"beautiful" LCA

Originally posted by AlanJones
Sorry I dont know how I replied this many times, How can I delete extra postings?

You can't delete a post, only edit it.

Anyway, how on earth did you end up posting that many times?

I never cease to be amazed how many people supposedly 'into' aircraft completely fail to distinguish between completely different types just because there is a superficial similarity that wouldn't fool a 10 year old with only a modest interest in the subject.

LCA looks like a Mirage? Yeah, and that Concorde is just a stretched Vulcan!!!

I don't think LCA's small size will make it anywhere close to being a small bird on a radar. LCA is the size of thousands of small birds.

Russia is helping China with its J-12 and J-13 program by providing them with softwares that calculate the Radar Reflection because J-12 and J-13 are all designed to be stealthy by having small radar crosssection and internal weapons bay and China needs help on the stealth calculation part of the design process.

Originally posted by waynos
I never cease to be amazed how many people supposedly 'into' aircraft completely fail to distinguish between completely different types just because there is a superficial similarity that wouldn't fool a 10 year old with only a modest interest in the subject.

LCA looks like a Mirage?

Yeah, and that Concorde is just a stretched Vulcan!!!

Pardon my ignorance then,but the LCA DOES looks like a smaller mirage

Originally posted by COWlan
I don't think LCA's small size will make it anywhere close to being a small bird on a radar. LCA is the size of thousands of small birds.

.

What you think doesn't matter, if your not an aircraft expert or if you are driven by a lack of aviation common sense like Waynos ,a neutral poster , explained

Have you seen an LCA over radar, do you know radar dynamics and crossection phenomenon?
I do! Im an electronics engineering student and radar is one of my electives..so there!!Thats why I asked alan jones on his tech capacity with the LCA.

It doesn't HAVE to look like a small bird on radar, it can look a NORMAL bird, or a flock of small birds (not 1000) okay?

( or a BIG BIRD form Sesame Street okay??!! )

A flock of 1000 or more small birds in formation would resemble something MUCH bigger..so you don't BS man!! come on!!


[edit on 3-11-2004 by Daedalus3]

[edit on 3-11-2004 by Daedalus3]

I don't think it would be a small bird.Not a big bird either.India does not have the top secret composite materials stuff to make something appear small on radar,my idea would be its the same size as a mirage or J-10 or f-16,something like that

^^ I give up!! A LCA will have the same radar signature as a J-10??!!India doesnt not have the composite materials for stealth??!! How do you know what India has or doesnt have?

I give up and surrender to this continuous onslaught of chicom ignorance
Can't take any more of it...

God !!Wr4lrd didn't even get the sesame street BIG BIRD joke!!

Originally posted by Daedalus3
^^ I give up!! A LCA will have the same radar signature as a J-10??!!India doesnt not have the composite materials for stealth??!! How do you know what India has or doesnt have?

I give up and surrender to this continuous onslaught of chicom ignorance
Can't take any more of it...

God !!Wr4lrd didn't even get the sesame street BIG BIRD joke!!

Duh,i knew big bird,who didn't watch sesame(sp) street when they were little

[edit on 4/11/04 by W4rl0rD]

Originally posted by Daedalus3
^^ I give up!! A LCA will have the same radar signature as a J-10??!!India doesnt not have the composite materials for stealth??!! How do you know what India has or doesnt have?

I give up and surrender to this continuous onslaught of chicom ignorance
Can't take any more of it...

God !!Wr4lrd didn't even get the sesame street BIG BIRD joke!!

Chicom ignorance?stupid Indian ignorance is more like it.How can a country that is far from the top 20 countries with the biggest income afford money to get it when their fleet consists of mostly mig-21s?Another way of them getting it is trust.Not even the USA's closest ally which is Britain,has stealth.Why would they give it to a country which uses Russian stuff?How do YOU know your lousy country is the 2nd ever country to get stealth after the USA when it hasn't even started on its space program?LCA having stealth technology is the worst BULL SH!T I ever heard.If the USA really wanted to sell stealth it would go to the Brits.

[edit on 4/11/04 by W4rl0rD]

There are no basis for argument from either of you

no body really knows the RCS of LCA

if you do, give me the link

since there's no data, there's no argument

stealth is not something new and it's not just based on RCS so RCS data alone really does not show whether an airplane can be called "stealth" by the 5th (4th) gen standard (such as equal or less detection possiblity by ALL detection methods than EF2000). Any more detectable than EF2000 (I know this is a really high standard, but hey, we are talking about modern planes) should not be called "stealthy"

we will know the combat capability of LCA when it enters service and combat trials are conducted

the same is true for J 10. No body really knows what it's capable off. It's all speculation, otherwise there would be concrete data. So again, we will wait until it enters service and see the results of combat trials

[edit on 4-11-2004 by white_raven0]

Originally posted by waynos
I don't recall the Taiwanese design you refer to, I thought they'd only produced the Chung Kuo (spelling guessed at) which was quite different.

Ching Quo, I think, from memory, thanks for the jog.

Size would be similar and certainly mission statement. But you're right about the shoulder mounted double delta, I assume it gives a similar effect to the LERXs added to Harrier but a lot less ugly.

Originally posted by white_raven0
There are no basis for argument from either of you

no body really knows the RCS of LCA

if you do, give me the link

since there's no data, there's no argument

stealth is not something new and it's not just based on RCS so RCS data alone really does not show whether an airplane can be called "stealth" by the 5th (4th) gen standard (such as equal or less detection possiblity by ALL detection methods than EF2000). Any more detectable than EF2000 (I know this is a really high standard, but hey, we are talking about modern planes) should not be called "stealthy"

we will know the combat capability of LCA when it enters service and combat trials are conducted

the same is true for J 10. No body really knows what it's capable off. It's all speculation, otherwise there would be concrete data. So again, we will wait until it enters service and see the results of combat trials

[edit on 4-11-2004 by white_raven0]

My sentiments exactly...And yes EF2000 is too high a standard to be used for stealthy. Anyhow the LCA is not 'intended' to be stealthy, its size and structure composites(which are primarily used for weight reduction) definitely reduce radar signature.

@Wr4lrd
why do we have to acquire stealth tech from the US? Is GDP directly proportional to technological prowess? NOT!!


[edit on 4-11-2004 by Daedalus3]

Hi D3, How are the exams going. I'm too tied up with the Subs history thread to start a Regional Carrier News one. You?

Just remember guys a lot of tech and research that was sooooooo secret and advanced 30-40 years ago is now dumber than my wristwatch and massed produced in poorer than dirt, but with cheap labour.

Now enough info gets out into the general public within several years of development.

Someone else may do all the expensive workup R&D for years, but once it starts getting discussed there are people out there smart enough to work it out for themselves on the cheap.

But the key features and statistics of each design will probably be kept a close guarded secret or at least the subject of denial or disinformation long after it is gone.

A freind of mine who worked in the industry told me that sometimes the variation between key features and performance of mil tech can be varied by up to 20-25% between press releases or remain completely unpublished. I would say this introduces at least a degree of subjectivity to discussions.

Thank god for information sharing and great minds thinking alike. We would still be flying Wright Flyers without them.

Cheers.



[edit on 4-11-2004 by craigandrew]

RCS of any aircraft is not public knowledge. I believe F-16 is like a small house, F-22 is of a small bird. LCA should fall somewhere btwn. Although I cannot disclose what I work on. My disciplne is in the area Multidisplinary optimization (MDO).Where we do deal with conflicting issues from different disciplines. If you can get the drift. LCA is not structural stealth, but is like any other 3-4 gen aircraft. Engine is recesed, the airintakes are baffled. I hope Kaveri Engine has better heat signature etc. F-22 has many technologies developed for Stealth. Given its small size, and extensive use of composites and RAM paint LCA is be less observable. India is fairly advanced in composite materials.

Originally posted by AlanJones
RCS of any aircraft is not public knowledge. I believe F-16 is like a small house, F-22 is of a small bird. LCA should fall somewhere btwn. Although I cannot disclose what I work on. My disciplne is in the area Multidisplinary optimization (MDO).Where we do deal with conflicting issues from different disciplines. If you can get the drift. LCA is not structural stealth, but is like any other 3-4 gen aircraft. Engine is recesed, the airintakes are baffled. I hope Kaveri Engine has better heat signature etc. F-22 has many technologies developed for Stealth. Given its small size, and extensive use of composites and RAM paint LCA is be less observable. India is fairly advanced in composite materials.

Less obserable but still observable.Ok,i got it and i'm gonna keep my mouth shut

anything with mass and volume is observable one way or another

www.flightjournal.com...


I believe the ONLY modern fighter than can remain undetected flying into AMRAAM range against another modern plane is the F22 (and probably EF2000 if both planes are flying head on at eachother). The EF is exposed if it turns because its stealth is not all aspect.

stealth is NOT what defines gen 5 planes since stealth is not something new. People have been designing reduced RCS stuff since the advant of the radar. What makes 5th gen fighters better are stealth, supercruise, advanced radar, good avionics, good AMRAAM, and high manuverbility.

[edit on 5-11-2004 by white_raven0]

When the MCA comes into service in 2010(assuming LCA works),China would already have the J-12 ,which is a "pathetic copy" of a f22,which was designed to compete with all the other 5th generation fighters.With China doing their "copying",they probably will give the J-12 Russian features such as canards/Russian engines.

by 2010 much would have changed in the political scenario. Looking back at the last decade, I presume that new parternerships would have been made and a major re-shuffling of alliances will take place. The roles of fighters by then would be altered.

Originally posted by AlanJones
I believe F-16 is like a small house, F-22 is of a small bird. LCA should fall somewhere btwn. Although I cannot disclose what I work on. My disciplne is in the area Multidisplinary optimization (MDO).Where we do deal with conflicting issues from different disciplines. If you can get the drift. .

And why can't you disclose what you work on?

I work in Optimization; US is moving towards unmanned aircrafts UCAVs. I believe they are making it able to land on a AC. It might change the future battle scenario. What do you think?