It's law of nature..
Optimism vs Pessimism
But like read to both of their informative posts ..
Edit : it's like Naruto vs Sasuke ( famous Japanese anime )
Last edited:
Tejas Mk2 (Medium Weight Fighter) - News and discussions
- Thread starter Schwifty
- Start date
It's law of nature..
Optimism vs Pessimism
But like read to both of their informative posts ..
Edit : it's like Naruto vs Sasuke ( famous Japanese anime )
@Sancho bhai ko bnao... ADA design headSure it is. Gripen's the best. We should import Gripen instead of working on our own designs.
Lemme try to understand it : We will possibly beginning to fly our new 4th gen fighter in numbers with no stealth, no super maneuverability, mediocre range, a sluggish F-414 engine in ... 2040?
I cann't roll my eyes higher.
What these fighters will defend us against? A flock of pigeons?
The worst part: this is optimistic estimate. By all means we will be starting to think about a possible limited serial production in 2090.
Think it in this way: I have as much hope of HAL delivering any half way decent fighter as ITI producing Iphone (no, I am not talking about iPhone X or anything like that, just plain 2G iPhone from 2007).... in 2050 or even beyond.
Last edited:
All air forces have a high end and low end. The US will be flying similar aircraft until 2060 and beyond. 300+ F-16 (2050+), 500+ SH (2070+) and 100+ F-15 (2080+).
There's nothing wrong with HAL. They can deliver all these jets, no problem.
Only difference is that all those F-15s, F-16s would have long completed their production and we will possibly be starting production in late 2030s. F-16 is now done, and only orders are for export. So is F-15. All the US orders are for F-35s. I don't know what is up with F-18s.
I mean it will be wiser and cheaper to buy these platforms off the shelf and reverse engineer the heck out of it. Heck, even bribe their engineers to divulge their design secrets. I don't see any point in recreating these old bullock-carts a new.
Heck I would have loved if India would have bargained YF-23 and developed a new fifth gen platform out of it, customized for its own needs. That would have been an ace. I don't know whats up with AMCA. If at all it can ever fly.
Well, in computer science we have this weird sorting algorithm. Its called sort by decay. What you do is, you rely on random bit errors in RAM to change numbers in a list and hope those errors may one day amount to a sorted list. So you sit in tight loop, checking if the list has been sorted and do nothing. Eventually, I think random errors will result in a sorted list. Time? Don't ask.
who says a tornado cann't assemble a Rolls Royce from parts in a junkyard.
Their production being over and the jets being operated well after the 2050s are two irrelevant aspects.
And no, we won't be starting production in the late 2030s, we will be starting it before 2025 and ending it by late 2030s.
As for the US, they plan on inducting more SHs and F-15s until 2025.
Boeing Gets Multiyear Contract from U.S. Navy for 78 More Super Hornets
Pentagon: We’re Buying Boeing F-15s to Keep 2 Fighter Makers in Business
Apart from that, the French and Swedes will also be making Rafale and Gripen well into the 2030s. So all major air forces in the world will continue operating 4th gen designs well into the 2050s. In fact, you can say India will phase out 4th gen designs before the US will (primarily because American jets have longer lives).
That's the worst idea ever and DRDO rejected reverse engineering long ago anyway. There's no point to doing it since you will always stay backward. The Chinese have also abandoned it. Rather they decided to focus on derived but largely original designs themselves, like J-10 and J-20. That's why Chengdu has been more successful than Shenyang.
The Americans won't give up any technology related to the ATF or the F-22 due to their laws even if they wanted to.
The AMCA is being designed to be more advanced than the F-22/YF-23 anyway. The basic performance specs of the AMCA surpass that of the F-22 even with a 4th gen engine (minus supercruise), and we know for a fact that the F-22 was a better performing aircraft than the YF-23. For example, the F-22's TWR is 1.2 with full internal fuel while the AMCA's is 1.4 at the same fuel fraction compared to the F-22, and this is with a 4th gen engine on AMCA.
Also, the AMCA will surpass the F-35's level of stealth, which is better than the F-22. So the AMCA will perform better than the YF-23 along with having a better overall stealth design. So I do not know why you want us to regress. Of course, unless you believe the AMCA will be inferior to an aircraft designed in the 80s and that it will never fly anyway. But that's not the line of thought here.
Paper plane, AMCA is still a paper plane.
Its specs lies only on papers and files, not in reality. AMCA is atleast 10 years away from flying, while YF-23, F22 & F-35 have flown and showed their capabilities "in reality". As far as 80s planes are concerned, I think they'll rule the skies till 2030-40 decade until BVR missiles achieve 90-100% accuracy.
Exactly, it was "marketed" with Brahmos and only know nothings like you, will fall for such cheap marketing.
As if IAF with Su 30 and Rafales would ever choose an underpowered LCA, that can't even carry BVR missiles in that config, for a strategic mission.
Of course it is silly, because the dual rack solution adds drag and weight, but only an SPJ as part of the EW. Using ECM pods instead, you can add more EW equipment, instead of waiting for MK2 by 2025 to integrate EW and would have no need for the dual pylon anymore.
Since Gripen E has so far only tested GBU 10, Iris-T and Meteor, you won't find a single dual rack picture of it, unless you base your "knowledge" on old Gripen NG concepts, which wouldn't surprise me though. But it once again shows your lack of understanding.
The difference between Saabs and ADAs solution is, that Saab added AAM stations at the centerline, while ADA only added wingtip stations. That's why a Gripen E can carry more Meteor than Rafale now, while MK2 only adds more WVR missiles, but is dependent on the dual pylon for BVR missiles, which is not available in strike config.
Since you suffer from the usual lack of understanding, I will put something together as soon as I can spare some time, to make it easier for you.
For LCA fans, I am a Gripen fan boy, for Rafale fans, I am an EF fanboy, for most US fighter fans, I was a Rafale fan boy throughout the MMRCA and I wear that tag as with honor, because it only shows, that I am in fact independent and not guided by preference for a single fighter or blinded views.
The only fanboyism I do admit to, is IAF and I will defend any against nonsense that is claimed about them. Other than that, I stick to facts and official knowledge and that's why the real fanboys can't argue against me, especially not once with random knowledge.
Everyone with common sense can make a judgement on that, by understanding what the goal of the MK2 upgrade was, what the limitations of the LCA MK1 design were and what ADA has fabricated at the end. But common sense is not your strong suite.
First and foremost, MK2 was meant to add a 90-95kN engine, to improve the lack of flight performance! That's why the original MK2 design, had hardly any external changes. It was simple and focused on fixing the problems!
Secondly, it was aimed at standard modernisations of radar, EW and avionics, like any fighter gets over 10-15 years. Parts of that are already included in MK1A, while integrated EW, new cockpit display's will had to be added later.
At no point, there were requirements to increase MK2s weight up to the MMRCA class, because that would counter that he initial thrust requirments. It was ment to get lighter if possible, not to add 4t MTOW.
Canards might had been unavoidable, to reach the turn rates that were promised in the original LCA ASR, but useless wingtip stations for additional SR missiles, only add weight that it doesn't needed. Same goes for dual pylon or the 2nd intake station. Everyone who has checked an F16 or Rafale weapon station layout knows, that these stations are intended for a 2nd pod, if at all very light or size restricted weaponry. But since jammers, navigation or ESM equipment are carried internally today, these stations are not used anymore. Rafale doesn't use it at all, the F21 could be offered with an IRST pod on that station as it seems. So why add more useless weight and waste time by repositioning the gun for that? Did anybody asked for that? Surely not. It's just one more feature.
Also the dual pylon for BVR missiles is a compromise, to comply to IAF and IN requirements, to carry 4 BVR missiles + enough fuel in CAP missions. That's why ADA re-designed NLCA MK2 ealier with more internal fuel + centerline fuel tank, to have 4 wing stations free for missiles.
You can still see that in the naval MWF proposal, that uses a dual pylon on the centerline + 2 missiles on the wings + wingtanks. Using dual pylons therfore is unavoidable, to counter the lack of enough useful weapon stations.
The only useful additions, will be the once that were planned all along!
More thrust (but that will depend on the final weight)
Integrated EW (finally in 2025)
Modernised cockpit
And that's what ADA needs another 6 years for, after wasting 9 already??? What a joke.
Last edited:
For LCA fans, I am a Gripen fan boy, for Rafale fans, I am an EF fanboy, for most US fighter fans, I was a Rafale fan boy throughout the MMRCA and I wear that tag as with honor, because it only shows, that I am in fact independent and not guided by preference for a single fighter or blinded views.
The only fanboyism I do admit to, is IAF and I will defend any against nonsense that is claimed about them. Other than that, I stick to facts and official knowledge and that's why the real fanboys can't argue against me, especially not once with random knowledge.
P.S. I even was called an LCA fanboy in the past by Gripen fans, because during MMRCA I did had the hope, that LCA MK2 could at least turn out to be close to what was proposed back then by Saab (except for the weapon load advantages). But sadly ADA failed completely and to my surprise, Brazil and Saab changed the game for Gripen E, which got much better today, than initially projected. So I heard it all.
I'm awaiting @randomradio 's rebuttal.Everyone with common sense can make a judgement on that, by understanding what the goal of the MK2 upgrade was, what the limitations of the LCA MK1 design were and what ADA has fabricated at the end. But common sense is not your strong suite.
First and foremost, MK2 was meant to add a 90-95kN engine, to improve the lack of flight performance! That's why the original MK2 design, had hardly any external changes. It was simple and focused on fixing the problems!
Secondly, it was aimed at standard modernisations of radar, EW and avionics, like any fighter gets over 10-15 years. Parts of that are already included in MK1A, while integrated EW, new cockpit display's will had to be added later.
At no point, there were requirements to increase MK2s weight up to the MMRCA class, because that would counter that he initial thrust requirments. It was ment to get lighter if possible, not to add 4t MTOW.
Canards might had been unavoidable, to reach the turn rates that were promised in the original LCA ASR, but useless wingtip stations for additional SR missiles, only add weight that it doesn't needed. Same goes for dual pylon or the 2nd intake station. Everyone who has checked an F16 or Rafale weapon station layout knows, that these stations are intended for a 2nd pod, if at all very light or size restricted weaponry. But since jammers, navigation or ESM equipment are carried internally today, these stations are not used anymore. Rafale doesn't use it at all, the F21 could be offered with an IRST pod on that station as it seems. So why add more useless weight and waste time by repositioning the gun for that? Did anybody asked for that? Surely not. It's just one more feature.
Also the dual pylon for BVR missiles is a compromise, to comply to IAF and IN requirements, to carry 4 BVR missiles + enough fuel in CAP missions. That's why ADA re-designed NLCA MK2 ealier with more internal fuel + centerline fuel tank, to have 4 wing stations free for missiles.
You can still see that in the naval MWF proposal, that uses a dual pylon on the centerline + 2 missiles on the wings + wingtanks. Using dual pylons therfore is unavoidable, to counter the lack of enough useful weapon stations.
The only useful additions, will be the once that were planned all along!
More thrust (but that will depend on the final weight)
Integrated EW (finally in 2025)
Modernised cockpit
And that's what ADA needs another 6 years for, after wasting 9 already??? What a joke.
