LCA has Y-inlets. It's better for stealth than chin inlets.
Similar to this:
You can see here that the engine is hidden from view.
LCA Tejas Mk1 & Mk1A - News and discussions
- Thread starter Ashwin
- Start date
-
- Tags
- indian defence forum
LCA has Y-inlets. It's better for stealth than chin inlets.
Similar to this:
You can see here that the engine is hidden from view.
F-16A/Mig-29S = 5m2
Mig-21 = 3m2
Mig-29M = 1-2m2
F-16C = 1.2m2
M2000 = 0.8m2
LCA = <0.5m2
Rafale = <0.1m2
Not all single-shot fighters with two-sided intakes have Y-shaped intakes that shield the engine blades
Of course, if the horizontal propagation of radar waves will not affect, but for some angle of radar waves, it is not difficult
Attachments
It's too far in to be visible.
This image is even more clear, the landing carriage blocks the view.
To prevent cavitation, the inlet will get RAM treatment.
You can tell if you have more detailed photos of the Tejas inlet, and the radar beam isn't always perpendicular to the plane, as I said, When it has an angle, it's reflected directly on the engine blades
-Uttam AESA Radar has completed 125 flight tests on Tejas MK1 with a few more remaining. -41st MK1A is expected to be equipped with the first Uttam radar.- LCA MK-2 : The tenders for various parts have been posted, wings loaded up for assembly, LRUs under concurrent development.
Overall, I don't think non-stealth fighters can reach 0.5. Stealth design is much more complicated than most people think. Even a tiny gap between the fuselage skins can cause an aircraft's RCS to increase dramatically at a certain angle
You're both right and wrong! Why? Cause RCS isn't a static thing but is very dynamic. It depends upon multiple factors like external weapons load, aspect angle etc.
So, Gripen-C does have average loaded RCS of 1.5m2-2m2 but its clean frontal RCS is indeed 0.5m2. Similiarly Tejas' RCS when loaded with drop tanks and 6 BVRs is around 1.5m2-2m2. Though clean frontal is between 0.3m2 - 0.5m2.
But you're correct that only VLO planes have average RCS of below 0.5m2 from all aspects.
Where did you get this idea that Tejas is substantially overweight? Navy wanted it even lighter because their ships do not have catapult assist.
It has decreased weight since 2017 or so when it was reported to be overweight by Navy.
I never claimed all aspect RCS to be 0.5. And to be honest for a fully loaded Tejas it will be significantly higher.
But then, to be honest does J-20 has all aspect radar stealthy? Its low RCS is only when seen from certain profile.
And yes, tejas has substantial composits. About 90% of its surface is composit. Which is why its RCS is low.
I think he is ex pd-f. Gave it away when he claimed DSI part of "stealth".
A decade back on that forum, DSI was the greatest invention since sliced bread.
Oh well... these days everyone is really gungho on anything even remotely Turkish there.
If there's no direct line of sight, then the only problem is cavitation, which means the signal will bounce around. To deal with that, LCA will have RAM. Plus bouncing around also helps absorb energy, which is one of the advantages of a Y-inlet.
In fact, cavitation is a much bigger problem for chin inlets, like the F-16, Typhoon and J-10.
The Chinese pushed that story first.
No, this myth was driven by the U.S. Air Force, which began developing compact inlets in the 1980s, through Boeing, Lockheed Martin, McDonnell Douglas and other aviation giants, the DSI inlet is the most suitable, simple structure, light weight, no complex boundary layer barrier, There's no huge shock resistance,
This is called stealth inlet, India as long as from the oblique side can see the engine blade, I am afraid that only Indians will think he is invisible
A tailless delta-wing aircraft has a maximum Mach number of 1.6. Anyone with a sense of aerodynamics would laugh their heads off
The Tejas' inlet problems will be the sword of Damocles hanging over his head
You are free to believe what you want, but, even if that's the case, the LCA Mk1 has an RCS 3 times smaller than the M2000, which is already <1m2.
This is official data from the Swedish AF from early 2000s.
- Gripen's acceleration in sub-sonic and trans-sonic domains: faster than F/A-18C/D and M2000-5, but slower than F-16C.
- Gripen's instant turn rate: significantly better than F-16C, F/A-18C/D, and M2000-5.
- Gripenss sustained turn rate: worse than F-16C, F/A-18C/D, but better than M2000-5.
- The Gripen achieved the AoA of more than 100 degrees during the flight test, but due to the reason for flight safety, the normal setting of the upper limit of the AoA for the Gripen's FCS is 50 degrees now.
- Gripen's frontal RCS: about 1/5 of F/A-18C/D's, 1/3 of F-16C/D Block40/42's, and 1/2 of Mirage-2000-5's.
- Detective range of PS-05A radar (JAS-39): a little shorter than AN/APG-65/73 (F/A-18C/D), but 20% longer than RDY (M2000-5), and 40% longer than the AN/APG-68 for F-16C/D Block40/42.
- While combating with the basic type of MIG-29 (MIG-29G??) in BVR engagement:
- JAS-39A: the effective range for Gripen to detect MIG-29 is 60 km longer than the effective range for MIG-29 to detect Gripen.
- M2000-5: the effective range for Mirage to detect MIG-29 is 32 km longer than the effective range for MIG-29 to detect Mirage.
- F/A-18C/D: the effective range for Hornet to detect MIG-29 is 25 km longer than the effective range for MIG-29 to detect Hornet.
- F-16C/D: the effective range for Falcon to detect MIG-29 is 5 km longer than the effective range for MIG-29 to detect Falcon.
- Maintenance of GRIPEN:
- The MTBF for JAS-39A is 7.6 flight hours, and the SAAB declared that the MTBF for the USAF's frontline fighters (except F/A-22 perhaps) is no more than 4.1 flight hours.
- The man hours of maintenance for each flight-hour: 12 man-hours initially, than reduced to 10 man-hours (F/A-18 E/F: 15 man hours of maintenance for each flight-hour).
- The charge for each flight-hour: 2,500 USD initially, than reduced to 2,000 USD.
F/A-18 is 2 m2, F-16C is 1.2 m2, M2000 is 0.8 m2.
2/5 = 1.2/3 = 0.8/2 = 0.4 m2
LCA is 3 times smaller than M2000. So 0.8/3 = 0.267 m2.
95% of the LCA's surface area is composites. Although it wasn't designed for stealth, its still quite a small aircraft. So the combination of small size and composites has significantly reduced RCS compared to the all-metal Mirage. The LCA Mk1A will see further improvements in RCS.
We are being modest by saying LCA's RCS is 0.5 m2, but we know for sure it's better than Gripen C's 0.4 m2.
Aircraft like LCA, Rafale, Typhoon, Super Hornet and Gripen are called "reduced observable." Meaning, these are aircraft with RCS below 1m2.
The Koreans seem to have invented the term for the KF-21.
The Koreans have 4 categories.
MIN = Minimum Treatment. This is aircraft like the F-16C/E, J-10C, J-16, JF-17 B3, F-15EX, Su-35S, Su-30MKI, Mig-29M etc.
RO = 0.1 m2 class. Rafale, Typhoon, LCA, Gripen C/E, B-1B, Super Hornet etc. You can see some of these names in the image.
LO = 0.01m2 class. F-117.
VLO = 0.001m2 class.
The maximum speed is not a problem for LCA. Mach 1.3-1.4 is the most it needs. Top speed is not operationally employable from the locations they are expected to operate from, like 50-150 km from the frontline. So dash speed is meaningless. Plus it's more important for the aircraft to conserve fuel for dogfights.
The distance involved is so small that the enemy cannot make use of their own top speed, or they will risk overshooting. Not to mention the fact that LCA will exclusively operate under the cover of bigger ASFs and SAMs, so the aircraft that's overshot will get attacked.
Most jet with outer ordnance hardly cross Mach 1.6. Some like F-35, despite IWB, have their top speed capped at the same 1.6 Mach.
And thats supposed to be a problem?
F-35 has max 1.6 mach
Rafale is mach 1.8 at high altitudes and 1.1 on low altitudes
JF-17 has 1.6 mach max
Hurjet has 1.4 mach max
F/A-50 has 1.5 mach max
I think Tejas will be fine with that max speed.