Counter Article on “Stop Wasteful Military Deals”

[HariPrasad]

Every heard of bombs with multilocks, or on racks?


JF-17 is heavier than LCA.

6586kgs vs 6560kgs

Ofcourse LCA has a larger wing area which contributes to the extra weight when compared to the all metal JF-17.

I think that weight 6560 kg was of PV3.There has been a lots of weight reduction since than.

 

[HariPrasad]

The only person with comprehension issues is you. Yes I said that the combat radius figure given in WP seems too low, but look at the next sentence - nobody would argue that the combat radius of the rafale is much higher. I did not say four times as high, I only said much higher. Stop creating strawmen and burning them down.
From the very beginning I have been pointing out combat range as the significant factor, whereas you were taking the average of two different kinds of ranges, which is an absurd thing to do.

Pl refer to your psot No 10. I copy pest part of that here.

Check out what the range of LCA will be with a 5.5 ton payload (which implies no external fuel tanks). Then check out Rafale's range.

Combat radius of LCA - 300 m
Combat radius of Rafale - 1300 km
Now tell me How many times 1300 Km is to 300 KM? Is not is 4.33 times? So you said that and It is not my assumption. And:
Much higher means How many time Higher. When wiki state that range of Tejas is 3000 KM and that of Rafale is 3700 Km what hell the difference in combat radius (Do not confuse with combat radius. Combat radus will be in proportion to range. This is just to give an idea). After all Single engine Tejas has 56 % of fuel compare to Double engine Rafale. So there is not going to be a very huge difference in either range or combat range. MK2 is going to carry 30 to 40% higher fuel. So how rafale's combat radius is going to be significantly batter than MK2? Any idea? I will say that it will be by and large equal with a difference in rage of 10 to 15%.

Failing at leh is indeed a big issue for the IAF, in fact it is almost make or break, because half of IAF's forward airbases are in high and thin atmospheric conditions. There is a reason they conducted one leg of the trials there.
"Minor change in engine?" That is risible and shows you have no idea what you are talking about.

I said that Su 30 MKI also failed. Issue was sorted out in consultation with engine manufacturer without much problem. After all 404 is one of the best engine. There should not be much problem in sorting out the issue. That is why no one figure out that as a teething problem of Tejas. Even critics do not point out that a big issue.

MK1 is not ready either. If it was, it would be doing squadron service, and not test flights in bangalore. As it happens, even full IOC has not been achieved. OTOH gripen A/B/C/D has been in service for decades.

Tejas is not ready doesn't mean that none of the design and technology is validated. So many design and technology is validated. MK1 is in fine tuning stage in most of technology. (Pl read the article I posted.in previous post). That doesn't mean at all that we can not begin MK2 work. The stage at which Tejas is at present now, certainly give us full confidence to begin MK2 construction. That is why MK2 work begun long back. You should recognize that who took the decision to begin the work are not fool.

I did not put any words in your mouth that did not come out of there initially. Read the post you quoted, and you will see that I said :

I never said MK2 a medium aircraft. It fact it is going to lighter than MK1 itself. So MK2 is a Medium aircraft is your inference derived from my post. you are entitled to that.

 

[janon]

Pl refer to your psot No 10. I copy pest part of that here.

Check out what the range of LCA will be with a 5.5 ton payload (which implies no external fuel tanks). Then check out Rafale's range.

Combat radius of LCA - 300 m
Combat radius of Rafale - 1300 km
Now tell me How many times 1300 Km is to 300 KM? Is not is 4.33 times? So you said that and It is not my assumption.
After that I myself said that those figures look suspect, but it is a fact that the rafale will have much higher combat radius than LCA, whatevver the figures are.

And:
Much higher means How many time Higher.
Wrong. Much higher and many times higher are not the same. Much higher simply means a lot higher, which, depending on the quantity at hand, can be simply a percent too high, which in some situations can be critical.

For example, if a patient's body temperature is much higher than normal, it could mean three or four degrees above 96 degree farenheit. It certainly will not mean three or four times, or many times higher.

If I say I am much taller than my friend, it does not mean I am many times taller than him.

In every comparison of quantities, how much is "a lot" depends on the quantity. A few degrees above normal could mean a dead patient. An aberation of a fraction of a percent in certain measured quantities in quantum physics can signify some hitherto unknown phenomena.

In combat aircrafts, the difference of say 50 percent in combat radius can mean the ability to perform many missions or not. For example, can it take off, bomb lahore and return to base, or can it simply view lahore from a distance and return. Or whether it can return to base, or crash one km short of base (which in practical terms means inability to perform that mission).

That is why we need different categories of aircrafts, for performing different kinds of missions.

When wiki state that range of Tejas is 3000 KM and that of Rafale is 3700 Km what hell the difference in combat radius (Do not confuse with combat radius. Combat radus will be in proportion to range. This is just to give an idea). After all Single engine Tejas has 56 % of fuel compare to Double engine Rafale. So there is not going to be a very huge difference in either range or combat range. MK2 is going to carry 30 to 40% higher fuel. So how rafale's combat radius is going to be significantly batter than MK2? Any idea? I will say that it will be by and large equal with a difference in rage of 10 to 15%.

Already answered that. It could be because of better aerodynamic design, or better wing shape, or less draggy airframe, or a number of other factors that influence combat radius.


I said that Su 30 MKI also failed. Issue was sorted out in consultation with engine manufacturer without much problem. After all 404 is one of the best engine. There should not be much problem in sorting out the issue. That is why no one figure out that as a teething problem of Tejas. Even critics do not point out that a big issue.


Tejas is not ready doesn't mean that none of the design and technology is validated. So many design and technology is validated. MK1 is in fine tuning stage in most of technology. (Pl read the article I posted.in previous post). That doesn't mean at all that we can not begin MK2 work. The stage at which Tejas is at present now, certainly give us full confidence to begin MK2 construction. That is why MK2 work begun long back. You should recognize that who took the decision to begin the work are not fool.

But none of them are claiming that it can replace the need for a real MMRCA. They are attempting a mk2 because mk1 was not satisfactory in all parameters even in the light category. Nowhere have they claimed that mk2 will obliviate th need for MMRCA.

I never said MK2 a medium aircraft. It fact it is going to lighter than MK1 itself. So MK2 is a Medium aircraft is your inference derived from my post. you are entitled to that.

I repeatedly said that I am not saying that you said that mk2 is a medium aircraft, but you did say that it willhave the capabilities of a medium aircraft. I dont understand why you keep saying that I am saying that you are saying that it will be a medium one. Please stop this pointless hair splitting anyway - the LIGHT combat aircraft, aka LCA Tejas, will not have the capabilities of an MCA. It cannot do away with the need for a medium category aircraft.

Responses in red.

 

[HariPrasad]

Responses in red.

Ok Man, Now I will have to repeat the things again and again to answer you. You are entitled to your opinion so as I. Nice to discuss with you. Have a good day.

 

[Ping]

Another one that don't know about weight and size limitations of hardpoints. The centerline station is between the gear bays, you can't carry multi racks there due to size limitations, especially not for bigger loads. The mid wing station can carry only 800Kg of loads, so it can't carry even a single 2000lb LGB, let alone 2 with a multi rack, not to mention that you have no hardpoints left for BVR missiles, when you use that station for bombs.
The rest has nothing to do with the topic.

I don't need your assumptions. Give me a link which details the width of multilocks or racks with the available width inbetween the gears.
As for the "nothing to do with the topic", your empty weight categorization was wrong.

 

[sancho]

Ok man. It is 1200 L not 1300 Liter as I said. But why do you ignore the weight of tank.

I don't, but you can't argue with imaginary figures, just it suits your point. A fuel tank don't weigh that much either, you have to add weight for the pylons to..., but all this does only matter for you not for me, since I already told you that not payload is the problem, but the number of hardpoints. That's why I said, MK2 can even have 8000Kg payload, which mean nothing as long as remains with 7 weapon stations only!

When you can evaluate Grippen C/D and F16 for MMRCA competition (different matter that it was not selected), Why not Tejas ? Do you want to say that MK2 is going to be inferior to Grippen C/D?

Because Gripen C/D was not proposed in M-MRCA, but the Gripen E/F and that is performance wise still better than what the LCA MK2 will offer, although it was one of the worst in the M-MRCA competition. The Tejas MK2 can be compared to them on technical basis and in A2A load to some extend, but the heavier the load, the more it will fall behind these fighters.

Doesn't it qualify to be a redesign.

A re-design as the name states, would mean a complete new development, but that isn't the case, they only modified the current design for reduced drag, that's all. A re-design would be this:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/45/Superhornet_vs_hornet.jpg

 

[OrionHunter]

Karnad? This idiot is a self styled know-it-all just like his friend and mentor from the Indian Express by the name of Shekhar Gupta, the a$$hole stuffed with wild conspiracy theories. Both make a dandy pair fit for entry into the Great Hall of Imbeciles.

 

[HariPrasad]

I don't, but you can't argue with imaginary figures, just it suits your point. A fuel tank don't weigh that much either, you have to add weight for the pylons to..., but all this does only matter for you not for me, since I already told you that not payload is the problem, but the number of hardpoints. That's why I said, MK2 can even have 8000Kg payload, which mean nothing as long as remains with 7 weapon stations only!



Because Gripen C/D was not proposed in M-MRCA, but the Gripen E/F and that is performance wise still better than what the LCA MK2 will offer, although it was one of the worst in the M-MRCA competition. The Tejas MK2 can be compared to them on technical basis and in A2A load to some extend, but the heavier the load, the more it will fall behind these fighters.



A re-design as the name states, would mean a complete new development, but that isn't the case, they only modified the current design for reduced drag, that's all. A re-design would be this:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/45/Superhornet_vs_hornet.jpg

OK,

I am not convinced.

I had a very nice discussion with you Guys.

Thanks for replying.

Have a good day.