Tejas, an Indian Air Force light combat aircraft (File)Indian Air Force Jets Slated to Have Beyond-V

[Abingdonboy]

So what advantage does the LCA MK2 have over the Mirage 2000?

How about the development opportunities? What lesson has the Marut taught India; it needs to BUILD on its capabilities, not dismantle the infrastructure and disband engineering teams as soon as the mission is complete. Mk.1--->Mk.1A--->Mk.2--->AMCA is a logical road map considering the technolgical jumps at each stage and the timelines involved.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

This is silly reasoning coming from you my Swedish brother.
Why you are getting into pure mathematics?
Where is your pragmatism?

Twin engine may have more (probable) chances of either engine failures but would still fly, while the single engine failure means a total disaster.

Common sense is not all that common.

I did not expect this from you of all the things.

There are some data from USAF in this thread.
They lose 1,1 x F-16 per 100,000 flight hours due to engine failures.
If an F-16 cost $60M, then the attrition will add $660 to the cost per flight hour.
($60M x 1,1 / 100000)

If Your second engine will increase the cost per flight hour more than $660,
the second engine will make the total cost of ownership higher.

http://forum.keypublishing.com/show...ion-rate-vs-twin-engine&p=1825834#post1825834

Only a third of the accidents is engine related, so adding the second engine will make the
other two thirds of the accident more costly.

 

[MULUBJA]

You put in more fuel that is more weight. So the weight part is not solved. F 414 has higher specific fuel consumption compared to the F 404 is similar, like just a 3 to 4 percent decrease but higher thrust means higher fuel consumption.

So what advantage does the LCA MK2 have over the Mirage 2000?

Stop believing what those babus are telling you man. The MK2 is waste of time and money according to me.

By your logic, none of the plane having high fuel may have higher range? F414 has same dimension but it operates on high compression ratio so the power is high and for a particular power output, the fuel consumption is lower and not higher. It is the only narrow power band at a higher power where the specific fuel consumption is high. It will have higher dry thrust and lower use of afterburner. It will have a atleast 40% to 45% higher range.

 

[ashok321]

There are some data from USAF in this thread.
They lose 1,1 x F-16 per 100,000 flight hours due to engine failures.
If an F-16 cost $60M, then the attrition will add $660 to the cost per flight hour.
($60M x 1,1 / 100000)

If Your second engine will increase the cost per flight hour more than $660,
the second engine will make the total cost of ownership higher.

http://forum.keypublishing.com/show...ion-rate-vs-twin-engine&p=1825834#post1825834

Only a third of the accidents is engine related, so adding the second engine will make the
other two thirds of the accident more costly.

You are talking of cost factor here. Everyone knows twin engine aircraft costs more or conversely a single engine fighter would be cheaper.

Whereas I am talking of survivability issue, including, the pilot and the fighter jet.

Look at the part of my post which is the crux of the matter.

Twin engine may have more (probable) chances of either engine failures but would still fly, while the single engine failure means a total disaster.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

You are talking of cost factor here. Everyone knows twin engine aircraft costs more or conversely a single engine fighter would be cheaper.

Whereas I am talking of survivability issue, including, the pilot and the fighter jet.

Look at the part of my post which is the crux of the matter.

Survivability is only one factor.
Would you rather have 12 single engine fighters, losing one due to engine failure
or 6 double engine fighters, losing none due to engine failure?
If the additional operating cost is equivalent to the cost of a second plane,
that is your real choice.

Choosing the double engine fighter is a bad choice.

Statistics show that you are going to lose two more due to other reasons, leaving
You 4 double engine fighters and 9 single engine fighters.

The statistics shows that in the 1960s, the engine failures were 10x of those today.
It was a much more serious issue then.

 

[ashok321]

Survivability is only one factor.

Choosing the double engine fighter us a bad choice.
.

Not a bad choice - leaving the cost factor alone.
It all depends upon how much power/thrust do you want for a particular fighter that you want to design for certain role missions.

For example: When you want to design a heavy, all-weather, long-range fighter, how can you use a single engine alone? The F-16 has a single engine, but the F-15 is a twin engine bird. The twin engine aircraft allow for faster speeds, longer range & faster pickup.

The famous/infamous Israeli daring (Osirak) raid involved mainly F-15s.

Why did India (a low income country) chose the gas guzzling twin engine Su-30MKI as their workhorse?

There is more to it than what meets your mind.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

Not a bad choice - leaving the cost factor alone.
It all depends upon how much power/thrust do you want for a particular fighter that you want to design for certain role missions.

For example: When you want to design a heavy, all-weather, long-range fighter, how can you use a single engine alone? The F-16 has a single engine, but the F-15 is a twin engine bird. The twin engine aircraft allow for faster speeds, longer range & faster pickup.

The famous/infamous Israeli daring (Osirak) raid involved mainly F-15s.

Why did India (a low income country) chose the gas guzzling twin engine Su-30MKI as their workhorse?

There is more to it than what meets your mind.

The Osirak reactor was bombed by 8 x F-16s with 6 x F-15s providing escort.
India limited itself to Russian Aircraft and they make double engine aircraft.

I already noted that big aircrafts may need two engines, no need to repeat.

 

[ashok321]

India limited itself to Russian Aircraft and they make double engine aircraft.

There is no limitation for a country as long it is it has adequate money to buy what it wants to. Gripen (viggen) has been on offer when I lived in Sweden long back ago and went to ABF school to learn Swedish.

I already noted that big aircrafts may need two engines, no need to repeat.

I know you are knowledgeable enough.

 

[Sameer25]

Yawn...



Try looking where China was 12 years back. We are at the same level.



LDC Kangladeshis are at our mercy...remember that.

Lmao, don't even compare your self to china. China Didnt Have Crippling Poverty And under development, china had The one child policy to counter the growing population and it had Much Better economy And Military. India Will Be A Super Power By 2050 by which point even Pakistan can be a super power

 

[gslv mk3]

Lmao, don't even compare your self to china. China Didnt Have Crippling Poverty And under development, china had

Bullshit. Google HDI & per capita GDP (PPP) of China around 2005. That'll show you something.

 

[Sameer25]

Bullshit. Google HDI & per capita GDP (PPP) of China around 2005. That'll show you something.

What Ever Makes You Slrep At Night

 

[gslv mk3]

What Ever Makes You Slrep At Night

Goodle is your friend (& so is world bank & UN databases)

 

[Rajaraja Chola]

I mean even the current version of Tejas is BVR capable with a Dual pulse MMR radar on it. 1A will have AESA radar on it. Not sure what the article meant,.

 

[Chhatrapati]

I mean even the current version of Tejas is BVR capable with a Dual pulse MMR radar on it. 1A will have AESA radar on it. Not sure what the article meant,.

Welcome back.

 

[satishkumarcsc]

By your logic, none of the plane having high fuel may have higher range? F414 has same dimension but it operates on high compression ratio so the power is high and for a particular power output, the fuel consumption is lower and not higher. It is the only narrow power band at a higher power where the specific fuel consumption is high. It will have higher dry thrust and lower use of afterburner. It will have a atleast 40% to 45% higher range.

No. The GE 414 has 3 to 4% lesser specific fuel consumption compared to the GE 404. And FYI the GE 404 has more specific fuel consumption than the RD 33 series. You can check that out. The GE 414 was selected because it is an Engine with marine rating. It was not the Airforce's idea to have higher thrust. The navy came up with that idea for the aircraft to take off from it's ski jump carriers. The airforce then jumped into the band wagon.

The best way for MK2 to go ahead is to just redesign the undercarriage of the N-LCA and pass it off as MK2. That will be more than enough.

How about the development opportunities? What lesson has the Marut taught India; it needs to BUILD on its capabilities, not dismantle the infrastructure and disband engineering teams as soon as the mission is complete. Mk.1--->Mk.1A--->Mk.2--->AMCA is a logical road map considering the technolgical jumps at each stage and the timelines involved.

You already have the N-LCA project, now why would you want an MK2. Try out the Rafale way where the Naval aircraft was first designed and it was later converted to airforce specifications. The same can be done with AMCA.