USAF chief successfully completes flying sortie in LCA Tejas

[duhastmish]

I disagree.
4th gen will be the spine of most air forces until the dusk of this century. US will fly F16 until 2050.
All this AI talk is still nonsense that won't see proper military inductions until at least the next century. Machine learning will of course be applied, but that won't be limited to drones. And it'll be mostly used for ground targets.

really ? have you seen how far drone technology has moved in recent times.
nowonder big smart countries are not applying too much research into manned aeronautics. when you can achieve lot more without endangering pilot and scaling down the fighter.

i disagree with your statement.

 

[KapitaanAli]

really ? have you seen how far drone technology has moved in recent times.
nowonder big smart countries are not applying too much research into manned aeronautics. when you can achieve lot more without endangering pilot and scaling down the fighter.

i disagree with your statement.

The major reason to make future hard-core fighters unmanned will be because humans can't take the extreme conditions, as in SR72.
Otherwise a manned system will remain superior to drones until AI becomes dystopian. This is why frontline sixth gen fighters will be manned.
Pilot's life is secondary to battle advantage.

(I did mean 4.5 as well by 4th gen in the previous post.)

 

[randomradio]

One can not expect endurance on the lines of F-16...

I doubt this is accurate.

Fuel fraction gives the best results.
F-16's empty weight is 9T. Total fuel load with 3 600 gal tanks is about 9T. Fuel fraction is 0.5.
LCA's empty weight will be below 6T, let's assume 6T. Total fuel load is 5T. Fuel fraction is 0.45.

But 9T of fuel is a ridiculous amount to carry around.

If the F-16 carries 370Gal tanks instead, then the total fuel load is 6.9T, a more realistic fuel load. The fuel fraction reduces to 0.43, similar to the LCA.

With CFTs and 370G drop tanks, the F-16 ends up carrying mostly fuel and very little ordnance, which means the aircraft is more vulnerable than it should be. I mean 6T payload of only external fuel is ridiculous. The aircraft itself is a better bomb than the bombs it carries. So actual operational configurations will generally be CFTs and 1 or 2 tanks or only 3 tanks and so on, which would put it in a similar category as the LCA. Even LCA can carry fatter tanks and get higher endurance, which is pointless.

Remember that we are talking about the Block 50. When we bring in the Block 60 or even Block 70, the empty weight drastically increases and the internal fuel load is the same. The LCA's fuel fraction will start looking better in this case. With 3 370G tanks, the Block 60 is only going to have a fuel fraction of 0.4, which is much lesser than the LCA. The Block 70 will only be worse.

Not to mention, unlike aircraft like Gripen, which is capable of protecting itself, the F-16 will require LCA escorts accompanying it because it can't protect itself while it's carrying all that extra fuel. So the only thing that matters is performance with internal fuel, where both LCA and F-16 are similar, while Gripen is superior.

So I wouldn't compare the LCA and F-16 by any parameter. No doubt the F-16 is a good aircraft, better than the LCA in some ways, but we should see it within the prism of IAF's requirements. If you really get down to the standards the IAF wants, both are very, very similar.

With the LCA coming in, there is room for Gripen, but not the F-16.

tejas is past its worth. if anything left it will be over by the time of its induction.
its nothing more than a learning curve. where we must realise what and how mistake can be made.

imagine the actual date of its integration in full squadron units. it will be too late for its age. the war might even be done and dusted beforw that.

It will be as fast as the J-10C or the JF-17 B3.

HAL is setting up production for 19 jets/year and it has already begun.

you think in next 15 years it will make any sense to have a fourth gen fighter.
4th gen fighter will be nowhere close to drones of that age.

future drones with A.I will be too hpt to handle even for decent 5th gen fighters.

there will be electronic warfare with drone tech.

tejas and jf might endup like a bullet in motogp.

All air forces have advanced jets, mediocre jets and obsolete jets. LCA will straddle the line between advanced and mediocre jets for at least 15 years from 2020 onwards. That's good enough for the cost and speed it is coming in at.

You must remember that the IAF is in a bad position right now. So a cheap 4.5th gen jet is the need of the hour.

really ? have you seen how far drone technology has moved in recent times.
nowonder big smart countries are not applying too much research into manned aeronautics. when you can achieve lot more without endangering pilot and scaling down the fighter.

i disagree with your statement.

Drones capable of A2A will be a threat after 2035.

 

[amardeep mishra]

I doubt this is accurate.

Fuel fraction gives the best results.
F-16's empty weight is 9T. Total fuel load with 3 600 gal tanks is about 9T. Fuel fraction is 0.5.
LCA's empty weight will be below 6T, let's assume 6T. Total fuel load is 5T. Fuel fraction is 0.45.

But 9T of fuel is a ridiculous amount to carry around.

If the F-16 carries 370Gal tanks instead, then the total fuel load is 6.9T, a more realistic fuel load. The fuel fraction reduces to 0.43, similar to the LCA.

With CFTs and 370G drop tanks, the F-16 ends up carrying mostly fuel and very little ordnance, which means the aircraft is more vulnerable than it should be. I mean 6T payload of only external fuel is ridiculous. The aircraft itself is a better bomb than the bombs it carries. So actual operational configurations will generally be CFTs and 1 or 2 tanks or only 3 tanks and so on, which would put it in a similar category as the LCA. Even LCA can carry fatter tanks and get higher endurance, which is pointless.

Remember that we are talking about the Block 50. When we bring in the Block 60 or even Block 70, the empty weight drastically increases and the internal fuel load is the same. The LCA's fuel fraction will start looking better in this case. With 3 370G tanks, the Block 60 is only going to have a fuel fraction of 0.4, which is much lesser than the LCA. The Block 70 will only be worse.

Not to mention, unlike aircraft like Gripen, which is capable of protecting itself, the F-16 will require LCA escorts accompanying it because it can't protect itself while it's carrying all that extra fuel. So the only thing that matters is performance with internal fuel, where both LCA and F-16 are similar, while Gripen is superior.

So I wouldn't compare the LCA and F-16 by any parameter. No doubt the F-16 is a good aircraft, better than the LCA in some ways, but we should see it within the prism of IAF's requirements. If you really get down to the standards the IAF wants, both are very, very similar.

With the LCA coming in, there is room for Gripen, but not the F-16.

Hi @randomradio
It is nice to have your opinion, but I am afraid you have left out couple of things. Since I am a control/aerospace engineer with research paper at AIAA(american institute of aeronautics and astronautics), let me make things a little bit more clear.
Endurance depends on couple of factors and some of them are:
1) Specific fuel consumption of the turbofan engine
2) Drag profile encountered in the flight. Believe me drag is not that easy and varies for alpha, altitude, velocity to name a few
3) Amount of fuel carried.
While you only dwell on #3, you conveniently ignored first two. Lets confine our discussions to internal fuel capacity only. And if you do a little bit of your research you'd find out that F-16 can carry 3200kgs of internal fuel as against 2500kgs for LCA. There is a difference of 700kgs straight(or equivalent of an external tank!).
Now lets delve into something more crucial and intricately related to the design. F-16 unlike LCA has something known as blended fuselage which can generate good lift at low speeds. Also at low speeds cranked delta has higher drag and to overcome this higher drag you would have to operate at higher thrust. In supersonic although you have lesser drag, but your engine is constantly working burning the fuel.
It is because of these factors, LCA and F-16 cant have similar endurance(with internal fuel). We can go into more rigorous discussion if you want.

 

[randomradio]

Hi @randomradio
It is nice to have your opinion, but I am afraid you have left out couple of things. Since I am a control/aerospace engineer with research paper at AIAA(american institute of aeronautics and astronautics), let me make things a little bit more clear.
Endurance depends on couple of factors and some of them are:
1) Specific fuel consumption of the turbofan engine
2) Drag profile encountered in the flight. Believe me drag is not that easy and varies for alpha, altitude, velocity to name a few
3) Amount of fuel carried.

The SFC of the LCA's engine is inferior, but the LCA's drag profile is superior, enough to make up for the difference in SFC.

I didn't bring it up because the overall effect of the first two points is zero.

While you only dwell on #3, you conveniently ignored first two. Lets confine our discussions to internal fuel capacity only. And if you do a little bit of your research you'd find out that F-16 can carry 3200kgs of internal fuel as against 2500kgs for LCA. There is a difference of 700kgs straight(or equivalent of an external tank!).

That's why fuel fraction matters. Fuel fraction does not only consider the capacity of fuel, but also the weight of the aircraft itself. Both are very important factors. That's why aircraft with similar fuel fractions have similar ranges even if there is a massive difference in fuel capacity.

Now lets delve into something more crucial and intricately related to the design. F-16 unlike LCA has something known as blended fuselage which can generate good lift at low speeds. Also at low speeds cranked delta has higher drag and to overcome this higher drag you would have to operate at higher thrust. In supersonic although you have lesser drag, but your engine is constantly working burning the fuel.
It is because of these factors, LCA and F-16 cant have similar endurance(with internal fuel). We can go into more rigorous discussion if you want.

We can only play with real values here. So I will provide some.

The LCA Mk1's basic range, with only internal fuel, is 1750Km. The basic range of the F-16 B50 is 1800Km. In this configuration, I use more accurate numbers than in the previous post, the Mk1's fuel fraction is 0.275 and the F-16's is 0.278.

You see, very similar range with very similar fuel fraction. And this is also considering the fact that the F404 is less efficient than the F100 and the F-16 is sitting on a much more powerful engine. So the LCA's airframe is in fact superior to the F-16's in order to compensate for the difference in SFC.

The Mk1A will drastically improve on the Mk1 because the airframe is lighter and more optimised. Otoh, the F-16B70 is going to be much heavier, hence will have a lower fuel fraction, and will be draggier than the LCA. Basically, the Mk1A is getting better and the F-16 is getting worse. If the Mk1A switches to a better engine, it will outrange the F-16 quite considerably.

 

[amardeep mishra]

The SFC of the LCA's engine is inferior, but the LCA's drag profile is superior, enough to make up for the difference in SFC.

I didn't bring it up because the overall effect of the first two points is zero.

@randomradio
I was under the impression that SFC of F-16 engine is superior. Also no! LCA's drag profile isnt "superior" at least not in subsonic regime anyway. Dude, you really need to study a lot of fundamental aerodynamics. From whatever aerodynamics I know(I am a control engineer), the delta planform has decent(higher than F-16) drag in subsonic regime.

The LCA Mk1's basic range, with only internal fuel, is 1750Km. The basic range of the F-16 B50 is 1800Km. In this configuration, I use more accurate numbers than in the previous post, the Mk1's fuel fraction is 0.275 and the F-16's is 0.278.

You see, very similar range with very similar fuel fraction. And this is also considering the fact that the F404 is less efficient than the F100 and the F-16 is sitting on a much more powerful engine. So the LCA's airframe is in fact superior to the F-16's in order to compensate for the difference in SFC.

The Mk1A will drastically improve on the Mk1 because the airframe is lighter and more optimised. Otoh, the F-16B70 is going to be much heavier, hence will have a lower fuel fraction, and will be draggier than the LCA. Basically, the Mk1A is getting better and the F-16 is getting worse. If the Mk1A switches to a better engine, it will outrange the F-16 quite considerably.

@randomradio
I would not bother wasting my time on in accurate and flase information. The fundamental inaccuracy being the max ferry range of LCA. It is certainly not 1700 kms on internal fuel only. No way. period! As I said, instead of reading forums do read books!

 

[I S I]

Shame still not gonna induct them in their own force.

 

[Ultima Thule]

Yes sir, the Chief of USAF (and I am sure of all, you pakistanis knows their might the best ) have faith in platform.

Only the worthless trolls of PDF dont.

Let troll aside what is the purpose of this ride Just a joy ride @oOo

You have become an expert in Indian psyche. I love the way you pass your sermons...
You as a nation....
It national disease....
Most of you...

And you don't pass a sermons against Pakistan you have this disease also, you all have sermons against pakistan All of you @oOo

 

[oOo]

Let troll aside what is the purpose of this ride Just a joy ride @oOo

Do you want to know why different airforces fly aircraft of other's inventory? For joy?

Its capability demonstration, exercise to build mutual trust, and enhance inter-operatibility .....and yes, its a joy to ride the beauty.

And you don't pass a sermons against Pakistan you have this disease also, you all have sermons against pakistan All of you @oOo

Ok.

 

[randomradio]

@randomradio
I was under the impression that SFC of F-16 engine is superior. Also no! LCA's drag profile isnt "superior" at least not in subsonic regime anyway. Dude, you really need to study a lot of fundamental aerodynamics. From whatever aerodynamics I know(I am a control engineer), the delta planform has decent(higher than F-16) drag in subsonic regime.

The F-16's engine is indeed superior, I already said it.

Both aircraft are deltas.

The rest is common sense. If the LCA and F-16 have the same range with the same fuel fraction and if the F-16 has a better engine, that would mean the LCA has a better airframe design.

@randomradio
I would not bother wasting my time on in accurate and flase information. The fundamental inaccuracy being the max ferry range of LCA. It is certainly not 1700 kms on internal fuel only. No way. period! As I said, instead of reading forums do read books!

I would recommend getting your facts right instead of parroting your credentials so uselessly. On the internet, only facts matter, credentials are entirely useless.

You did the same with Brahmos also. I pointed out the range reduction is simply a software gimmick to which you said you are a control engineer or what not, all meaningless when credentials are countered with facts. Even today Brahmos's range is 600Km and is now being increased to 800Km, all with the same engine and control systems. All work being carried out in India.

Coming to the point, the whole world knows LCA's basic range except you.

http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=102056
LCA Tejas is capable of flying non- stop to destinations over 1700 km away (Ferry Range). It's Radius of Action is upto 500 km depending upon the nature and duration of actual combat.

And that's on an overweight and unoptimised airframe.

Even without the govt release, test pilots have already said that the LCA has the same range as the M-2000, which is in turn similar to the F-16.

JF-17's basic range is 1800Km also, the same as the F-16, although the RD-93's SFC is slightly better than the F-16's.

 

[amardeep mishra]

I would recommend getting your facts right instead of parroting your credentials so uselessly. On the internet, only facts matter, credentials are entirely useless.

You did the same with Brahmos also. I pointed out the range reduction is simply a software gimmick to which you said you are a control engineer or what not, all meaningless when credentials are countered with facts. Even today Brahmos's range is 600Km and is now being increased to 800Km, all with the same engine and control systems. All work being carried out in India.

Coming to the point, the whole world knows LCA's basic range except you.

http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=102056
LCA Tejas is capable of flying non- stop to destinations over 1700 km away (Ferry Range). It's Radius of Action is upto 500 km depending upon the nature and duration of actual combat.

And that's on an overweight and unoptimised airframe.

Even without the govt release, test pilots have already said that the LCA has the same range as the M-2000, which is in turn similar to the F-16.

JF-17's basic range is 1800Km also, the same as the F-16, although the RD-93's SFC is slightly better than the F-16's.

Hi @randomradio

Facts? Oh yes! Lets get down to it. the pib link you sent clearly mentions 1700km ferry range. It however never mentioned with or without fuel tanks. Thats point no 1. In all likelyhood, the range of 1700kms is with external fuel tanks.
As for the brahmos, my friend who worked at DRDL mentioned some kind of mechanism in engine that used to cease working in order to restrict the range to 300km-- and I am afraid I took his suggestion on face value without going into further details. Also, the software you're mentioning is nothing but the mission planner wherein you define the way points etc. Mission planner is an essential part of APM--in case you have dealt with UAVs.
I have developed a similar software in python for my thrust vectored airship. In case you're wondering here is what I do-
https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.2018-1129
And no today the max "demonstrated" range is 450kms only, however the capability exists to enhance the range to full 600kms.
You know I am really amused by the conviction with which you present your arguments. Have you read any book? Please be frank!

The rest is common sense. If the LCA and F-16 have the same range with the same fuel fraction and if the F-16 has a better engine, that would mean the LCA has a better airframe design.

@randomradio
You wouldnt have said that about a tailess delta! This is not something secret. You can read about it in decent books dealing with aerodynamics.

 

[Ultima Thule]

Both aircraft are deltas.

No Delta means this
M-2000

Tejas

But F-16 is not a true delta but tail cropped delta
TAIL CROPPED DELTA
F-16

JF-17

True delta are more suitable to higher altitude mission and high speed interceptions but at low altitude they have more drag as compare to tail cropped delta, here links you stubborn @randomradio
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_wing

 

[amardeep mishra]

But F-16 is not a true delta but tail cropped delta
TAIL CROPPED DELTA
F-16

F16 is a blended fuselage, tailed delta with LERX. LCA is a cranked double delta and JF-17 is also a tailed delta with LERX. The function of LERX and double delta is same and that is to provide vortex which energizes the flow over the wing and hence delaying the separation. This improves Clmax and max AoA.
@pakistanipower
The wing design of LCA is really very good btw, there isnt anything wrong with that. Its just that it doesnt have 1700km range with internal fuel

 

[randomradio]

Hi @randomradio

Facts? Oh yes! Lets get down to it. the pib link you sent clearly mentions 1700km ferry range. It however never mentioned with or without fuel tanks. Thats point no 1. In all likelyhood, the range of 1700kms is with external fuel tanks.

With 3 external tanks, the LCA's range is 3000Km. With the current configuration with only 2 tanks, because the airframe is overweight and not fully optimised, it is 2600Km. With no tanks, it is 1750Km.

And I find it really funny that you are actually disputing this.

As for the brahmos, my friend who worked at DRDL mentioned some kind of mechanism in engine that used to cease working in order to restrict the range to 300km-- and I am afraid I took his suggestion on face value without going into further details. Also, the software you're mentioning is nothing but the mission planner wherein you define the way points etc. Mission planner is an essential part of APM--in case you have dealt with UAVs.
I have developed a similar software in python for my thrust vectored airship. In case you're wondering here is what I do-
https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.2018-1129
And no today the max "demonstrated" range is 450kms only, however the capability exists to enhance the range to full 600kms.
You know I am really amused by the conviction with which you present your arguments. Have you read any book? Please be frank!

I'm sorry man. Your posts have been very ignorant regarding the LCA. It makes it hard to take you seriously.

@randomradio
You wouldnt have said that about a tailess delta! This is not something secret. You can read about it in decent books dealing with aerodynamics.

Numbers never lie.

 

[KapitaanAli]

With 3 external tanks, the LCA's range is 3000Km. With the current configuration with only 2 tanks, because the airframe is overweight and not fully optimised, it is 2600Km. With no tanks, it is 1750Km.

I'd like a source.
HAL is known to share the worst case number, but I think that 1700km is the combat range, that is two drop tanks plus five armaments.
This is the most likely scenario imo.