Mig 21/Tejas/Delta Wing Fighter Aircrafts Operatinal Doctrine

[DeathGod]

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)

 

[gogbot]

Specifications (HAL Tejas)
General characteristics

* Crew: 1
* Length: 13.20 m (43 ft 4 in)
* Wingspan: 8.20 m (26 ft 11 in)
* Height: 4.40 m (14 ft 9 in)
* Wing area: 38.4 m² (413 ft&#178
* Empty weight: 5,500 kg (12,100 lb)
* Loaded weight: 8,500 kg (18,800 lb (in fighter configuration))
* Max takeoff weight: 14,000 kg[verification needed] (27,600 lb)
* Powerplant: 1× General Electric F404-GE-IN20 turbofan
o Dry thrust: 53.9 kN (11,250 lbf)
o Thrust with afterburner: 85 kN (19,100 lbf)
* Internal fuel capacity: 3000 liters
* External fuel capacity: 5×800 liter tanks or 3×1,200 liter tanks, totaling 4,000/3,600 liters

Performance

* Maximum speed: Mach 2.0 (2,376+ km/h at high altitude) at 15,000 m
* Range: 3000 km (1,840 mi (without refueling))
* Service ceiling: 16,500 m (54,000 ft (engine re-igniter safely capable))
* Wing loading: 221.4 kg/m² (45.35 lb/ft&#178
* Thrust/weight: 1.02
* g limits : +8.5 g / 9g

One of the most ambitious requirements for the LCA was the specification that it would have "relaxed static stability" (RSS).Most aircraft are designed with "positive" static stability, which means they have a natural tendency to return to level and controlled flight in the absence of control inputs; however, this quality tends to oppose the pilot's efforts to manoeuvre. An aircraft with "negative" static stability (i.e., RSS), on the other hand, will quickly depart from level and controlled flight unless the pilot constantly works to keep it in trim; while this enhances manoeuvrability, it is very wearing on a pilot relying on a mechanical flight control system.

Specifications (JF-17/FC-1)

Data from Pakistan Aeronautical Complex

General characteristics

* Crew: 1
* Length: 14.0 m (45.9 ft)
* Wingspan: 9.45 m (including 2 wingtip missiles) [94] (31 ft)
* Height: 4.77 m (15 ft 8 in)
* Wing area: 24.4 m² (263 ft&#178
* Empty weight: 6,411 kg (14,134 lb)
* Loaded weight: 9,100 kg including 2× wing-tip mounted air-to-air missiles (20,062 lb)
* Max takeoff weight: 12,700 kg (28,000 lb)
* Powerplant: 1× Klimov RD-93 turbofan
o Dry thrust: 49.4 kN [3][9] (11,106 lbf)
o Thrust with afterburner: 84.4 kN (18,973 lbf)
* G-limit: +8.5 g
* Internal Fuel Capacity: 2300 kg (5,130 lb)

Performance

* Maximum speed: Mach 1.8 (1,191 knots, 2,205 kph)
* Combat radius: 1,352 km (840 mi)
* Ferry range: 3,000 km (2,175 mi)
* Service ceiling: 16,700 m (54,790 ft)
* Thrust/weight: 0.99

The mid-mounted wings are of cropped-delta planform. Near the wing root are convex strakes, also called leading edge root extensions, which generate a vortex that has the effect of providing more lift to the wing at high angles of attack encountered during combat manoeuvres.

Specifications (Mirage 2000C)

General characteristics

* Crew: 1
* Length: 14.36 m (47 ft 1 in)
* Wingspan: 9.13 m (29 ft)
* Height: 5.20 m (17 ft)
* Wing area: 41 m² (441.3 ft&#178
* Empty weight: 7,500 kg (16,350 lb)
* Loaded weight: 13,800 kg (30,420 lb)
* Max takeoff weight: 17,000 kg (37,500 lb)
* Powerplant: 1× SNECMA M53-P2 afterburning turbofan
o Dry thrust: 64.3 kN (14,500 lbf)
o Thrust with afterburner: 95.1 kN (21,400 lbf)

Performance

* Maximum speed: Mach 2.2 (2,333+ km/h, 1,450+ mph) at altitude/ 1,110 km/hr (690 mph) at low altitude
* Range: 1,550 km (837 nmi, 963 mi) with drop tanks
* Ferry range: 3,335 km (1,800 nmi, 2,073 mi) with auxiliary fuel
* Service ceiling: 17,060 m (59,000 ft)
* Rate of climb: 285 m/s (56,000 ft/min)
* Wing loading: 337 kg/m² (69 lb/ft&#178
* Thrust/weight: 0.91

The thrust-to-weight ratio and wing loading are the two most important parameters in determining the performance of an aircraft.For example, the thrust-to-weight ratio of a combat aircraft is a good indicator of the manoeuvrability of the aircraft.

 

[DeathGod]

The thrust-to-weight ratio and wing loading are the two most important parameters in determining the performance of an aircraft.For example, the thrust-to-weight ratio of a combat aircraft is a good indicator of the manoeuvrability of the aircraft.

Well just wanted to say that the delta configuration will bleed more energy in a turning fight(as compared to a conventional design) .Although the Tejas has a better thrust to weight ratio I think a turning fight will not be something that a Tejas would like to get into.

Whats your opinion on it?

 

[SU-57E]

with its superior bvr .. it does not have to.......

 

[DeathGod]

with its superior bvr .. it does not have to.......

People in pentagon thought days of dogfighting were over (prior to vietnam) hence they designed f4-phantom without a gun and well paid for it during the vietnam air war. Not only pilots lacked the advanced dogfighting skills(tactics) the absence of gun was very disadvantageous in close combat conditions.

somebody said of mig-25 foxbat that with its speed it didnt need to turn nicely . Well the above is true but there were many of them shot in the gulf war due to poor tactics /unpreparedness of iraqis to deal with the situation(turning fight).

Technology at the current level can't supplant human beings,so one needs to be prepared for every scenario.

I can give many examples which are like the ones above, bvr is nowhere near to being reliable in many scenarios so cant really accept your answer and also in my post i specifically mentioned the condition of close combat.

 

[SU-57E]

kudos to you for comparing indian and iraqi pilots as same...
now comes the question of turning ... i think this is very early to decide about an aircraft still in trials... but i guess you must be knowing about immense development in fly-by-wire method.. thus whatever disadvantage of delta wings yu have given , ithink should be sorted out.. if this was not a great plane then about mk-2 it would not be said that it was equivalent to gripen...
anyways lets wait and watch...........

 

[DeathGod]

kudos to you for comparing indian and iraqi pilots as same...
now comes the question of turning ... i think this is very early to decide about an aircraft still in trials... but i guess you must be knowing about immense development in fly-by-wire method.. thus whatever disadvantage of delta wings yu have given , ithink should be sorted out.. if this was not a great plane then about mk-2 it would not be said that it was equivalent to gripen...
anyways lets wait and watch...........

Well I dont understand from which part of my post did you get the impression that I was comparing indian pilots to iraqi ones?

I simply mentioned a scenario where technology fails and human capabilities take over and that if one is not prepared for them then one has to pay( btw the doctrines and training of iraqi pilots was done by russians and I hope you must be knowing the competence of russians , furthermore iraqis had a good experience in the iraq iran war).

AFAIK my initial post on this thread is not specific to Tejas. It is more about getting to know the operation doctrine of delta wing aircrafts, if possible then specifically how the IAF does it. By no means of anyone's imagination should one be thinking that I am indulging in some kind of IAF/Tejas bashing. Also I would like to add its the skill of the pilot and not the aircraft which decides the ultimate fate of a battle ( given that the aircrafts are relatively equal in terms of technology read as same generation).

And just so you know , FBW is not the solution the problem of excess drag in a turn and some other aerodynamic problems that the delta configuration has.
Am I clear sire?

 

[gogbot]

Well just wanted to say that the delta configuration will bleed more energy in a turning fight(as compared to a conventional design) .Although the Tejas has a better thrust to weight ratio I think a turning fight will not be something that a Tejas would like to get into.

Whats your opinion on it?

Well its not the ultimate issue.

I will admit the Configuration can cause some issues when turning.

It will still turn on command
But just not as good as it would have if did not have a delta wing configuration.

But then again the Tejas has RSS so, it would be more agile then the Mirage.

 

[DeathGod]

Well its not the ultimate issue.

I will admit the Configuration can cause some issues when turning.

It will still turn on command
But just not as good as it would have if did not have a delta wing configuration.

But then again the Tejas has RSS so, it would be more agile then the Mirage.

So I guess we have a concensus that the delta design bleeds more energy than the conventional design. Now I think we can concentrate on the real question which I started the thread for:

What is the operational doctrine for operating such aircrafts?

 

[sancho]

Found this discussion about Mirage 2000 and F16 of Greece airforce on another forum, which might give some good points to this topic:

The Mirage -5mk2, is by design better in interception. Because, the delta wing performs better as you go higher, the Mirage has superior ceiling and final speed than the F16, thus maximizing the envelope of its weapons (thank God radars have look down capability for quite some time now). In interception, if you are better at higher altitude and speed, you have better chances to win and there's not much you can do about it.

- The F16 can stay low. Well, so much worse for it, it will penalize its own weapons envelope and even if they meet for WVR, the Mirage will be taking advantage of the momentum from coming at higher speed from higher altitude to gain the first turn. The only mitigation factor for this is JHMCS or survive the first turn. The latter being more difficult against a good pilot, because the Mirage could win against B30 in HAF, which is considered better dogfighter than the B52+.

- The F16 can go high. Still, it can't beat the Mirage ceiling and final speed and once there, it's in the realm where the Mirage performs best in dogfight.

The 2000-5mk2 has also better radar than the B52+, which allows for first look on the enemy. This , combined with links and MICA IR, can allow a Mirage formation to break and encircle an F16 formation possibly avoiding their radar cones, using links and IRST image of the MICA to approach from directions that the F16s are unaware.

The other positive aspect of performing better in the high altitude, is that it's also the realm where you have better fuel economy while cruising.

And the french EW suite is better, which comes handy at all times.

- However, for very long range interceptions, B52+ is better, because it offers you a better flexibility. You can drop tanks, engange in a fight and still have 2 CFTs to give you peace for mind fuel-wise.

 

[Dark Angel]

what is to compare this

to this

 

[IndianRobo]

what is to compare this

Thats Old Mig 21, below is the cockpit of Mig 21 Bison

 

[jackfoster220]

Thats Old Mig 21, below is the cockpit of Mig 21 Bison

Looks great

 

[IndianRobo]

Hi,

Just out of curiosity, does any one know detailed phase out plan for our Mig21's and other Mig variants and how will the void left will be filled?

regards,

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

 

[mjnaushad]

Now Hal Tejas is near IOC
So Can we compare it with JF-17
Which one is better.

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.