LCA Tejas versus YF-16 in combat (Part-I)

[Path-Finder]

if Tejas is not flying then F16 is not flying also....

A perfect screenshot of hindian mentality

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

In earlier post A preliminary performance review of the Indian Light Combat Aircraft
The Author talked about the general flight performance of the Indian LCA “Tejas” as evaluated from ADA data. In an extension to that article, we now talk about the relative performance characteristics of the LCA versus the Lockheed-Martin F-16A/B aircraft operated as the premier frontline fighter by the Pakistani Air Force.



This analysis is based on computationally evaluated performance characteristics models developed by the author. The aerodynamics and flight data for the two aircraft are obtained from the published sources listed in the references of this article. The LCA aerodynamics data is obtained from the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) publications and the F-16A/B data is extrapolated from public-domain NASA publications on the aerodynamics of the YF-16 prototype.
The aerodynamic force-coefficient matrix is plugged with a first-order propulsion module to simulate engine performance as a function of local atmospherics and altitude. The data generated by these routines are combined with the known mass properties of the aircraft to generate range and payload data which is then presented below for analysis.
Assumptions that went into the analysis include the empty weight of the LCA as being 6,500 Kg and that of the F-16A/B as ~8,500 kg. The LCA engine used was General Electric F404-GE-IN20 with a rated output of 54 kN and a rated TSFC of 0.77 lbm/lbf-Hr. Similarly, the engine assumed for the F-16A/B is the F110-GE-100 with a rated output 76 kN and TSFC of 0.763 lbm/lbf-hr. The internal fuel capacity of the LCA is assumed to be 3,034 Liters and the aircraft is assumed to be capable of carrying a centerline external drop tank of 725 Liters as well as one 1,200 Liter drop tanks on pylon stations 1 and 2, respectively. The cruise speed of both aircraft are evaluated for maximum range for each condition.
Whilst the LCA is now available in the air-force single-seat fighter (LCA), two-seat trainer (LCA-T) and navy (LCA-N) versions, the following analysis restricts itself to the single-seat air-force version only citing the lack of available information on the other two variants. However, performance for the other variants can be extrapolated from the single-seat air-force version, on which they are all based.
Aerodynamic comparisons and validations
The aerodynamic force coefficient comparison can be summarized in the form of lift-over-drag ratio (L/D) plotted versus lift coefficients (CL) for both the aircraft. The F-16A/B is generally seen to have a slightly higher peak L/D ratio (~11.0) compared with that of the LCA (~9.0) and the peak is attained at a slightly higher CL value of 0.40. The LCA attains this peak at a lower CL value of 0.20. The F-16A/B is generally a heavier aircraft than the LCA and larger in size, which explains why its design is tuned to attain the highest L/D ratio for a higher CL value compared to the much lighter and nimble LCA. The F-16A/B sustained-turn-rate (STR) data is corroborated with the NASA YF-16 flight test data as well. The author generated a series of maximum STR rates for the extrapolated NASA aerodynamic data and has plotted it against the available F-16A/B data for the same Mach number ranges. The comparison is significantly in line with each other, suggesting that the extrapolation models for the YF-16 data to that of the F-16A/B is acceptable for this analysis.



Performance comparisons
The performance of the LCA at 20,000 ft altitude is extracted from the earlier article on its performance. The plot is modified, however, to show the F-16A/B data. The latter aircraft is evaluated for the same equivalent fuel mass as that carried by the LCA when it is armed with a centerline drop-tank and two large pylon drop tanks for a maximum of 6,159 L of fuel. The range attained by the two aircraft are summarized in the form of payload and range plots. The payload is evaluated from 0 to 10,000 kg and is assumed to include the pilot weight and all auxiliary equipment excluding fuel. The vertical axis of the plots is range, measured in kilometers. The combat-radius of the aircraft is considered to be ~40% of the range. For example, a range of 1,000 km corresponds to a combat radius of ~400 km. Plots are provided for the LCA in three conditions: clean (internal fuel only), combat (internal + centerline drop tank) and ferry (internal + centerline drop tank + 2 x wing drop tanks).







The F-16A/B has a generally higher performance engine than that used in the LCA with regard to fuel efficiency. As a result, it attains a higher range (1,930 km at 0 kg payload) versus the LCA (1,553 km at 0 kg payload) under similar conditions. As payload increases the LCA and the F-16A/B maintain this slight difference in range performance at high altitude.
In the horizontal plane STR, the LCA outperforms the F-16A/B at high Mach numbers and the F-16C/D under all Mach number regimes. The nimble LCA can out-turn an F-16A/B at higher Mach numbers and an F-16C/D by a significant margin at lower Mach numbers, which are encountered in a turning fight within visual range. As Mach number increases, the turn rates lower for the F-16 models at a faster rate than that for the LCA with a crossover point at Mach 0.65. At all higher Mach numbers, the difference in turn rates increases substantially once more. The LCA can also pull higher “gee” forces at high Mach numbers than the F-16A/B in the horizontal plane. At high Mach numbers, the F-16 pilot remains at a significant disadvantage in the horizontal plane. Newer “Block” F-16 models only worsen this gap in performance between themselves and the LCA. They are heavier and even less nimble than the early “block” models currently operated by the Pakistani Air Force.
Conclusions
The F-16 pilots are advised to stay away from the LCA in the horizontal plane at high Mach numbers. At lower Mach numbers, they can fight the LCA on an equal footing. If they get into a turning fight with an LCA at high Mach numbers, the LCA will win.
Part-II of this analysis will focus on the maneuvers in the vertical plane.
References
1. Jebakumar, S. K., “Aircraft Performance Improvements: A Practical Approach”, Center for Military Airworthiness and Certification (CEMILAC), March 2009, Bengaluru, India
Dr. Vivek Ahuja

So basically you are comparing a 3rd gen under development jet with an old model ..? Forgetting that PAF's F-16s have been MLU'd! Bringing them on par with Block 52+ ?

Seriously ?

LCA can't even compete with JF block I.

 

[knight11]

So basically you are comparing a 3rd gen under development jet with an old model ..? Forgetting that PAF's F-16s have been MLU'd! Bringing them on par with Block 52+ ?

Seriously ?

LCA can't even compete with JF block I.

Guys plz keep out JF-17, it has nothing to do with the thread. if anyone did brought it in, infraction will be given.

Don't complain later.

This is what Taimikhan said earlier.

No comparison of Plane only Aerodynamic comparison

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

it already has been intigrated with I Derby ER which has a seeker of israeli tamir(iron dome SAM) missile

Till than an AMRAAM would exterminate it .. Or a SD-10B

 

[zebra7]

So basically you are comparing a 3rd gen under development jet with an old model ..? Forgetting that PAF's F-16s have been MLU'd! Bringing them on par with Block 52+ ?

Seriously ?

LCA can't even compete with JF block I.

Sir there is no comparison of LCA with F-16 on combat basis but only computational performance using Fluid Mechanic.

Evaluating aircraft aerodynamic performance using Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) methods is inherently time and resource intensive. As such, it remains the domain of large corporations and governmental agencies. However, such a detailed analysis is hardly required to determine aircraft performance. For an aircraft such as the LCA, suitable aerodynamic performance can be evaluated using surface-vorticity solvers such as FlightStream, developed by the Research in Flight Company (found here). The Author developed this software years ago as part of his academic research work and has applied this software to the LCA. In doing so, the primary aerodynamic data such as the force and moment coefficients can be evaluated as a function of angle-of-attack and altitude. The accuracy of FlightStream, for such an analysis, is acceptable only for the range of Mach numbers from low subsonic till the point of local supersonic flow over the wings and from small angles of attack till the point of flow separation over the wings. Working backwards from the available three-view data for the LCA available in the public domain, a surface mesh of the LCA was created using the open-source NASA software OpenVSP (found here). FlightStream has direct connectivity with OpenVSP and the surface mesh solution is evaluated for vorticity. The vorticity data is then used by the solver to generate aerodynamic loads data. Using this approach, the author was able to get reasonably close to the wind-tunnel data evaluated by the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA).

The force-coefficient matrix is plugged with a first-order propulsion module to simulate engine performance as a function of local atmospherics and altitude. The data generated by these routines are combined with the known mass properties of the aircraft to generate range and payload data which is then presented below for analysis. The said analysis is simplified to allow the reader to grasp the essentials of the performance results for the LCA.

 

[TOPGUN]

Lolz what is joke thread there is no comparison what so ever ... lmao and I suggest this part 1 not go any further forget about part 2 ,3, and etc .

 

[zebra7]

Lolz what is joke thread there is no comparison what so ever ... lmao and I suggest this part 1 not go any further forget about part 2 ,3, and etc .

Sir, this is way away from the real data, infact its the analysis of the author for his academic project using the software called flightstream.

FlightStream is one of the most versatile and powerful aerodynamic analysis tools for aerospace, marine and alternative energy applications today.

 

[sms]

Sir there is no comparison of LCA with F-16 on combat basis but only computational performance using Fluid Mechanic.

Evaluating aircraft aerodynamic performance using Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) methods is inherently time and resource intensive. As such, it remains the domain of large corporations and governmental agencies. However, such a detailed analysis is hardly required to determine aircraft performance. For an aircraft such as the LCA, suitable aerodynamic performance can be evaluated using surface-vorticity solvers such as FlightStream, developed by the Research in Flight Company (found here). The Author developed this software years ago as part of his academic research work and has applied this software to the LCA. In doing so, the primary aerodynamic data such as the force and moment coefficients can be evaluated as a function of angle-of-attack and altitude. The accuracy of FlightStream, for such an analysis, is acceptable only for the range of Mach numbers from low subsonic till the point of local supersonic flow over the wings and from small angles of attack till the point of flow separation over the wings. Working backwards from the available three-view data for the LCA available in the public domain, a surface mesh of the LCA was created using the open-source NASA software OpenVSP (found here). FlightStream has direct connectivity with OpenVSP and the surface mesh solution is evaluated for vorticity. The vorticity data is then used by the solver to generate aerodynamic loads data. Using this approach, the author was able to get reasonably close to the wind-tunnel data evaluated by the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA).

The force-coefficient matrix is plugged with a first-order propulsion module to simulate engine performance as a function of local atmospherics and altitude. The data generated by these routines are combined with the known mass properties of the aircraft to generate range and payload data which is then presented below for analysis. The said analysis is simplified to allow the reader to grasp the essentials of the performance results for the LCA.

I like your comparision. It proves the fact that LCA is what it is.. i.e. a point defence fighter with addiitonal ATG capability. It was intended to perform better at high speed and your analysis shown the same results.
Now we need an excellent sensor, avoinics and weapon fusion to make it best in class fighter.

 

[zebra7]

I like your comparision. It proves the fact that LCA is what it is.. i.e. a point defence fighter with addiitonal ATG capability. It was intended to perform better at high speed and your analysis shown the same results.
Now we need an excellent sensor, avoinics and weapon fusion to make it best in class fighter.

Yes you are close. Actually there is not any compition with F-16, but a comparison is made to validate the graph plotted though this analysis. F-16 A/B is a very agile plane and one of best designed multirole fighter plane. The graph ploted is the real deal, it gives you some fare idea, otherwise the actual data is with Only HAL.

I like your comparision. It proves the fact that LCA is what it is.. i.e. a point defence fighter with addiitonal ATG capability. It was intended to perform better at high speed and your analysis shown the same results.
Now we need an excellent sensor, avoinics and weapon fusion to make it best in class fighter.

Here is LCA review -- No comparison

A preliminary performance review of the Indian Light Combat Aircraft

 

[Storm Force]

A LOT OF PAKISTANIS are pinning their hopes on F16 to continue to be the Saviour of pakistan against a war against india.

F16 in their eyes (paf eyes) is the answer to all comers. NOW and even in the future.

SO TO HAVE AN INDIA DARE POST A THREAD IN F16 V LCA is un heard of and almost sacreligious.

HOW DARE ANYBODY CHALLENGES THE F16

CLOSE THE THREAD NOW

 

[Stephen Cohen]

@DESERT FIGHTER @TOPGUN
@TaimiKhan @Manticore @Mughal-Prince

The LCA Vs F 16 will not happen as a One on One

If Mig 21 Bison can beat the F 16 ; while being the part of the entire strike package
In the Cope India Exercises 2004 and 2005

SO TOO can the LCA

LCA will have an element of surprise against the F 16

The F 16 will be looking out for SU 30 ; Mig 29 and Mirage 2000
and the F 16 will get behind the F 16 and Fire its AAM

 

[baqai]

in combat there is one vital factor the writer is forgetting, MAN and the MACHINE, while in combat situation the only immediate threat from F-16 is from Pakistan, keeping that in mind the writer forgets to keep the factor of experience over a platform and actual combat experience in mind, A rookie in a Block 60 will be blown away by an Ace in a Block 10 in my opinion ... it's 30% machine and 70% the pilot.

Not taking anything away from India as i firmly believe that LCA if nothing else is giving Indian industry invaluable hands on experience, but when LCA is deployed and is flown than only pilots will knows its real potential ... on paper everything looks rosey just so tax payers can happily give away more funds into a project and these kind of reports (doesn't matter which side of the border you are, it happens around the globe) are written just to make general public happy and patriotic towards a particular product

sorry if my views offend anyone

 

[PakEye]

In earlier post A preliminary performance review of the Indian Light Combat Aircraft

There is no ban on Sweet Dreams..

Ma piyar ma sab kuch haar gaai
mera sundar sapna toooot gaya
​

 

[zebra7]

in combat there is one vital factor the writer is forgetting, MAN and the MACHINE, while in combat situation the only immediate threat from F-16 is from Pakistan, keeping that in mind the writer forgets to keep the factor of experience over a platform and actual combat experience in mind, A rookie in a Block 60 will be blown away by an Ace in a Block 10 in my opinion ... it's 30% machine and 70% the pilot.

Not taking anything away from India as i firmly believe that LCA if nothing else is giving Indian industry invaluable hands on experience, but when LCA is deployed and is flown than only pilots will knows its real potential ... on paper everything looks rosey just so tax payers can happily give away more funds into a project and these kind of reports (doesn't matter which side of the border you are, it happens around the globe) are written just to make general public happy and patriotic towards a particular product

sorry if my views offend anyone

If you have read the first post completely you wouldn't have made this statement. From where does MAN MACHINE 30% 70% comes. Sir, the article is saying something else, read it first before coming directly to comment section.

 

[baqai]

Sir with all due respect, the article suggests its comparison of two platforms under combat situation, what i am suggesting is that until and unless you bring the pilot factor into the equation you cannot compare combat situation, that is my personal believe and last i checked i am allowed to express myself, in the end i have also specifically mentioned an apology just to avoid such arguments ...

Kindly stop making assumptions, i made a statement towards the approach towards the article NOT the facts and figures it is using suggesting the equation is not complete, i am not questioning the result of the equation.