders at a great advantage over all intruding aircraft. So just the capability to launch a bvr-missile with a not-so-great radar works for paf...and this should be considered when comparing it with other planes. :-)
 
Last edited:
Delta design faces greater drag hence the requirement of greater thrust -- to what extent, I dont know

As of now the AoA is 28??

No, as of now it is 24 degrees, to be improved to 26 by FOC, and hopefully 28 further down the line.
 
Delta design faces very less drag compared to the conventional design. The reason for bleeding energy is because of the larger surface area of the wings.

The Delta has superior climb performance compared to the conventional design and hence the Delta wing planeform fighters usually try to fight in the vertical doing slashing attacks. You yourself have posted about the different ACM of different aircrafts and it has been clearly said in that.

The Delta has a very high ITR compared to the STR and this is caused because of the increased airflow on the wings and because the delta has a larger surface area it is simple friction that slows it down. This is offsetted by adding extra control surfaces like the canards and levcons to take advantage of the vortices and extra surface area to maintain energy.

Energy is life in aircombat. The one who loses energy is the one who will be shot first. Fighter aircrafts are like sharks..they need to swim forward to stay alive...that is how it works.

@sancho > is he right?
 
Your pointing on Bvr Since you don get this hal Lca already had capability to fire R-73 R77 russian Missile versions But Hal wants too integrate Derby and Python BVR as main BVR missiles that they get from Israel have Different Data Link. Show me Video proof of integration of your so called Sd-10 BVR in your Jf-17 thunder:coffee::nono:

We dont integerate R-77 ... Russia has denied the source code.. which is why we have chosen Derby...

You are wasting time in asking proof from our neighbours... we need to believe there words with out proof.. i know a person recently basel... who said a lot of things in F-16 and JF-17 .. which is difficult to believe ..... but believe it as a worst case scenario.. Better for IAF to prepare for worst case scenario but hope for best

If the LCA is so good does the IAF still need the Rafale?

Hard to believe such a question from DBC... Shukla doesnt like Rafale... he likes F-35.... but he has made reference from IAF pilots... seems hard to believe.. what is your comment?? about older F-16
 
Tejas is kejriwal of politics everyone is denying its importance and capabilities. :P
 
For those posters going on about BVR capability of Thunder over Tejas or indeed SU30MKI bvr capability over f16 some HARSH FACTS.

Between Veitnam war and the second Desert storm only 4% of all air to air kills have taken place in a BVR range ie over 20km.

Worse stil the longest range kill to date for any BVR is 29km.

Despite these massive extensions in ranges of BVR missles the likely hood of any fighter succesfully engaging and destroying at BVR is below 1 out of 5 shots.

most of the computer simulations done in DACT excercises are in handicapped scenarios and strict ROE guidline and not a real war scenario.

For my F16 lovers i believe to date the F16 has never ever engaged ansd scored a hit at BVR this despite being in conflict and service for over 30 years. when i say BVR i mean over 20km.

I will start a seperate thread on BVR

what is more important than BVR IS

Agility speed
Cockpit design and ease of use
pilot skill experience
EW suites / jammers
wvr missles & guns/cannon.

With this in mind the Tejas unstable design quadruplex FCS combo of Python derby missles and israeli core ELTA TECHNOLOGY and HMS system is very potent.

Dare i say as good as anything in south asia

BVR will play a much smaller role between thunder v lca & IAF V PAF

Please bear in mind i am talking about dog fightng only not MULTI ROLE capability of the Tejas./thunder
 
As usual we are at the Vs mode again. Quite simply.. Each platform has its advantages..
The Cropped delta of the Tejas gives it a very high instantaneous turn rate(for all the wiki copy fanboys out there.. it means the rate of initial turn.. when the pilot pulls the stick)..after that.. the Aircrafts delta creates massive drag and its sustained turn rate will be fairly close or less than the M2K. Even with Levcons.. there is no way the sustained will be better than that of a more conventional triplane layout such as the F-16 or JF-17. So what does mean??

Well, in BVR combat it means little as the one with the better more network information system(radar+datalink over the airspace being contested) along with the more reliable, respectable ranged and accurate missile will score a kill.

In WVR.. it means that if conventional all aspect missiles are used.. i.e. without a Helmet Mounted display..the Tejas will point its nose first at an adversary.. and fire. Usually if there is anything less than a very well trained pilot in the opposing aircraft.. the Tejas will score a kill. But then again.. it depends on the Tejas having a good pilot and good situational awareness. If the Tejas has a good pilot but is not getting information on where the enemy is coming from or sees the enemy late.. he is dead...period.

Lets assume that the Tejas and the other pilot see each other at the same time.. the Tejas will point its nose first.. and shoot. If(unlikely with modern A2A missiles) he misses.. and the aircraft merge(go into circles, dogfight).. the Tejas is most likely dead unless the other pilot makes a mistake... period.

However boys.. Both the Tejas.. and the JF-17 are going to face each other with helmet mounted sights and all aspect missiles.. which means it will be more about who gets the first look and is able to maintain energy for manoeuvring away from an enemy missile. In that case.. you are most likely looking at both pilots ending up dead.. Today's fight is not going to be about dogfighting or fancy TVC bullcrap airshow manoeuvres. Today's missiles kill.. period.. they dont miss very much.
Aircraft will look to come in.. fire.. avoid.. fire again.. and run. What will matter is not who has how many assets.. but who has how many assets in the battlespace at that time.

Quite simply.. stop being Ajay Shuklas to feel happy.. there is something known as getting a girlfriend to do that. The Tejas is a fine aircraft albiet with a horrible development record plagued with mismanagement. However, better late than never.. It is designed to perform a specific role and not take on aircraft in paper matches. It fights as part of the larger team..
 
@Oscar I love ur style! If only u were a novelist (like dan brown), i'd read all of ur works! :enjoy:

Unfortunately.. Rhetoric is all that works out here in the common forum. Proper discussions only take place with more serious.. and rather more knowledgeable members and not those with Loghorrea(information diarrhoea..relevant or irrelevant)
 
To Ra,ad re your comment
How do the BVRs perform under AWAACs support? Same results??

BVRS are over hyped my friend

See link Usefulness of BVR combat | Defense Issues

The arrival of high end jammers, flares etc and long range pesa & aesa radars, rwr and maws capability , on 4th generation fighters means its very difficult to hit from bvr range of 30km plus.

Your opponent be it a Thunder pilot or a mki/tejas pilot will pick you up on his radar at 100km or your awacs or gcc will pick him up even earlier.

How ever IF you are stealth plane its a different story as we saw with the usa seal team that got to bin laden in pak air space without detection. ie i believe it was a stealth chopper.

This is why F22 raptor rules the skies he sees you first gets close up and launches a amraam from 25km away.

To oscar

Re your comment
Well, in BVR combat it means little as the one with the better more network information system(radar+datalink over the airspace being contested) along with the more reliable, respectable ranged and accurate missile will score a kill. /QUOTE]

Many experts believe BVR combat has a very low kill probability. if we look at kills historically this is proven.

I doubt BVR will play a big role over the LOC border with indo pak.
 
Last edited:
To Ra,ad re your comment

BVRS are over hyped my friend

See link Usefulness of BVR combat | Defense Issues

The arrival of high end jammers, flares etc and long range pesa & aesa radars, rwr and maws capability , on 4th generation fighters means its very difficult to hit from bvr range of 30km plus.

Your opponent be it a Thunder pilot or a mki/tejas pilot will pick you up on his radar at 100km or your awacs or gcc will pick him up even earlier.

How ever IF you are stealth plane its a different story as we saw with the usa seal team that got to bin laden in pak air space without detection. ie i believe it was a stealth chopper.

This is why F22 raptor rules the skies he sees you first gets close up and launches a amraam from 25km away.

To oscar

Re your comment

Apart from the link which itself is a blog(and not a very reliable one)..each system.. weapons and countermeasures try to one up each other. Yes.. No BVR will be launched at max range but that does not mean they will not be used or not score kills. The presence of Jammers means that aircraft will have to get closer for their radars to burn through the jamming...which will leave larger fighters with a little less of their advantage in having larger radars.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom