Any idea if France was willing to transfer critical technology like for engine, radar, stealth in MMRCA 1? If it was, I think France will have a very good chance of winning the current one too. I dont think any other country apart from Russia will be willing to transfer such technologies. I read an article today in which a french man was saying that they are willing to transfer tech to India for Rafale for mmrca 2.
ADA MCA medium weight class (LCA Mk II)
- Thread starter Himanshu
- Start date
100% of engine and airframe. The rest, they met ToT requirements for almost all except the RAM coating and the painting technique.
What I got to know was that IAF wants SE aircraft in large numbers to do scramble duties and for the "First day, First Show". The twin engine fighters can't scramble in a very short time. At same time IAF & IN has completely moved to swing role fighters. Multi-role and role specific aircraft not an option anymore. LCA Mk1A is a dedicated fighter with limited CAS ability. LCA Mk2 is supposed to be a bit more on Mk1A but still way below what these services need. IN will go for a mix of twin and single engine fighters for the carriers. IAF has realised that it needs more and more single engine fighters. It was pretty clear to me that this new round will also go to Rafale only. But they will be more tan willing to consider any single engine design from any Indian institution provided it has majority of items as detailed in the RFI. This RFI is more of an ASQR if read correctly.
Regarding stealth design, they will be very happy with my kind of design provided I can support the design with VHF/UHF jammers. Active cancellation is not a necessity but internal bays with very good jamming from 0.1GHZ to about 40 GHZ is what they will welcome. If MSA can turn out to be such an aircraft, the numbers for TE fighters will be drastically reduced. In fact except for these additional Rafales, there may not be anymore TE orders.
I agree with your assessment here.
The I30 is still some ways away before it becomes reliable enough to power a single engine aircraft. Any idea how far behind the XF9-1 is?
Any chance the US will give you the F119 or F135?
You know my views about American equipment. XF9 started testing its hot core last year and likely to be certified by end 2018 but I30 will be online by 2020 and till than I can use 117S also.
@randomradio, XF9 and I30 engine are big engines which need a big jet starter to supply very high air/power to start them. Such a Jet starter becomes the best device for me to be used for generating air for BLC for MSA to be able to go with full load from STOBAR carriers. Plus these engines have the thrust which allows use of BLC even during combat. BLC increases the Clmax by a factor of two depending upon the span it is applied to, the hinge line and flap position. It gives a kind of edge in combat not seen before. An STR of over 35*/sec is easily achievable with BLC use during combat for a lightly loaded airframe.
I30 is better suited for my design as I want to add instability in air by use of thrustline. My design has thrustline below the wingline which will give pitch up moment to the aircraft with increase in thrust while the static design remains a stable design. The design has a CG travel of just 3% keeping the stability margins within 3%-6% thruout the flight including weapon release. If you may recall, I had stated that at the end of the day, you need a stable aircraft to fly properly and for that you can have an unstable design which becomes stable in air or a stable design which becomes unstable in air. I have chosen to add instability thru the use of thrustline to my design and control it with tail plane.
I30 has its accessory gear box on top and that allows me to have a lower position of the engine within the fuselage below that of my wingline.
I30 is better suited for my design as I want to add instability in air by use of thrustline. My design has thrustline below the wingline which will give pitch up moment to the aircraft with increase in thrust while the static design remains a stable design. The design has a CG travel of just 3% keeping the stability margins within 3%-6% thruout the flight including weapon release. If you may recall, I had stated that at the end of the day, you need a stable aircraft to fly properly and for that you can have an unstable design which becomes stable in air or a stable design which becomes unstable in air. I have chosen to add instability thru the use of thrustline to my design and control it with tail plane.
I30 has its accessory gear box on top and that allows me to have a lower position of the engine within the fuselage below that of my wingline.
Not yet but will do so very soon.
How about adding a thrust vectoring nozzle to LCA MK2and a canard ...
We still have to see if ADA has chosen a canard configuration. They may have chosen a LERX configuration also. And then, they may have chosen neither.
Multiple designs are made and one of them is chosen. Let's see.
Please understand that you can't add a canard and say now it must behave like Rafale. French have done the most extensive research on this and they are the only masters in CCC design. Even the Russians who are far ahead of any western country in aerodynamics have not been able to match up the expertise of French in CCC design.How about adding a thrust vectoring nozzle to LCA MK2
LCA will need a complete redesign to be able to get the benefits from canards.
Less thrust, higher weight and low on RCS & IR signature reduction ability. For prototypes they can be used but not for final product.
EDIT --
Rafale, Euro fighter and Su 30 MKI air inlets on the under the belly so they do have complete freedom to place the canard and LCA don't have that much space for canard since air inlets are under the wings and LCA don't have a bigger fuselage like Rafale .so placing the canards will be a challenge for ADA.
you need to read and understand about control canards and close coupled canards. And also about three plane aircraft like su-30MKI.
Hi, went thru 3 threads worth a few hundred pages and like what I see. Random radio is already a favorite
But without any malice I must say
When random radio says, amI not an optimist, I am a realist
That is the height of optimism
I would like to correct you there. That would be called "delusion".
But I have my reasons for why I seem like I have become optimistic, in the last 2 years or so.
You will all share my "optimism" in a few years, when everything becomes clear.
Things are going good, really good. Not like the circus before.
