is it apropriate for the LCA to have speed of 2.5 and above
- Thread starter XEROX
- Start date
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.darklegent said:
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.
The notion of mach 2 flight as a critical advantage in combat was a 1970's/1980's idea. It died realtively quickly.Salman78 said:
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.gf0012-aust said:
So regarding the topic. NO its not apropriate for LCA to have such speed capability. It would be useless...
You're ignoring the issue of supercruise. Which is sustained supersonic speed sans after burners. It's deliverable and do-able.Salman78 said:
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.
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.
IIRC The SR-71 had a 500 mile turn corridorumair said:
Thats an interesting concept at speed. "Blink" and you're outside of missile range.edit: corrected turn length (finger prob
)Deltared075
New Member
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!
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.Deltared075 said:
It would need a complete redesign.
Deltared075
New Member
Yes.. Indeed the LCA will need redesign for reach mach3.
Maybe increase size for engine space... then it cannot call LCA...
Maybe increase size for engine space... then it cannot call LCA...
lalith prasad
Banned Member
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
New Member
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
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.
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.
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.
Brahmos, It is not yet confirmed if Naval LCA will surely have AESA radar but it is speculated in defence circles though.PJ-10 BrahMos said:
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
Banned Member
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
New Member
Why everything good come out the LCA must have it?
How about put the phalcon radar on the LCA instead?
How about put the phalcon radar on the LCA instead?