Why's IAF unhappy about Tejas' Thrust to Weight while ok with Mirage-2000s?

[Merilion]

now mig 21+++ = 4+ gen ac

wait, r u saying F22 is mig21++++?
there is no such equation between mig21+++ and 4+ gen. nobody ever labeled m2k or f16 as mig21+++

 

[Skull and Bones]

mig 21 = 3rd gen ac
mig 21+ = mig 21 bisons i.e. 3.5 gen ac
now mig 21+++ = 4+ gen ac

so u are saying a 4+ gen ac is irrelevant today when most of the world AFs (IAF included) are operating a 3.5 gen ac??

Or is it that i couldn't get it

Mig-21 Bison is still a 3rd Gen fighter with BVR capability, the main characteristics for a 4th gen fighter is FBW systems and computer aided stability, Mig-21 is still mechanical.

 

[arp2041]

wait, r u saying F22 is mig21++++?
there is no such equation between mig21+++ and 4+ gen. nobody ever labeled m2k or f16 as mig21+++

actually i was going by computer language where if we write x++ this means x + 1, so when u had written ++ ahead of a 3rd gen ac i took it as 3rd gen + 1 = 4th gen & when u added one more + so i thought 4+ gen

sorry for making it too technical affair

 

[sancho]

LCA won't be successful as a navy jet,cause it's a single engine jet.

The single engine is not an issue, if it would be used from an CATOBAR carrier and if it would have at least 2 more hardpoints. Range, endurance and load capabilities would be no big issue anymore.

yes bro. Thats the only thing we are proud of. Except for engines India is now capable of designing all major components. Airframes, landing gear, composites, fly by wire, HUD, IFOF and almost all major avionics. Aesa Radar is under advanced development. We have bridged the gap of 2nd to 4.5 th gen. Now amca and mk2 will be the real Indian fighters.

And that's the problem, we can't look at it with a rational point of view and have to come up with pride, although we achieved nothing yet. Open your eyes guys, we might have a good fighter, but it's not a success unless it is inducted into IAF and will be used for what it was meant to be. Anything before that is just useless talk, especially from DRDO and ADA!

F-35s for amphibious assault ships can be a great option, given that Navy is looking for 4 such platforms. 5-6 F-35s for each is going to pack some serious punch, top it up by Dhruv, LCH and other helicopters.

Think it through buddy, we would have a lower number of stealth fighters ond amphibious ships, while our real aircraft carriers must sail will less capable 4th to 4.5 gen fighters?
Not to mention that the F35B version is the one with the least benefit, especially for amphibious assault roles. It has limited range and weaponload, has not even an internal gun and is much faster than the Sea Harriers it replaces, which makes it less useful in CAS compared to the earlier.
If at all, we could get same Apaches with the WAH changes to use them from naval vessels, but since we won't send our fleet far away for amphibious landings, even that would be a waste of money.

 

[sancho]

simple and plain, mig21+++ doesn't make any sense in today's sky!
same for the light weight concept.

Depends on what you base your knowledge on. Infact even if LCA is deemed to be too heavy, it is the second lightest fighter in it's class today (only JF17 is lighter). Similarly, the goal of a TWR of 1 was not met either, but the combination of low weight and the US engines makes it still better than J10A in this field.
The small size, combined with the use of composites, RAM coatings and ducted intakes gives it a lower RCS as well (only Gripen is might be better in the light class).
So we had certain ideas in mind and they obviously in the right direction and now think about how good it would be, if we had achieved the goals and most importantly had planned the project better?

 

[Joe Shearer]

No the Problem is that the Mig21 Fighter which the Tejas was supposed to replace is being replaced by another fighter , The Su30MKI , infact , by the time tejas Actually enters service , Mig21 would have fallen to 80
With Rafale Replacing the 5 sqds of Mig27 and 2 SQDs of Jaguars , their is no real need for Tejas EXCEPT increasing the numbers at a cheaper cost
considering the fact that the remaining 4 Jaguar Sqds and 3 Mig29smt Sqds would be replaced by FGFA

Where on earth did you get that the MiG21 is being replaced by the SU30MKI? Are the two even remotely comparablee, especially with regard to combat roles? One is a light-weight fighter for point interception, with a strictly limited life in terms of flying hours, and no ground attack capability. The other comes in on the other end of the weight scale, is an air superiority aircraft, with enormous stamina and range, and enough weapon carrying capacity to fill a strike role.

SU30 and Rafale fill in the top and the middle, where the top was never really occupied. Calling the MiG21 the top seems bizarre. If we had sufficient numbers, the Foxbat might have played that role.

 

[INDIAISM]

I think DRDO took the worst decission during the initial stage of the project by choosing Compound Delta wing desiegn over Delta wing with cannards......

 

[sancho]

Where on earth did you get that the MiG21 is being replaced by the SU30MKI?

I think he meant that we have to replace Mig 21 squads currently with MKI squads, because the LCA in not available and the Rafale will come only in some years.
Of course, wrt weightclass or capability they don't have anything in common, but IAF has no option currently, 200 x Mig 21s will be phased out till 2014 with no other type than MKIs coming in.

 

[BlueDot_in_Space]

I think DRDO took the worst decission during the initial stage of the project by choosing Compound Delta wing desiegn over Delta wing with cannards......

On what basis? kindly put down the advantages that Tejas will have with delta and canards. DO you think they did not consider putting canards? They did and it did not make much difference to the performance of Tejas because of its small size.

 

[sancho]

On what basis? kindly put down the advantages that Tejas will have with delta and canards. DO you think they did not consider putting canards? They did and it did not make much difference to the performance of Tejas because of its small size.

Depends on what the main requirements were during the design stage, canards would have increased the maneuverability, while the lack of it benefits the RCS.

 

[BlueDot_in_Space]

Depends on what the main requirements were during the design stage, canards would have increased the maneuverability, while the lack of it benefits the RCS.

Maybe/Maynotbe. We dont have the wind tunnel results.

 

[PRINCE_THE_SHOWSTOPPER]

I think he meant that we have to replace Mig 21 squads currently with MKI squads, because the LCA in not available and the Rafale will come only in some years.
Of course, wrt weightclass or capability they don't have anything in common, but IAF has no option currently, 200 x Mig 21s will be phased out till 2014 with no other type than MKIs coming in.

but the iaf requires three kinds of roles-the heavy duty ones which is done by Su-30,the medium ones covered by Mirages and the upcomming rafales,and the ligher duty ones being played by Mig-21s...the roles of these different categories of planes are different,like Su30 is an "air superority fighter" while mig-21 is not...so how can it replace the mig-21s...

 

[Agent_47]

Think it through buddy, we would have a lower number of stealth fighters ond amphibious ships, while our real aircraft carriers must sail will less capable 4th to 4.5 gen fighters?
Not to mention that the F35B version is the one with the least benefit, especially for amphibious assault roles. It has limited range and weaponload, has not even an internal gun and is much faster than the Sea Harriers it replaces, which makes it less useful in CAS compared to the earlier.
If at all, we could get same Apaches with the WAH changes to use them from naval vessels, but since we won't send our fleet far away for amphibious landings, even that would be a waste of money.

wow..perfect answer.u just flipped my mind sancho!

 

[INDIAISM]

On what basis? kindly put down the advantages that Tejas will have with delta and canards. DO you think they did not consider putting canards? They did and it did not make much difference to the performance of Tejas because of its small size.

If they would have used Delta wings with Cannards model then most probably Tejas would have achieved 2 Mach speed with present engine only and Cannards would have made it much more manuverable then present Tejas......

To be frank that model was more or less similar to Grippen .....

And Ya their was a reason why countries like China,French,Sweden,U.K,Spain,Italy and Germany has chosen Delta wing with cannards model over other models.....

 

[BlueDot_in_Space]

If they would have used Delta wings with Cannards model then most probably Tejas would have achieved 2 Mach speed with present engine only and Cannards would have made it much more manuverable then present Tejas......

To be frank that model was more or less similar to Grippen .....

And Ya their was a reason why countries like China,French,Sweden,U.K,Spain,Italy and Germany has chosen Delta wing with cannards model over other models.....

They have used it on medium fighters not a light fighter and they have used it that does not imply we also follow their suit. US does not use canards, are they dumb or their fighters are not up to the euro or chinese standards. Those who are working in ADA are smarter than you. Using probably, likely in argument does not make argument valid, but providing data that shows that using delta and canard on Tejas size fighter would improve its performance substantially. And why cry about mach 2 speed ?