Thread: You know it's funny, this thing looks JUST LIKE a MIG...

Got a wild hair today, found this in Wikipedia.

HALTejas.

Planned introduction to military forces, 2010, by the Indian Air Force.

I doubt it will have anything on any of the US's premiere fighter jets, the F-22 Raptor or the mainstay of the US Air Force (F-16 Fighting Falcon), nor the US Navy/US Marine Corps (F/A-18 Hornet).

I think the designers, Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL), intended to take a big swing, but resulted with nothing more than a big strike. The intention was to replace the, now defunct, Mikoyan-Gurevich Design Bureau, at the same time as coming up with a cutting edge, state of the art, formidable airframe. However, all they did was copy and slightly modify the old piece of shit Fishbed (when compared to other current types) and give it a new name and take the credit for it.

Originally Posted by MaBell37

. . . all they did was copy and slightly modify the old piece of shit Fishbed (when compared to other current types) and give it a new name and take the credit for it.

Whatchu talkin' `bout, Willis? Those airplanes are substantially different. Thrust vectoring, inherent stability, fly-by wire, control surfaces, engine air flow, avionics . . . none of it is similar, let alone the same. Saying those two planes are the same is like comparing the Wright Brothers flyer to a Beech Staggerwing. Yeah, they both are prop biplanes. But that doesn't make them the same.

They can make all those modifications they like, but it doesn't affect the whole overall design of the airframe. The compound delta wing configuration is essentially the same as it was on the original Fishbed. And, while it may have been effective in it's time, modern technology and testing has come up with multiple better answers to the air flow over said surfaces. The fact that they were unwilling to deviate from an well established, but now out of date airframe design, tells me that they cannot, or will not, think outside of the box.

As for the fly-by-wire and thrust vectoring, these are concepts that, actually, are not all that difficult to incorporate into older design airframes. Hydraulics as opposed to, but including, fly-by-wire technology has been around the block a few times now, and I'm not all that impressed by terms that most common people are not familiar with. That's like saying, "New and Improved Cleaning Ability!" in a product that has NO new ingredients, or combinations thereof. You pick the most common analogy that you're familiar with.

Yes, the fact that they can get if off the ground and control crash it, means something. I'm not quite sure what, but something. Seems to me humankind has been doing that for decades. When someone comes up with a whole new thrust and maneuvering system akin to that which you see in SciFi movies, then let me know, until then, this is nothing more than the same old box, with a couple of new whiz-bangs in it. Yeah, so they moved the turbine to the rear of the jet, and incorportated side intake induction, whoop-de-doo! Seems to me like that's been around pre-Vietnam (for US history reference), and that was over forty years ago.

By the way, did you notice the estimated price tag on that puppy? If you consider the increase in inflation and associated costs with creation, scale it back to what it cost back then (1950's) this is no more expensive now, than the original version was then. Tell you anything? :P

By the way...

Originally Posted by ebaconjr

...inherent stability...

...was said about the Titanic, and we all know where she is. :P

Simply grotesque oversimplifications. You gotta be more careful when talking about military hardware. You carry a lot of clout as a soldier, so get it right and don't misinform the kids on here. There is no high school or college education in the land that can correct any misimpressions that you may impress upon the kids regarding foreign military capability. The burden is on your shoulders to teach it right.

For all the things that you simplified, how about taking a postion of devils advocate and look at it from the other side? Address issues of manufacturability, corrosion and storage life of service parts, availablility of service technicians, pilot training, ground crew training, crew fatigue, hours maintenance per hour flown, mean time between failure, potential failure modes, aircraft carrier capability, compatibility with civilian aeronautics infrastructure, . . . Once you do that you will see your gross oversimplifications. I'm not going to do it for you. I don't need another pissing match - but the kids here still need someone that they can trust to get information from. :8

A more interesting question is if it could take down Pakistan's F-16s. Wikipedia says that the Pakistani Air Force has about 60 F-16s (not sure which block #) and many more older Mirage IIIs. It sounds like the Tejas has a helmet-mounted target acquisition system, which the 16 doesn't have. From playing Lock-On, Modern Air Combat I came to appreciate how deadly that is in the Mig-29. Also, the thrust-vectoring should make it more maneuverable. Looking at the armament, it's a toss-up between the AA-12 and the AIM 120 for BVR, provided that both countries have the most recent upgrades of both missiles. The Tejas can carry more ordinance in a strike configuration.
From this I'm guessing it's a tossup in BVR with an edge to the Tejas in dogfighting.

'Rabbit

Um, yeah.... Listen to E-Bacon here. Not only is his name crispy and delicious... Mmmm... Bacon.... What were we talking about? Oh yeah...

Dude, you can't make a blanket conclusion like that just by looking at a wing planform. That may give a few hints, but that's all. To say all tail-less delta planforms perform the same is really ignorant. Even if it is a Fishbed derivative, it looks like it'll have more modern avionics and better power-to-weight. E-Bacon probably means inherant *instability*, which is a good thing in the world of fighters and modern control systems.

All in all, for the cost, it looks like it'll be an o.k. airplane. A match for the mig-29's they've bought? Probably not. And it's got a lot of non-LO features. So I wouldn't call it "cutting edge" by any stretch, but then again it's cheaper, home-grown, and lets their engineers exercise the skills we're shipping over there as we speak in the name of low-cost outsourcing.

I would like to form a solid squad (or two) of 4 (myself included) to play 4 vs 4. This squad is for serious Left 4 Dead heads who play several times a week. For each level of the campaign, one member of the team will be Team Captain and direct gameplay for the whole squad. Therefore, there is no Team Captain in a general sense, because all team members will have a turn at being Team Captain during the campaign.

ELIGIBILITY:

1) Willing to commit to playing with the team once a week, every week (Friday, Saturday or Sunday evenings) for at least one campaign.

2) Enjoys playing cooperatively.

3) 18 + years of age

4) Has a microphone and speaks into it during gameplay (strange noises or heavy breathing does not qualify).

5) Must already know how to play this game.

I will accept members of any skill level, as long as the player meets the aforementioned criteria. You will not change your gamertag at any point in time. Squad name is optional.

If interested, send me a message, Gamertag: Flower0fCarnage with "Squad" in the Subject line or reply to this message.