is it apropriate for the LCA to have speed of 2.5 and above

[XEROX]

few weeks back i read that the LCA broke the speed barrier for supersonic flight - mach 1.2, for the first time

is it Necessary for a fighter jet like the LCA to have a realistic speed between mach 2.3 and 3, or does such speeds need not apply to this small bird

[P.A.F]

i think that speeds between mach 1.5 - 2.0 is enough for the LCA ;)

[adsH]

few weeks back i read that the LCA broke the speed barrier for supersonic flight - mach 1.2, for the first time

is it Necessary for a fighter jet like the LCA to have a realistic speed between mach 2.3 and 3, or does such speeds need not apply to this small bird

I doubt its as fast as 3 or even 2.5
i think its more like 1.8 max at high altitude. the problem is Structural integretory ai think those speads and the that fact thet you can't possibly have powerfull enough jets to place in that litle jet an exampl of 3.2 plus mach capable jet is teh SR71 the USAF project for hih spead hihg altitude surveilance, it is still the unbeatable maned AC spead barier breaker.


ENIOR CROWN SR-71




References

U-2/SR-71 PHYSIOLOGICAL SUPPORT PROGRAM AIR COMBAT COMMAND ACCI 11-459 : 10 MAY 96

SR-71 - High Speed Research NASA Dryden
SR-71 Photo Gallery
John Stone's Lockheed Blackbird Homepage
"Oxcart Story" the CIA's story of the life and death of the A-12 program.
"The U-2's Intended Successor: Project OXCART, 1956-1968" A later version of the CIA's A-12 history.
"Fall of the Blackbird", Art Hanley's discussion of why the SR-71 program was killed in 1990
THE SR-71 REACTIVATION October 1994 - March 1996 by retired Master Sergeant Christopher W. Bennett
SR-71 Blackbird back in business Released: Jan 30, 1997

SR-71 Blackbirds by Leland R. Haynes
List of all U-2 and SR-71 units, their bases, OLs and Dets
Soviet Analogs to U-2 and SR-71
Blackbird Survivors - Where are they?
Skunkworks Digest Archive


Developed for the USAF as reconnaissance aircraft more than 30 years ago, SR-71s are still the world's fastest and highest-flying production aircraft. The aircraft can fly more than 2200 mph (Mach 3+ or more than three times the speed of sound) and at altitudes of over 85,000 feet.

For its reconnaissance mission, the aircraft was outfitted with an advanced synthetic aperture radar system [ASARS-I], an optical bar camera and a technical objective camera wet film system. All were once part of the aircraft's original equipment.

The SR-71 was designed by a team of Lockheed personnel led by Clarence "Kelly" Johnson, at that time vice president of the company's Advanced Development Projects, known as the "Skunk Works." The first version, a CIA reconnaissance aircraft that first flew in April 1962 was called the A-11. The similar A-12 had a lower radar cross section. An interceptor version was developed in 1963 under the designation YF-12A. A USAF reconnaissance variant, called the SR-71, was first flown in 1964. The A-12 and SR-71 designs included leading and trailing edges made of high-temperature fiberglass-asbestos laminates which among other features contributed to their reduced radar signature.

Its existence was publicly announced by President Lyndon Johnson on Feb. 29, 1964, when he announced that an A-11 had flown at sustained speeds of over 2000 mph during tests at Edwards, Calif.

Development of the SR-71s from the A-11 design, as strategic reconnaissance aircraft, began in February 1963. First flight of an SR-71 was on Dec. 22, 1964. The YF-12s were experimental long-range interceptor versions of the same airframe and were first displayed publicly at Edwards on Sept. 30, 1964.

The Air Force needed technical assistance to get the latest reconnaissance version of the A-12 family, the SR-71A, fully operational. Eventually, the Air Force offered NASA the use of two YF-12A aircraft, 60-6935 and 606936. A joint NASA-USAF program was mapped out in June 1969.

The NASA YF-12 research program was ambitious; the aircraft flew an average of once a week unless down for extended maintenance or modification. It made 90 flights between 16 July 1971 and 22 December 1978.

The SR-71 is a delta-wing aircraft designed and built by Lockheed. They are powered by two Pratt and Whitney J-58 axial-flow turbojets with afterburners, each producing 32,500 pounds of thrust. Studies have shown that less than 20 percent of the total thrust used to fly at Mach 3 is produced by the basic engine itself. The balance of the total thrust is produced by the unique design of the engine inlet and "moveable spike" system at the front of the engine nacelles, and by the ejector nozzles at the exhaust which burn air compressed in the engine bypass system.

The Blackbird weighs about 34 tons empty, and can carry another 20 tons of special JP-7 jet fuel (enough for about two hours of flight time) in its fuselage and wing tanks. In flight, the fuel is redistributed automatically to maintain the plane's center of gravity and load specifications. Because the Blackbird was designed to expand during flight, it has had a history of fuel tank leaks on the ground.

The airframes are built almost entirely of titanium and titanium alloys to withstand heat generated by sustained Mach 3 flight. The aircraft's largely titanium structure is coated with a special radar-absorbing black paint that helps dissipate the intense frictional heat resulting from flight through the atmosphere at faster than three times the speed of sound. It also gives the plane its distinctive "Blackbird" nickname.

Aerodynamic control surfaces consist of all-moving vertical tail surfaces above each engine nacelle, ailerons on the outer wings, and elevators on the trailing edges between the engine exhaust nozzles.

Although most news reports characterize the SR-71 aircraft as `radar evading', in point of fact, however, the SR-71 was one of the largest radar targets ever detected on the FAA's long-range radars. The FAA was able to track it at ranges of several hundred miles. The explanation offered was that the radars were detecting the exhaust plume.

The SR-71A accommodates two crew members in tandem cockpits. The pilot flies the aircraft from the forward cockpit, while a systems operator monitors sensors and experiments in the rear station. For high-speed, high altitude missions, both crew members must wear full-pressure suites that resemble those worn by the early astronauts.

Congress appropriated $100 million in the fiscal year 1995 defense budget to reactivate two A-model jets and one B-model pilot trainer aircraft. The Air Force program office for the reactivation of the Blackbirds is at Wright-Patterson AFB, OH. They are operated by Air Combat Command.

The move to reactivate the SR-71 Blackbird reconnaissance aircraft was not unopposed. Critics looked at the SR-71 's limitations--it can effectively operate only in good weather and cannot transmit the images it collects directly to those who need them--and concluded that the aircraft should be retired.




Specifications

Primary Function:
Strategic Reconnaissance

Contractor:
Lockheed-Martin Skunkworks

Power Plant:
2 Pratt and Whitney J-58 axial-flow turbojets with afterburners
each produces 32,500 pounds of thrust

Length:
107.4 feet (32.73 m)

Height:
l8.5 feet (5.63 m)

Weight:
140,000 pounds (52,250 kg) Gross takeoff weight
80,000 pounds (30,000 kg) JP-7 fuel weight

Wingspan:
55.6 feet (16.94 m)

Speed:
over Mach 3.2 / 2,000 mph (3,200 kph)

Range:
over 2000 miles (3200 km) unrefueled

Altitude:
over 85,000 feet (26,000 m)

Unit Cost:


Crew
2

Inventory:

Built Lost
A-12 13 5
M-21 2 1
YF-12 3 2
SR-71A 29 11
SR-71B 2 1
SR-71C 1 0






Aircraft

Tail #
MODEL
Disposition

60-6924
A-12
Blackbird Airpark, Palmdale, CA (AFFTC Museum)

60-6925
A-12
Intrepid Sea-Air-Space Museum, NY

60-6926
A-12
crashed 24 May 1963, CIA pilot ejected safely

60-6927
A-12
Museum of Science/Industry, LA (Stored at Skunk Works)

60-6928
A-12
crashed 05 January 1967, CIA pilot killed

60-6929
A-12
crashed 28 December 1967, pilot ejected safely

60-6930
A-12
Alabama Space and Rocket Center, Huntsville

60-6931
A-12
Minnesota ANG Museum, St Paul, MN

60-6932
A-12
crashed 5 June 1968, CIA pilot killed

60-6933
A-12
San Diego Aerospace Museum

60-6934
YF-12A
destroyed on landing 14 August 1966

60-6935
YF-12A
USAF Museum, Dayton, OH

60-6936
YF-12A
crashed 24 June 1971, crew ejected safely

60-6937
A-12
Storage, Plant 42 (Skunk Works)

60-6938
A-12
USS Alabama Battleship Memorial Park, Mobile, AL

60-6939
A-12
destroyed on landing 9 July 1964, crew ejected safely

60-6940
A-12
Museum of Flight, Seattle

60-6941
M-12
crashed 30 July 1966 , pilot survived, LCO killed

64-17950
SR-71A
destroyed on takeoff 11 April 1969, crew ejected safely

64-17951
SR-71A
Pima Air Museum, Tucson, AZ (NASA YF-12C 937)

64-17952
SR-71A
crashed 25 January 1966, pilot survived, RSO killed

64-17953
SR-71A
crashed 18 December 1969, crew ejected safely

64-17954
SR-71A
destroyed on takeoff 11 April 1969, crew ejected safely

64-17955
SR-71A
AFFTC Museum, Edwards AFB, CA

64-17956
SR-71B
Operational, NASA Dryden FRC, Edwards AFB, CA

64-17957
SR-71B
crashed 11 January 1968, crew ejected safely

64-17958
SR-71A
Robbins AFB Museum, GA

64-17959
SR-71A
Air Force Armament Museum, Eglin AFB, FL

64-17960
SR-71A
Castle Air Museum, Merced, CA

64-17961
SR-71A
Kansas Cosmosphere & Space Center, Hutchinson, KS

64-17962
SR-71A
Reserve Fleet, Plant 42, Palmdale, CA

64-17963
SR-71A
Beale AFB Museum, CA

64-17964
SR-71A
SAC Museum, Offut AFB, NE

64-17965
SR-71A
crashed 25 October 1967, crew ejected safely

64-17966
SR-71A
crashed 13 April 1967, crew ejected safely

64-17967
SR-71A
Operational (USAF), Det 2, 9th SW, Edwards AFB, CA

64-17968
SR-71A
Reserve Fleet, Plant 42, Palmdale, CA

64-17969
SR-71A
crashed 10 May 1970, crew ejected safely

64-17970
SR-71A
crashed 17 June 1970, crew ejected safely

64-17971
SR-71A
Operational (USAF), Det 2, 9th SW, Edwards AFB, CA

64-17972
SR-71A
National Air and Space Museum, Washington D.C.

64-17973
SR-71A
Blackbird Airpark, Palmdale, CA (Det 1 ASC)

64-17974
SR-71A
crashed 21 April 1989, crew ejected safely

64-17975
SR-71A
March Field Museum, March AFB, CA

64-17976
SR-71A
USAF Museum, Dayton, OH

64-17977
SR-71A
destroyed in takeoff accident 10 October 1968

64-17978
SR-71A
destroyed in landing accident 20 July 1972

64-17979
SR-71A
History & Traditions Museum, Lackland AFB, TX

64-17980
SR-71A
Operational, NASA Dryden FRC, Edwards AFB, CA

64-17981
SR-71C
Hill AFB Museum, Hill AFB, UT

[P.A.F]

thats is bloody fast man. there is a black bird in a museam in sheffield, UK. anyway back to this topic i agree with adsh on mach 1.8 for the LCA

[Gremlin29]

Aerodynamics are usually the limiting factor to a designs VNE (velocity not to exceed), aside from thrust which is useless if it's unable to overcome the drag created as speed progresses. Also as adsH pointed out, strutural limitations become an issue as the aircraft experiences more extreme stresses at higher speeds. It's one thing to to achieve a certain speed, it's another to be able maneuver. None of this answers the question however.

Are speeds in excess of Mach 2 necessary? Depends on the aircrafts intended role. Speeds in excess of Mach 2 are only useful in trying to "catch up" to a threat, and hence "intercept" becomes the operative word.

[XEROX]

does anyone now the primary role of the LCA within the IAF, and for its intended role what speed would best suite it

[adsH]

does anyone now the primary role of the LCA within the IAF, and for its intended role what speed would best suite it

Ok what i have heard is that LCA not going to be Front line or any sort of frontline A TO A attack role it will primarily be used for Defensive roles, so i would say 1.8 mach that is claimed for it is a great spead. it will, i think it will be used for ground attack so a large number of Hard-points (which it has) will provide adequate ability to deliver the maximum number of Ordinance on the battle feild. it has a future but i doubt any better then the SU-30 which is going to be built in INdia.

PAF" is the SR-71 here in a museum where in sheffield it think that warrants a vist then

[P.A.F]

i'm not sure which where in sheffield it is but i will try and find out for ya ;)

[gf0012-aust]

absolute speed is something that needs to be factored in with the following:

mission tasking (interdiction, CAS, Strike etc...)
platform profile (is it designed for HS interdiction)
weapons load out (will the weapons fit balance out the absolute speed envelope? - why will absolute speed enhance the capability of the task - not the plane)
is the plane acting in isolation or part of an integrated solution? If so it's one element in a package to ensure that a capability and an outcome can be achieved)
what will it's principle threats be? (ie a SA-6 can still hit a high speed jet as well as a Learjet)

in short - top speed does not make the fighter perform any better unless the above is considered

[corsair7772]

I dont think you would require supersonic speeds in subcontinental conditions. We saw in the 71 War that this speed was rarely used due to fuel limitations. And the LCA doesnt have much of a chance of evading Pakistani BVR capable interceptors by simply flying off at top speed even if its a 2.2.

[gf0012-aust]

top speed really doesn't mean much at all, a higher supercruise speed is relevant depending on the platforms design and typical taskings.

otherwise it's meaningless.

[lalith prasad]

it has been tested at m1.4 and at an altitudeof 15000metres according to the pilot it handled very well even better than the mirages in the iaf.and by the way if lca cannot evade paf bvr interceptors then the chances of paf jets evading iaf bvr interceptors or a bvr equipped lca are equally slim.also it is not max speed or max alt that determine wether one aircraft is superior to the other .it is the supercruise speed gf0012 has said and world class avionics thats what makes f-16 such a good fighter

[P.A.F]

yeah we all know that. the point we are tring to make is that an aircraft like the LCA shouldn't have speeds over 2.5. in my case i think that it should be more like 1.5 to 2.0.
the comment you made on bvr is partially wrong. it depends on the pilots aswell. :smokingc:

[Aussie Digger]

GF, high speed can indeed be relevant, higher speed confers greater range and kinematic performance to an air to air missile for example, (one of the main advantages of the F/A-22 "Mach 1.5" Supercruise) and can be important on strike missions. True an SA-6 can shoot down a high performance jet the same as it can a Learjet, but the task becomes much harder and less certain when the aircraft is flying faster. Low Level penetration still depends to a certain degree on high speed and is still a useful tactic that can be employed. I think with the LCA the designers should be aiming for a Supercruise capability rather than outright speed. Cruising around at Mach 1.5 for extended periods is much more useful than being able to fly Mach 2.5 for a couple of minutes at best...

[gf0012-aust]

GF, high speed can indeed be relevant, higher speed confers greater range and kinematic performance to an air to air missile for example, (one of the main advantages of the F/A-22 "Mach 1.5" Supercruise) and can be important on strike missions. True an SA-6 can shoot down a high performance jet the same as it can a Learjet, but the task becomes much harder and less certain when the aircraft is flying faster. Low Level penetration still depends to a certain degree on high speed and is still a useful tactic that can be employed. I think with the LCA the designers should be aiming for a Supercruise capability rather than outright speed. Cruising around at Mach 1.5 for extended periods is much more useful than being able to fly Mach 2.5 for a couple of minutes at best...

What you have just said is absolutely true, what I was trying to get across is that absolute speed as a measurement of superiority is shooting loose.

[Aussie Digger]

Oh I see, how silly of me... :roll

[gf0012-aust]

Oh I see, how silly of me... :roll

yeah, sometimes I give a compressed answer and assume that people understand the way I think. ;)

Too busy checking emails and not enough time adding clarity.

:roll

[darklegent]

Mind u..... all fighters that have been high on mach have been very low on agility.
The faster u fly the slower u turn.

[XEROX]

wil the navy LCA version also have the same speed as the ones which will be used by the IAF

[adsH]

wil the navy LCA version also have the same speed as the ones which will be used by the IAF

I doubt there will be any significant differences appart from few Naval requirements. but i think the Indian Navy is more interested in Mig-29 MKI for there air wing, if LCA is introduced in the future for the NAVY it may just be shadowed by the Mig-29's in the fleet.

[XEROX]

:mrgreen

[Awang se]

Mind u..... all fighters that have been high on mach have been very low on agility.
The faster u fly the slower u turn.

That's why modern supersonic fighter was design to be unstable so aIs to achieve higher maneuverability. but there's also a human angle to be considered. To many G's and you got an "unmanned" aircraft.

I think LCA is quite the same with the BAE HAWK. Both are light aircraft. It more suited as CAS aircraft or area air defence role not far from front line while SU-30MKI can be use in a deep strike role and as high speed interceptor.

[Salman78]

appropriate ? oh plz lets not even go there. Mach 2.5 is pretty damn fast and LCA is not made for that.

[gf0012-aust]

appropriate ? oh plz lets not even go there. Mach 2.5 is pretty damn fast and LCA is not made for that.

The notion of mach 2 flight as a critical advantage in combat was a 1970's/1980's idea. It died realtively quickly.

Absolute speed is not essential, the capacity to autonomously suppress, to have a high supercruise and to be part of a symbiotic response is essential.

It's not the platform that counts - it's the combined arms implementation and capability that leverages any advantage.

[Salman78]

appropriate ? oh plz lets not even go there. Mach 2.5 is pretty damn fast and LCA is not made for that.

The notion of mach 2 flight as a critical advantage in combat was a 1970's/1980's idea. It died realtively quickly.

Absolute speed is not essential, the capacity to autonomously suppress, to have a high supercruise and to be part of a symbiotic response is essential.

It's not the platform that counts - it's the combined arms implementation and capability that leverages any advantage.

Rarely in real air combat any aircraft would even get close to Mach 2. Its just a representative figure. Most of the 5th generation figthers can sustain that speed for as little as 2 minutes if not a few seconds. LCA will be out of fuel in less then 5 mins at a sustained Mach 1.5 let alone reaching Mach 2 so 2.5 is out of question.

So regarding the topic. NO its not apropriate for LCA to have such speed capability. It would be useless...

[santpaul]

isn't LCA supersonic at all alltitude even on sea level?

[gf0012-aust]

Most of the 5th generation figthers can sustain that speed for as little as 2 minutes if not a few seconds.

You're ignoring the issue of supercruise. Which is sustained supersonic speed sans after burners. It's deliverable and do-able.

90% of the SR-71's total hours were supercruised at Mach 3. The F-22's principle response de jour in engagement is it's supercruise advantage - at sustained tempo.

I agree though that the LCA does not need it, it ignores its tasking and design brief.

[umair]

What should be kept in mind here, along with the intended tasking, is the fact that apart from BVR engagements, no other form of air combat can take place at speeds in excess of little more than 460knts.Go above that and your turning radius advantage goes with it(wether platform stable or unstable).Above 460 knts a plane starts turning in mile/s long radii.

[gf0012-aust]

What should be kept in mind here, along with the intended tasking, is the fact that apart from BVR engagements, no other form of air combat can take place at speeds in excess of little more than 460knts.Go above that and your turning radius advantage goes with it(wether platform stable or unstable).Above 460 knts a plane starts turning in mile/s long radiuses.

IIRC The SR-71 had a 500 mile turn corridor ;) Thats an interesting concept at speed. "Blink" and you're outside of missile range.

edit: corrected turn length (finger prob ;))

[Deltared075]

If you want LCA reach mach 3, then LCA have to build with titanium and not composite!

The Black Bird airframe was full titanium! and titanium more expensive than gold!

[gf0012-aust]

If you want LCA reach mach 3, then LCA have to build with titanium and not composite!

The Black Bird airframe was full titanium! and titanium more expensive than gold!

It's physically impossible for the design shape of the LCA to reach Mach 3, irrespective of materials used and engine transplant.

It would need a complete redesign.

[Deltared075]

Yes.. Indeed the LCA will need redesign for reach mach3.
Maybe increase size for engine space... then it cannot call LCA...

[lalith prasad]

lca will have a max speed of 1.8m according to ada.gov.in .till last reports it was tested to m1.4 to 15000metres curently it is undergoing routine maintenance and will be weapons tested this year.by the way lca is not in the category of hawk .lca can carry 4000kg weapon load some sources say 4000+ according to sinodefence jf17 a heavier aircraft can carry 3900kgs weapon load.anyway lca does not need 2.5m speed .

[darklegent]

I agree with Lalith prasad. The LCA was made with the prime objective of higher load carriage then higher mach. If my memory serves me right then the origanl design that the ada went with was a light weight fighter with speed of max. 1.8M. The Lca is light (5500 Kgs) and carries about 4000 kgs of armourment on its hardpoints and wud eventually do 1.7M to 1.8M

I think LCA is quite the same with the BAE HAWK. Both are light aircraft.

No offence Awang se but plz re think the quote that you have posted. Both are light aircrafts with different missions. The Hawk is an execelent aircraft but is a TRAINER and wud never be a direct replacement to Migs or any of their Chinese clones.

[XEROX]

The navy LCA looks sexy with its display paint job :smokingc:

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/Images/LCA4.jpghttp://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Images/Special/AeroIndia2003/Indoor-LCA-Navy.jpg

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/Images/LCA1.jpg

[XEROX]

Can anyone dispel or confirm speculation that the naval LCA will have an AESA radar??

[VICTORA1]

Guys,
In the 73 war, egyptian mig 25 flew ahead of a chasing IAF plane at mach 3, had a blown motor by the time it got home. Now in close combat, the slower a fighter plane can fly, the more advantage it would have over the adversary. So, just like size, speed is not everything by itself. It is what you can and what you need to do with it.

[Soldier]

Can anyone dispel or confirm speculation that the naval LCA will have an AESA radar??

Brahmos, It is not yet confirmed if Naval LCA will surely have AESA radar but it is speculated in defence circles though.

Attention should now firmly focus on the Naval LCA project. LCA is somewhat similar in size and configuration to the Swedish Gripen (Griffin) that attained IOC (Initial Operational Capability) in 1997 and is all set to receive a major upgradation before 2010. Ericsson the same radar agency associated with the LCA is developing ASEA (Active Electronically Scanned Array) radar for Gripen and hopefully a similar system will arm the Naval LCA. ASEA radar has tremendous growth potential and the capacity to detect even enemy radar transmissions at extended ranges and jam them with "transmission bursts".
http://www.indiadefence.com/gorshkov.htm

[lalith prasad]

are you sure it is ericsson because thales website has a photo of lca in its rc400 page ,rc400 is a pretty good radar too.and also india is working on an aesa.

[Deltared075]

Why everything good come out the LCA must have it?

How about put the phalcon radar on the LCA instead?

[XEROX]

Dude there is a diffrence between radars and a AWACAS

And yes the LCA along with the other "top" fighter aircrafts will be intergrated onto to phalcon platform

[gf0012-aust]

Why everything good come out the LCA must have it?

How about put the phalcon radar on the LCA instead?

Have you seen how big the Phalcon nose radar is? The LCA would not be able to take off, and I suspect it would fall over onto it's nose. It's much too big for such a little plane. ;)

[XEROX]

Hey gf12, how many aircraft will be able to be intergreted on the phalcon platform??

[gf0012-aust]

Hey gfoo12, how many aircraft will be able to be intergreted on the phalcon platform??

Do you mean how many aircraft can it vector at once or how many can it see at any one time?

As an example, the E3C is capable of identifying over 250 concurrent targets. It can vector as many friendlies on "visual" as targets. The Phalcon is not deemed to be as capable.

[XEROX]

yeah how many can it vector at once??

[gf0012-aust]

yeah how many can it vector at once??

The actual number of planes it can see and vector is classified. The 250 figure is very conservative. An E2c can vector 200 platforms concurrently. (again a conservative figure)

Just assume that if it can see 250 enemy aircraft, it can prioritise the threats concurrently. ;)

[XEROX]

Amazing!!, by the way i was watching a programme how the RAAF train their pilots, funny moments in the "air chambers"

[Deltared075]

Why everything good come out the LCA must have it?

How about put the phalcon radar on the LCA instead?

Have you seen how big the Phalcon nose radar is? The LCA would not be able to take off, and I suspect it would fall over onto it's nose. It's much too big for such a little plane. ;)

I know the phalcon radar size, because some people out there want all the best for LCA, no even use their brain to think how far the LCA really can go.
And the AESA price? then the LCA will cost USD 50 million ++

Then i wonder how the Indian going to make it cheap?

[lalith prasad]

hal chief has said that the iaf will be posting an order for 40 lcas initially for about 1 billion dollars.

[Deltared075]

25 millions a piece and still dream of the AESA?

Admin: Please read http://defencetalk.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2274

Future one liners that don't contain a comment of substance or some kind of input will be deleted

[darklegent]

25 millions a piece and still dream of the AESA?

Can u plz explain why not? :?

[Deltared075]

The LCA will use US engine, Israel EW and so on, all this advance equipment come with high price! do you ever think why a 30 years old F16 design when upgrade with AESA will cost around 50 millions++?
The AESA radar use limited technology to produce so cannot put into mass production with cheap price.

Even if India can produce it owns AESA radar, it not going to cheap!
not the worker salary that make it expensive, but the material to produce the radar very expensive!

If you think can get reduce the AESA price? maybe in future but not now.
if you can get a LCA with AESA cost 25 millions, then you can get a phalcon radar around 50 millions USD.

[lalith prasad]

the pesent version does not have an aesa radar.the ge-f-404 engine is not as expensive as you think.ofcourse the price of lca will be further reduced when the kaveri gets ready.the problem is that india does not have single crystal blade technology (i dont think china has it too).france offered to sell it to india but i dont know if india has accepted it or not .most of the israeli avionics have been indiginised and the elbit hud has been replaced by an indian one.

[Deltared075]

the pesent version does not have an aesa radar.the ge-f-404 engine is not as expensive as you think.ofcourse the price of lca will be further reduced when the kaveri gets ready.the problem is that india does not have single crystal blade technology (i dont think china has it too).france offered to sell it to india but i dont know if india has accepted it or not .most of the israeli avionics have been indiginised and the elbit hud has been replaced by an indian one.

The China do have the single crystal blade technology, they use on aircraft engine long time ago. (I read from some website, forgot the link)

[Salman78]

LCA will come out to be a very limited technology/capability aircraft mainly due to its size. I seriously doubt it will secure any outside sales success if any. The project is being dragging on forever and there is much work to be done. the very bad mix of american,israeli and indian technology will turn off most nations. the platform suffers the same problem as with mig-29's and 21's, short range. such a small aircraft can hardly afford to be crammed with all the high tech stuff ppl on this board are talking about. LCA is a remedy for large numbers of Mig-21's and thats all its going to come out to be.

[gf0012-aust]

LCA will come out to be a very limited technology/capability aircraft mainly due to its size. I seriously doubt it will secure any outside sales success if any. The project is being dragging on forever and there is much work to be done. the very bad mix of american,israeli and indian technology will turn off most nations. the platform suffers the same problem as with mig-29's and 21's, short range. such a small aircraft can hardly afford to be crammed with all the high tech stuff ppl on this board are talking about. LCA is a remedy for large numbers of Mig-21's and thats all its going to come out to be.

Au contraire. The best Mig 29 derivative was an Elbit modified version for the Roumanians - they just couldn't afford it. The Israelis are acknowledged as being probably the best integrators of didsparate weapons systems in the world - certainly better than the european regulars such as Sagem and Thales. Why do you think the Chinese sought out Israeli expertise for their combat aircraft and missile systems. The Israeli Mig-21 conversion done for the Roumanians is also considered one of the best in the world - and was able to match Dutch F-16's in a number of areas when wargamed recently. The plane has its limitations - but the Israeli mod is certainly a beast changer.

The LCA is a far more forgiving design than the Mig-21 - which is not only beset with poor handling characteristics at take off and landing, but is also victim to the traditional enemy of unreliable Russian parts supply of critical components.

As long as the LCA is not overloaded with expectations and taskings that it's not designed for, it will be a suitable platform. It's like a cross between a small mirage and a folland gnat - so it has the potential to be an effective CAS/Strike platform.

[lalith prasad]

so if china has single crystal blade technology then they definitely must have engines like m88 and the latest pw and ge engines ,or the ej200 which power the rafale,f22 and the ef2000 typhoon,then why did they go for russian engine for the f-10 and the jf17.the unique features of developing engines with single crystal blade technology is high performance for reduced weight and high reliability and resistance to fod.all the current engines have the unidirectionally solidified blades.

[Deltared075]

so if china has single crystal blade technology then they definitely must have engines like m88 and the latest pw and ge engines ,or the ej200 which power the rafale,f22 and the ef2000 typhoon,then why did they go for russian engine for the f-10 and the jf17.the unique features of developing engines with single crystal blade technology is high performance for reduced weight and high reliability and resistance to fod.all the current engines have the unidirectionally solidified blades.

Only with the crystal balde technology don't mean they can produce engine like m88. there are lot more complicated technology need for a modern engine. by the way, i don't think the WS-10 engine was far behind the m88.

even the kavari was in the RD33 (same with China WS-13) class but the WS-10 was in AL-31F class!