Mig 21/Tejas/Delta Wing Fighter Aircrafts Operatinal Doctrine

[IndianRobo]

To avoid spoiling this thread......

One tejas will kill all Pakistan Air force F16s, JF 17, J 10,....Then it will kill all Pakistan Infrastructure of air defence then all Armoured and ground units and return home safe and sound before anyone in Pakistan notice it......


I hope this will keep the thread from spoiling.

Lol, Buddy, Being a senior Member You must Learn to Ignore such Questions, or Advise him, Please do not Join the party.... Anyways, I admire the JF-17 a Lot, LCA is Yet not Finished for a Comparison

 

[roach]

Hi guys

As we all know that the main interceptor force for the IAF has been Mig-21 which will be replaced by Tejas . Both are small and both have delta configuration. Although Tejas seems to be a great fighter I have a few questions about the pure dogfighting capability/doctrine of the same.

My major concerns are about the lack of manuverability of a delta configuration vis a vis a traditional design( jf-17 or f-16) and about the rear visibility for the pilot ( which is an existing problem in mig-21).

Will anyone please care to enlighten me about the operational doctrine of the IAF to counter these two drawbacks ? If not IAF , then one can take an example of any general aircraft to explain the doctrine.

As an example the Israeli pilots have been dealing with delta wing designs for decades and very well know how to take advantage of the high rate of climb which is the outcome of such a design.

Does anyone here have any data comparing the rate of climbs and sustained turn rates of the frontline fighters of today? It will be a great gesture if one can provide the links for the same and maybe help us to understand the doctrines choosen for some particular aircrafts.

Tejas is the smallest and lightest jet till date and I would like to presume it will have a very small radar cross-section, which if coupled with a non-smoking engine will make it very difficult for the enemy to spot . An advantage which is shared by its contemporary the mig-21. Any ideas how iaf uses this advantage in a dogfight?( except for the part that detection is difficult)

Yaar give me 24 hrs, will ask a Mig 21 pilot and get back to you

 

[file12345]

The IAF currently operates a little over 200 MiG-21s. Of these, 121 have been upgraded to the Bison version and are likely to fly till 2017,The remaining 80-90 aircraft will be phased out in the next two-three years,The complete phase out of the MiG-21 is also linked to the acquisition of new aircraft,IAF will induct two squadrons - 16 aircraft each - of the indigenous Tejas light combat aircraft (LCA) and another six squadrons of the plane within six years and gradually phase Out the Mig 21's with the Help of MMRCA

What?2017.Don't you think its a little late.You guys should get rid of it ASAP.

 

[IndianRobo]

What?2017.Don't you think its a little late.You guys should get rid of it ASAP.

What to do Buddy, We got no Option but to wait, IAF is not ready to compromise anything on LCA, LCA is In the making and Would get IOC and will go at the rate of One squadron every year.... And Would phase out Mig 21's as soon as possible, even with the help of Suk 30 MKI's which are Rolling out from HAL every Year besides what comes from Russia....

You are indeed correct, 2017 is a long time, I even Doubt, would we be left with any of those to replace with

 

[file12345]

What to do Buddy, We got no Option but to wait, IAF is not ready to compromise anything on LCA, LCA is In the making and Would get IOC and will go at the rate of One squadron every year.... And Would phase out Mig 21's as soon as possible, even with the help of Suk 30 MKI's which are Rolling out from HAL every Year besides what comes from Russia....

You are indeed correct, 2017 is a long time, I even Doubt, would we be left with any of those to replace with

Hmmm i say in order to prevent more causalities IAF should immediately phase out mig 21.I think even after the loss of 10 squadrons you people do have advantage over PAF.

If i am not wrong your LCA is only having engine problems so you should solve them soon and bring LCA into production.

MKI is a brilliant aircraft i really wished PAF would have something like it.

 

[IndianRobo]

Hmmm i say in order to prevent more causalities IAF should immediately phase out mig 21.I think even after the loss of 10 squadrons you people do have advantage over PAF.

If i am not wrong your LCA is only having engine problems so you should solve them soon and bring LCA into production.

MKI is a brilliant aircraft i really wished PAF would have something like it.

Well, LCA has No Problem with the Engine, its perfectly fine with it, Limited Series Production has already begun with GE-404 IN20 engine.. But You Know LCA needs to get IOC, which we would get only in December.... So If We get FOC we would phase out complete Mig 21's with MMRCA and Tejas as soon as Possible..

MKI?? Indeed it is, IAF is Blindly Ordering and Inducting it to there satisfaction...lol

 

[Laughing Buddha]

Around late 80's When relationship between India and Usa was improving under the leadership of Rajiv Gandhi, Request for help regarding LCA Programme was asked with United states and it was readily accepted then, United State Air Force ( USAF ) was selected to help India in testing Fly-by-wire FCS for LCA and In return US also offered GE F-404 jet engines to power LCA Prototypes which was readily accepted by India , has Russian engines after the fallout of USSR where not considered to be good enough and reliable and since Kaveri Project which was underway could require some years before it could be developed, tested and certified . In 1987 ADA ordered 11 GE F-404 jet engines at cost of nearly 11 Million US $ and where delivered by 1988, but the engines were only integrated with the airframe (LCA TD-1) in 1997 almost 9 years after it was purchased, it was maintained according to a strict schedule laid down by the Manufacture General Electric (GE) even when it was not in use for almost a decade. On 7 April 1998 engine was fired up from TD-1 for the Ground Run .After 1998 nuclear test by India, very next day US Government put Technological Sanctions and spares for GE F-404 jet engines was also cut off, it did put pressure on ADA on Maintaining this Engine with Limited Spares, But Sanction where lifted in 2001 same year Tejas TD-1 took its first flight and flow of Spares started again

General Electric F404

The General Electric F404 is an afterburning turbofan engines in the 10,500-19,000 lbf (85 kN) class (static thrust). F404 is the same engine which Powered First Few batch of Prototypes (TD-1/2, Pv-1/2/3, LSP-1)

Specification (F404-GE-402)

General characteristics
" Type: Afterburning turbofan
" Length: 154 in (3,912 mm)
" Diameter: 35 in (889 mm)
" Dry weight: 2,282 lb (1,036 kg)
Components
" Compressor: Axial compressor with 3 fan and 7 compressor stages
" Bypass ratio: 0.34:1
" Turbine: 1 low-pressure and 1 high-pressure stage
Performance
" Thrust:
o 11,000 lbf (48.9 kN) military thrust
o 17,700 lbf (78.7 kN) with afterburner
" Overall pressure ratio: 26:1
" Specific fuel consumption:
o Military thrust: 0.81 lb/(lbf·h) (82.6 kg/(kN·h))
o Full afterburner: 1.74 lb/(lbf·h) (177.5 kg/(kN·h))
" Thrust-to-weight ratio: 7.8:1 (76.0 N/kg)


F404-GE-IN20

In early July 2002 orders for the 8 Limited Series Production (LSP) was given to HAL and Funds were released to set up a Assembly Line for them, Second round of Negotiation With GE started for the F-404 Engines and GE offered more improved Variant of F-404 which is known has F404-GE-IN20, this engine included features such has advanced Full Authority Digital Electronic Control (FADEC), Higher MTBO and Better Thrust. ADA awarded General Electric a $105 million contract in February 2004 for development engineering and production of 17 F404-GE-IN20 engines. ADA took delivery of its first -IN20 engines in 2007. These engines will be used to power low rate (also called limited) production Tejas/LCA aircraft and first two operational Squadrons of Tejas in IAF
Specifications

Dimensions: Diameter 890 mm, Length 3.9 m

Weights: Max Weight 1,035 kg (2,282 lb)

Engine/s Performance: Thrust 20,200 lb (9,163 kg)


The avionics system enhances the role of Light Combat Aircraft as an effective weapons platform. The glass cockpit and hands on throttle and stick (HOTAS) controls reduce pilot workload. Accurate navigation and weapon aiming information on the head up display helps the pilot achieve his mission effectively. The multi-function displays provide information on engine, hydraulics, electrical, flight control and environmental control system on a need-to-know basis along with basic flight and tactical information. Dual redundant display processors (DP) generate computer-generated imagery on these displays. The pilot interacts with the complex avionics systems through a simple multifunction keyboard, and function and sensor selection panels.
A state-of-the-art multi-mode radar (MMR), laser designator pod (LDP), forward looking infra-red (FLIR) and other opto-electronic sensors provide accurate target information to enhance kill probabilities. A ring laser gyro (RLG)-based inertial navigation system (INS), provides accurate navigation guidance to the pilot. An advanced electronic warfare (EW) suite enhances the aircraft survivability during deep penetration and combat. Secure and jam-resistant communication systems, such as IFF, VHF/UHF and air-to-air/air-to-ground data link are provided as a part of the avionics suite. All these systems are integrated on three 1553B buses by a centralised 32-bit mission computer (MC) with high throughput which performs weapon computations and flight management, and reconfiguration/redundancy management. Reversionary mission functions are provided by a control and coding unit (CCU).

Following are the important avionics components:

Mission Computer (MC): MC performs the central processing functions apart from performing as Bus Controller and is the central core of the Avionics system. The hardware architecture is based on a dual 80386 based computer with dual port RAM for interprocessor communication. There are three dual redundant communication channels meeting with MIL-STD-1553B data bus specifications. The hardware unit development was done by ASIEO, Bangalore and software design & development by ADA.

HUD: The Head-up-Display of the LCA is a unit developed by the state-owned CSIO, Chandigarh. The HUD is claimed to be superior to similar systems in the international market. According to Mr. CV M L Narasimham, head of CSIO's Applied Optics division, compared to Israel's HUD, the CSIO equipment is noiseless, silent, and offers a better field of view. It is compact, reliable, non-reflective and designed for high-performance aircraft. It was first put on the PV-2 version of the LCA.

Control & Coding Unit (CCU): In the normal mode, CCU provides real time I/O access which are essentially pilot's controls and power on controls for certain equipment. In the reversionary mode, when MC fails, CCU performs the central processing functions of MC. The CCU also generates voice warning signals. The main processor is Intel 80386 microprocessor. The hardware is developed by RCI, Hyderabad and software by ADA
.
Display Processors (DP): DP is one of the mission critical software intensive LRUs of LCA. The DP drives two types of display surfaces viz. a monochrome Head Up display (HUD) and two colour multifunction displays (MFDs). The equipment is based on four Intel 80960 microprocessors. There are two DPs provided (one normal and one backup) in LCA. These units are developed by ADE, Bangalore.

Mission Preparation & Data Retrieval Unit (MPRU): MPRU is a data entry and retrieval unit of LCA Avionics architecture. The unit performs mission preparation and data retrieval functions. In the preparation mode, it transfers mission data prepared on Data Preparation Cartridge (DPC) with the help of ground compliment, to various Avionics equipment. In the second function, the MPRU receives data from various equipment during the Operational Flight Program (OFP) and stores data on Resident Cartridge Card (RCC). This unit is developed by LRDE, Bangalore.

USMS Electronic Units: The following processor based digital Electronics Units (EU) are used for control and monitoring, data logging for fault diagnosis and maintenance: Environment Control System Controller (ECSC), Engine and Electrical Monitoring System Electronics Unit (EEMS-EU), Digital Fuel Monitoring System Electronics Unit (DFM-EU) and Digital Hydraulics and Brake Management System Electronics Unit (DH-EU)
Changes in PV-2: The production standard cockpit has no electro mechanical standby instruments. The cockpit is dominated by three 5"x 5" AMLCD MFD's, two Smart Standby Display Units (SSDU) and the indigenous HUD. The HUD has an Up Front Control Panel (UFCP) which is a significant man machine interface (MMI) enhancement which allows the pilot to program, initialize the avionics and enter mission and system critical data through an interactive soft touch keyboard. Although the FOV of this HUD is slightly less than that of contemporary units on other aircraft of this generation it is not considered significant because the ELBIT, Israel furnished DASH helmet mounted display and sight (HMDS) will form an integral part of the avionics suite.
The four utilities system monitoring LRUs have been reduced to two dual redundant units. These units perform the control, monitoring, data logging for fault diagnosis and maintenance functions.
A HAL Korwa developed Flight data recorder will be fitted after the initial flights.
The PV2 is a much lighter aircraft and possesses advanced software technology, unlike the Test Demonstrator I, II and PV1. There is an advancement in the build standard of PV2, which is a software intensive fourth generation combat aircraft built to production standard. Besides having a high percentage of composite materials in its airframe structure, it incorporates a state-of-the-art, integrated, modular avionics system with open architecture concepts to facilitate easy hardware and software upgrades and re-usability.

 

[Laughing Buddha]

* Guns:
1× mounted 23 mm twin-barrel GSh-23 cannon with 220 rounds of ammunition.

Hardpoints:
8 total: 1× beneath the port-side intake trunk, 6× under-wing, and 1× under-fuselage with a capacity of 4000 kg external fuel and ordnance,

Missiles:


* Air-to-air missiles:

* Astra BVRAAM
Place of origin India

Manufacturer DRDO
Produced May 9, 2003

Specifications

Weight 154 kg
Length 3570 mm
Diameter 178 mm
Warhead 15 kg (33 lb) HE fragmentation directional warhead
Detonation
mechanism Radar proximity fuze
Engine Solid Fuel Rocket
Wingspan 254 mm
Operational
range 80 km head on, 15 km tail chase
Flight ceiling 66,000 ft
Speed Mach 4 +
Guidance
system Inertial, mid-course update and terminal active radar homing (15 km)

Vympel R-77 (NATO reporting name: AA-12 Adder)

Place of origin Russia

Manufacturer Vympel
Produced 1994

Specifications

Weight 175 kg (R-77), 226 kg (R-77M1)
Length 3.6 m (R-77)
Diameter 200 mm
Warhead 30 kg HE, fragmenting
Detonation
mechanism laser proximity fuze
Engine Solid fuel rocket motor (R-77), air-breathing ramjet (R-77M1)
Wingspan 350 mm
Operational
range R-77: 90 km (55.92MI)
R-77M1: 175 km (108.7MI)
Flight altitude 5m-25 km (16.5-82,000 ft)
Speed Mach 4 (R-77)
Guidance
system Inertial with mid-course update and terminal active radar homing

Vympel R-73 (NATO reporting name: AA-11 Archer)

Place of origin Russia

Manufacturer Vympel
Produced 1985

Specifications

Weight 105 kg (231 lb)
Length 2900 mm (9 ft 6 in)
Diameter 170 mm (6.7 in)
Warhead 7.4 kg (16.3 lb)
Engine solid-fuel rocket engine
Wingspan 510 mm (20 in)
Operational
range 30 km (18.75 mi)
Speed Mach 2.5
Guidance
system infrared homing

Air-to-surface missiles:

* Kh-59ME TV guided standoff Missile / Laser guided standoff Missile


Place of origin Russia

Manufacturer Raduga
Produced 1991

Specifications

Weight 930 kg (2,050 lb)
Length 570 cm (220 in)
Diameter 38.0 cm (15.0 in)
Warhead Cluster or shaped-charge fragmentation
Warhead weight 320 kg (705 lb)
Engine Kh-59 :two-stage rocket
Kh-59ME :rocket then turbofan
Wingspan 130 cm (51.2 in)
Operational
range Kh-59ME(export) :115 km (62 nmi)
Kh-59ME : 200 km (110 nmi)
Kh-59MK : 285 km (150 nmi)
Speed Mach 0.72-0.88
Guidance
system inertial, then TV-guided

Anti-ship missile

* Kh-35
* Kh-31


* Bombs:

* KAB-1500L laser guided bombs
* FAB-500T dumb bombs
* OFAB-250-270 dumb bombs
* OFAB-100-120 dumb bombs
* RBK-500 cluster bombs
Aircrafts already built and projected models to be built. Model designations, tail numbers and dates of first flight are shown.

Technology Demonstrators (TD)

* TD-1 (KH2001) - 4 Jan 2001
* TD-2 (KH2002) - 6 June 2002

Prototype Vehicles (PV)

* PV-1 (KH2003) - 25 November 2003
* PV-2 (KH2004) - 1 December 2005
* PV-3 (KH2005) - 1 December 2006 - This is the production variant.
* PV-4 - Originally planned to be a Naval variant for carrier operations, but now a second production variant.
* PV-5 (KH2009) - Fighter/Trainer Variant

Naval Prototypes (NP)

* NP-1 - Two-seat Naval variant for carrier operations.
* NP-2 - Single-seat Naval variant for carrier operations.

Limited Series Production (LSP) aircraft

Currently, 28 LSP series aircraft plus 20 aircraft are on order.

* LSP-1 (KH2011) - 25 April 2007
* LSP-2 (KH2012) - 16 June 2008 This is the first LCA fitted with GE-404 IN20 engine.
* LSP-3 23 April 2010 The first aircraft to have the Hybrid MMR radar[28][41] and will be close to the IOC standard.
* LSP-4 (KH2014) - 2 June 2010 The first aircraft that was flown in the configuration that will be delivered to the Indian Air Force[42] In addition to the Hybrid MMR, the aircraft also flew with a functioning Countermeasure Dispensing System [63]
* LSP-5 - Planned to fly by June 2010. In addition to all the systems fitted in LSP-4, it will have night lighting within the cockpit, and an auto-pilot.[63]
* LSP-6 to LSP-28 - Planned to fly by late 2010.

Planned production variants

* Tejas Trainer – Two-seat operational conversion trainer for the Indian Air Force.
* Tejas Navy – Twin- and single-seat carrier-capable variants for the Indian Navy.
* Tejas Mark 2- Featuring more powerful engine and refined aerodynamics.

The Tejas Mark-2 expected to be developed due to the inability of the Mark-1 to meet the Indian Air Staff requirements,will have a more powerful engine, refined aerodynamics and replacing other parts to reduce obsolescence according to an IAF spokesman.[36]

The LCA's naval variant would be ready for carrier trials by 2013 and is slated for deployment on the INS Vikramaditya as well as the Vikrant class aircraft carrier.[64]

Some of features of "Naval LCA Version":

* Aircraft carrier operation with ski-jump and arrested landing
* Nose drooped for better cockpit vision
* Additional aerodynamic features like LEVCON and fore plane to reduce carrier landing speed
* Maximum take off weight from carrier—12.5 tons[vague]
* External store carrying capacity from carrier—3.5 tons
* Strengthened fuselage
* Stronger undercarriage due to higher sink rate
* Arrestor hook for deck recovery
* Fuel dump system




* LSP-1 (KH2011) - 25 April 2007
* LSP-2 (KH2012) - 16 June 2008 This is the first LCA fitted with GE-404 IN20 engine.
* LSP-3 (KH2013) - 23 April 2010 first aircraft to have the MMR
* LSP-4 Planned Flight in Mid-2009 for CMDS Trails
* LSP-5 IOC standard with all sensors inculding MMR and HMDS ,Radio aid will be used for Weapons Testing
* LSP-6 will be used to increase the AOA
* LSP-7/8 will be given for user trials

Planned production variants

* Tejas Trainer – Two-seat operational conversion trainer for the Indian Air Force.
* Tejas Navy – Twin- and single-seat carrier-capable variants for the Indian Navy.

 

[anathema]

I see that you are still active and hence replying !

Hi guys

My major concerns are about the lack of manuverability of a delta configuration vis a vis a traditional design( jf-17 or f-16) and about the rear visibility for the pilot ( which is an existing problem in mig-21).

Rear visibility is horrible in Mig 21 , but how did you arrive at the conclusion that rear visibility is a problem for all delat config fighters ? AFAIK Mirage & gripen certainly doesnt have rear visibility issue.

The rear visibility of Mig 21 is such a serious issue that if a plane is behind and slightly below Mig 21 , the mig 21 pilot wont be able to see the enemy plane.
An Israeli pilot ace during Yom Kippur war said "If you are behind Mig 21 and if mig 21 is doing aggressive maneuvers and is swaying from side to side then it is trying to spot you"....

Will anyone please care to enlighten me about the operational doctrine of the IAF to counter these two drawbacks ? If not IAF , then one can take an example of any general aircraft to explain the doctrine.

As an example the Israeli pilots have been dealing with delta wing designs for decades and very well know how to take advantage of the high rate of climb which is the outcome of such a design.

Mirage or Tejas is at a great disadvantage in a turning fight ..call it a disadvantage of Delta configuration .. however please note that euro canards overcome this disadvantage by adding canards to delta config.

So referring to Yom Kippur war...

The way israelis did it was --

They would never get into a turning fight with mig's and su's ...So in order to avoid the overshoot of their own plane visa vi enemy plane , they would take advantage of Mirage's superior thrust and climb performance and would accelerate vertically. Once they see that enemy has passed underneath (or after certain time) , they would come down again till a point where both planes were at the same horizontal level. They would play this game on and on till they get a lock on the enemy plane and shoot him down. In one instance..Israeli pilot had to do this more than 6 times before he could get a hit. I believe Pilots call this as scissors flying tactic.

But question to be asked is -- can this be used in today's world ?

Answer -- Yes it can...but not as effectively as before.

Reason -- Well with advancement in technology and induction of JHCS and missiles such as Python 5....it doesnt matter whos behind and whos ahead...all a pilot has to do is -- Look and shoot ....

Pakistan still doenst have missile which offers full sphere capability and neither does India. So we can still use some of the Israeli tactics. However Missiles with high boresight makes this very dangerous.

Tejas is the smallest and lightest jet till date and I would like to presume it will have a very small radar cross-section, which if coupled with a non-smoking engine will make it very difficult for the enemy to spot . An advantage which is shared by its contemporary the mig-21. Any ideas how iaf uses this advantage in a dogfight?( except for the part that detection is difficult)

In Cope India .....

In WVR
Bison used to Jam F15 radars .... and due to low RCS ...F15 most of the times would be very late in spotting the Bison .... I guess you can apply the same to Tejas...Tejas would have even low RCS considering composite materials...

In BVR -- It depends on radar ..and how good it's range resolution is... but aircrafts such as F15 and Su 30's would be at an advantage.

 

[dbc]

.. or Tejas is at a great disadvantage in a turning fight ..call it a disadvantage of Delta configuration ..

I disagree, perhaps you should take a closer look at the LCA's wing.
Compare it with a Mirage, the difference is obvious. Pay attention to the leading edge and high set twisted wing design.

I don't think I've ever seen the LCA fly but I'm pretty sure its alpha performance is better than the Mirage.

This is an intentional dig at Sancho , there is more to aerodynamic efficiency than thrust to weight ratio.

 

[anathema]

I disagree, perhaps you should take a closer look at the LCA's wing.
Compare it with a Mirage, the difference is obvious. Pay attention to the leading edge and high set twisted wing design.
.

DBC,

Can you please elaborate ?

 

[dbc]

DBC,

Can you please elaborate ?

Compare the two images, pay particular attention to the LCA's (top view)wing root above the engine air intake nacelle. The LCA's wing is a compound delta wing similar to the F-16 XL "Cranked Arrow". A compound delta wing allows for high angle of attack at low speeds. The high set wing hides a CFD(continuous flow diffusion) chamber that controls vortices at high AoA.

Next, look at the front view and the wing twist is clearly evident. The wing twist feature is incorporated to ensure the wing tip is the last wing surface to stall.There are other features such as the spill ducts at the leading edge of the wing for vortice control and boundary separated air.

To me, the LCA design looks more aerodynamically efficient than the Mirage.

 

[Hulk]

DBC your post are so good but ur Avatar is a distraction

 

[Devianz]

DBC your post are so good but ur Avatar is a distraction

Ohh don't ask her to change her avatar. I like that avatar.

 

[Devianz]

@Laughing Buddha
Buddy you have mentioned lot of Russian hardware in your post..
But is the LCA capable of using all of them? Do you have any sources claiming that it can use R-77M1 and Kh-59ME/MK?