Why's IAF unhappy about Tejas' Thrust to Weight while ok with Mirage-2000s?

[INDIAISM]

They have used it on medium fighters not a light fighter and they have used it that does not imply we also follow their suit. US does not use canards, are they dumb or their fighters are not up to the euro or chinese standards. Those who are working in ADA are smarter than you. Using probably, likely in argument does not make argument valid, but providing data that shows that using delta and canard on Tejas size fighter would improve its performance substantially. And why cry about mach 2 speed ?

For your information Gripen belongs to Light Fighter jet Category.....

Tejas Size

Lenght of Jas 39 Gripen C/D is around 14.1 meter and on the other hand
lenght of Tejas Mk2 will be around 14.2 meter.....

 

[帅的一匹]

Tejas's compound delta wing flys with drag, it sacrifice the speed and manueaverability.

 

[BlueDot_in_Space]

For your information Gripen belongs to Light Fighter jet Category.....

Tejas Size

Lenght of Jas 39 Gripen C/D is around 14.1 meter and on the other hand
lenght of Tejas Mk2 will be around 14.2 meter.....

MK1 is 13.2 m and Mk2 will be 14.2 with extended nose plug to further reduce drag and accommodate higher thrust engine enough to exceed desired performance points. DO you have performance points that suggest Gripen canards provide some substantial performance gains over Tejas design??? Canard is not the only solution for maneuverability, It has advantages and disadvantages.

Gripen has open envelope, while Tejas currently restricted to 24 AOA as beyond 25 AOA it requires stability augmentation that is achievebale by FBW system. Even at this stage, Tejas has sufficient maneuverability and agility.

Tejas's compound delta wing flys with drag, it sacrifice the speed and manueaverability.

What about the canards and delta wings of J10 and J20. Do they reduce drag? Ever heard of Relaxed static stability and what it does to drag?

 

[sancho]

Maybe/Maynotbe. We dont have the wind tunnel results.

True, we don't have it from LCA, but we know it from other fighter designs. Designs with canards are much more manouverable compared to designs without (take the exercises of Rafale and EF against the whole US Teen series, or even the F22 as an example), but also that they do reflect radar waves at certain angles compared to a simple delta wing design, although the difference might be low.
So it depends on what your requirements are, to which direction you want to develop the fighter. The Eurocanards were developed with supermaneuverability in mind, while the US believes close combats are over and advantages in BVR combats and latest techs can justify using less maneuverable fighters.

the roles of these different categories of planes are different,like Su30 is an "air superority fighter" while mig-21 is not...so how can it replace the mig-21s...

As I said earlier, the weightclass is not saying anything about the roles or the capablity of a fighter, especially not with modern multi role fighters. Latest F16 versions, or the Rafale for example have a higher payload than MKI, although the earlier are only medium class fighters.
Also EF and Rafale can be used for air superiority roles, just like the MKI, or the Gripen, some might be just more capable for a certain role, while others are less. Modern multi role fighters simply offer way higher capabilities in all weight classes compared to older gen single role fighters.

 

[BlueDot_in_Space]

True, we don't have it from LCA, but we know it from other fighter designs. Designs with canards are much more manouverable compared to designs without (take the exercises of Rafale and EF against the whole US Teen series, or even the F22 as an example), but also that they do reflect radar waves at certain angles compared to a simple delta wing design, although the difference might be low.
So it depends on what your requirements are, to which direction you want to develop the fighter. The Eurocanards were developed with supermaneuverability in mind, while the US believes close combats are over and advantages in BVR combats and latest techs can justify using less maneuverable fighters.

Let the Tejas envelope be fully opened up and then we can compare the advantage of canards on gripen if any as far as maneuverability is concerned.

 

[kurup]

According to reports canard configuration for LCA was studied during the early design phase but later rejected.

Isn't MK2 design getting LEVCONS for more maneuverability ?

 

[sancho]

Isn't MK2 design getting LEVCONS for more maneuverability ?

Not in first place and more as a side effect possibly, the main aim is on better low speed handling at carrier landings.

 

[kurup]

Not in first place and more as a side effect possibly, the main aim is on better low speed handling at carrier landings.

OK but why is T-50 having those ???

 

[sancho]

OK but why is T-50 having those ???

As I said, they will improve maneuverability as well, but for N-LCA it's not aimed on combats, but on carrier landings, while it's the other way around for the T50.

 

[BlueDot_in_Space]

Adding canards also increases weight and for a light fighter like Tejas it will be a trade off between maneuverability and additional weight. I think that is why they using LEVCONS for NAVAL version as it will serve the purpose without adding that much weight.

 

[rockstarIN]

Tejas's compound delta wing flys with drag, it sacrifice the speed and manueaverability.

Which can be compensated with more powerful engine, which we will see in LCA Mk2