Quick.
Name the last lightweight attack fighter operated by the US sea services. If you said A-4 SkyHawk then you get the prize.
Maybe that's why I like this plane so much. It reminds me of the results of a wild night on the town between a Jaguar and A-4 that ended back at the hotel.
Livefist has more pics and info here.
Damn, did you guys see the follow on posts on that Livefist site.....from LCA achieving cold start to a 5000KM ballistic missile and dates for air launched BrahMos from Su-30 to even the AMCA. Very doubtfull about the AMCA though.
ReplyDeleteTejas is Gripen size and is meant to replace mostly Mig21 as a multirole fighter,but peering over to China and Pakistan what it needs to best is JF17 -Thunder which at the moment probably is a better fighter and at 1/3 cheaper than Tejas ,but on Carrier aviation Tejas replaces Harrier which will be a great step in preformance but it cant match ither Mig 29K or Su27 variants used by chinese.
ReplyDeleteIn what way is the JF-17 the better fighter than the LCA? The LCA trumps the JF-17 in everything but cost (but that escalates when you have higher performance/capabilities) The LCA can do everything the JF-17 can do but the same is not true in reverse.
DeleteThe JF-17 Blk.2 will just about be on par with the LCA Mk.1 in terms of capabilities but by then the LCA Mk.2 will be underproduction. I'd request you to look at the LCA Mk.2 in detail- increased internal fuel, more powerful engine, AESA radar, new EW systems, improved cockpit etc etc) This is going to outclass the JF-17 to an embarrassing degree.
Cost and bans tech free... this will be enough for most nations to take them before LCA any day.
DeleteFlyaway Cost:
DeleteJF-17: $24 million (most widely circulated figure on the net)
Tejas: $26 million (as per contract with HAL)
_______________
JF-17:
- Larger combat radius
Tejas:
- HMDS (Elbit Dash 5)
- better WVR weapon (Python-5)
- better EW system (integral DRFM jammer)
- higher airframe fatigue life (6000hrs vs 3500 hrs)
- more durable and reliable engine (GE 404 vs RD-93)
- superior precision strike capability (Litening G4 vs WMD-7) [with a dedicated hardpoint]
Wonder if this will be a competition to Gripen and JF-17 on the market.
ReplyDeleteNot likely Gripen NG will stay above cost and preformance of ither Tejas or JF17 ,Tejas will likely remain an Indian affair as India is not like china when it comes to forging political an Bussines ties plus Tejas is a decade or two late. Chinas JF17 might have the best chances simply because China can provide low interest credits to potential customer and also avoids US bans on tech which already happened to both Gripern and Tejas.
DeleteLight fighter market other rivals are AIDC F-CK-1 Ching-kuo and KAI T50.
While big players are developing large and expensive fighters world is open for next gen planes to replace aging Mig21,Mirage III-V ,F5 etc fleets but any contender needs to be low cost
The LCA has a HUGE internal market demand to satisfy (250+ units for the IAF and IN) whilst the Gripen NG and (more so) JF-17 Thunder are relying on export sales. Remind me how many nations have bough the JF-17 so far? Despite being cheap as chips it is still without a single export sale to date and not even the PLAAF who has bags of cash around want it- says a lot really.
DeleteJF17 is an export item China has no iterest as it has J-10 which is much more high preformance. For now only operator is Pakistan but i do not doubt JF17 will find more customers in the future.
DeleteThe JF-17 has a lot of hype around exports- Egypt, Sri Lanka, Nigeria etc etc but zero success to now which is strange giving its absurdly low cost (sub $18 million) that many nations show interest in it then back away from an actual purchase on closer inspection says a lot really.
DeleteI think the natural place for an export LCA is Vietnam. It updated 144 of it's MiG-21s with India's upgrade package already so they have a relationship. In about ten years when those updates are obsolete AND Indian has reached it's domestic goal of 250 LCA in service, it would be natural for India to sell 140+ LCA to replace the MiG-21s.
DeleteVietnam needs an affordable replace for their MiG-21s and can't afford an all Sukhoi Flanker fleet.
A Sukhoi and LCA Hi-Low mix would be just the thing for Vietnam.
Others could include Phillipines, Taiwan, Sri Lanka
I think the natural place for an export LCA is Vietnam. It updated 144 of it's MiG-21s with India's upgrade package already so they have a relationship. In about ten years when those updates are obsolete AND Indian has reached it's domestic goal of 250 LCA in service, it would be natural for India to sell 140+ LCA to replace the MiG-21s.
DeleteVietnam needs an affordable replace for their MiG-21s and can't afford an all Sukhoi Flanker fleet.
A Sukhoi and LCA Hi-Low mix would be just the thing for Vietnam.
Others could include Phillipines, Taiwan, Sri Lanka
Personally I am a fan of lightweight AND CHEAP aircraft, like the A4, to complement heavier ones.
ReplyDeleteHaving aircraft that have low hourly rates to fly is in it self a boost to your combat capabilities, if alone to keep the training rates up for pilots and to keep squadrons at full strength.
The Tejas is a great looking aircraft, reminds me a bit of Mirages also but it is not that cheap. On the other hand hourly rates could very well be reasonable
My ideal setup, for many air forces and even the US navy and Marines would be a high low one with for instance Improved F18 / F15 / F22 + Gripen/Tejas/F-CK-1 ( excuse my french) derived aircraft. Basically the way F15 and F16 related to each other to the max.
To me the Gripen is the most mature, best design to use, but any of the others would likely work, with some tweaking.
Be honest, what would be more effective, an Aircraft Carrier with only half the nominal squadrons using F18 + f35 or one with a full compliment of a high / low mix. ?
Offtopic
ReplyDeleteN. Korea pronounced a new rocket from a new ship
http://i.imgur.com/YXkqxs4.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/X6qDC7Y.png
http://i.imgur.com/XVu2bku.png
http://i.imgur.com/1DFOqGg.jpg
A-4 Skyhawks had the highest loss rate per sortie flown of any jet in the Vietnam war.
ReplyDeleteThe 'Radiance' is 5ft shorter than an F-16 with 1,800lbs less fuel (7,200 vs. 5,400). This equates to a mission radius of under 190nm.
It was supposed to based on an Indian upgrade of the F-404-GE-100 but the Kaveri turned out to be a leap too far for the Indian corporate corruption as much as technology base and so it uses the F404-GE-402 with 19,000lbf against a roughly 21,000lb mission weight (I assume that's A2A since A2G rarely shows the aircraft without 2X 316 gallon tanks).
As the canopy height suggests, this is not a light strike fighter so much as an armed trainer in the tradition of the Folland Grant and HAL Marut. I would not want to take it into battle because without external gas it likely has the combat persistence equal or less than the MiG-21 Bison it nominally replaces. With gas, it's drag and T/Wr will almost certainly keep it subsonic in the manner of an F-5A or E.
It is interesting that the naval variant rollout photo shows a single wheel NLG when the IAF model has twin tires. Without instream, close coupled, canards from the likes of a (PAK-FA) LEVCON I am also suspicious of the types' landing speed and view over the nose in the carrier mission or roadbase environment (the jet was originally intended as a fighter for the Kashmir region with it's very high density altitude airfield strips) as, again, the IAF model has a very high nose up alpha on flare. Nose High = float + drag, both very much unappreciated in an aircraft looking for precision scatter control in a decklanding mode yet something you would expect from an F/A-18 class (413 square foot) wingarea and 50lb/sqft wingloading (for comparison, the original F-15A was around 56lbs/sqft).
I expect it will turn well to whatever extent the F404-GEIN-20 flat rating allows you to keep pumping Ps into it but as with all pure deltas, there is only so much super critical root shaping as conical camber plus outboard twist you can put into the aerofoil before the jet hits an onspeed corner lift function and can go no more, even with LES/LEF.
At that point, the jet will be 'committed' and pilots will likely have to come off the stick to get roll on the airframe which is going to effect loaded turn reversal performance. Have a threesome between a Mirage 2000 (midbody/wing), a Viggen (nose) and a Gripen (tail/engine) and this is the worst-of-three bastard love child that will result.
Not a bad CAS/OBAS jet for dumping a couple LGB on targets too high up in the Himilayan foothills for helos to reliably reach but not particularly combat capable as a fighter and definitely a step backwards from the Rafale or even F-16 as a multirole aircraft.
They could have invested the same level of (composite airframe + mission systems) work in a UCAV and stolen a march on the world, using Su-30s to push truly VLO robots through the first line of defenses with more fuel and internal ordnance as well.
Iron Fist 2013
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXGV9o8L_sY
The N-LCA has a significantly lowered nose than the IAF variant for great over the nose visibility, additionally all the NLCA to be delivered to the IN will be based on the LCA MK.2 thus having the more powerful F414-GE-INS6 engine, improved internal fuel capacity, a IFR probem an AESA radar and the naval variant will have LEVCONS.
DeleteSir, I suggest you watch the following video that outlines (by an Indian Navy test pilot the exact characteristics and design modification of the NLCA):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJjNXA9w3dg
M&S, you oversell drones. RPVs/UAVs have the worst loss rate in mountainous territory. The US had a 50% Predator loss rate in the mountainous terrain of Afghanistan. Something about the mountains confusing telemetry and the reaction delay inherent in RPVs.
Delete