Tag: stealth

Constraints and the beautiful A-10

Image: source

Contrary to popular belief:

  1. constraints help make better products (or services), and
  2. a good innovative product or service does not need to be expensive

As a young kid, one thing I was good at, was identifying fighter jets just looking at their pictures. Especially American ones. In fact, with American jets, a look at the tail section, canopy or nose and I could tell an F-14 Tomcat from an F-15 Eagle, among many other jets. Each fighter design seemed to speak of a unique personality.

In the past month though, I have been overly fascinated by another American jet from the 1970’s.
The Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II. Or simply the A-10 or Warthog. Developed as a close air support jet during the Cold War, and there dozens of reasons that make the A-10 an exceptionally designed machine.

During the Cold War, there was the need to defend a 50-kilometre region called the Fulda Gap, from a potential Soviet advance. To do so, in addition to tank regiments, the US needed a low-flying jet that could protect its tanks and troops, while being capable of causing sizeable damage to enemy tanks. Flying close to the ground, such a jet also (obviously!) needed to be able to protect its pilot and survive missions. And, just like in WWII, in case of a possible escalation in the Cold War, the winning side would be the one that was designed for quantity (ability to quickly manufacture and deploy, or repair and reuse) as opposed to quality. So, another requirement criteria was to have a jet that could be easily fixed, with affordable and easily available spares.

Imagine you were tasked with designing such a jet. Doesn’t it already sound like quite a limiting list of constraints?

To top it, the Americans had also chosen the main gun that would be used on such a jet (before knowing what such a jet itself might look like). The gun was the 30 mm General Electric GAU-8/A Avenger autocannon; a real monster. Fully loaded and with its feed system, it measured nearly 6 metres, and weighed 1.8 tonnes!

However, what emerged despite this tall-list of requirements (or constraints), was the incredible and unique looking A-10. Every design aspect aligned with its purpose – close air support, protect ground troops & artillery, destroy tanks, protect the pilot, survive being shot at. Placement of its twin turbofan engines reduced its heat signature to enemy missiles. Its cockpit was a titanium tub that protected its pilot from ground fire, even when the plane itself was badly damaged. Its low stall speed and high maneuverability allowed for close range attack. More in the fascinating video at the end of the post.

For now, let’s focus on 3 things:
1. Constraints,
2. Affordability of the solution, and
3. Advantages of a clearly defined purpose (and focus). 

The A-10 was the first and probably the last close air support jet developed by the US. However, the latest jet in their fleet, the F-35 Lightning II is supposed to be a far more advanced plane which, at least in theory, has the ability to replace the A-10s. A direct comparison does sound a bit absurd at first, like trying to compare an old pickup with a Tesla Cybertruck. But that’s for the Cybertruck to defend.

The A-10 came into service in 1977, and despite some discussions to discontinue it in the past decade or two, given its continued relevance, affordable flight time and maintenance; performance upgrades now enable them to serve till at least 2028. The F-35 came into service in 2015, and while expected to be in service till 2070, there are already many concerns, from its initial delay and escalated project cost, to its high flying time and maintenance related costs.

The F-35 has the obvious edge on several specifications when compared to the old 1970’s A-10. Consider the following:

A-10 (introduction to service: 1977):

  • Cost: $3 million (equivalent to $21.2 million today), Unit cost: US$1.4 million ($9.3 million today)
  • Max. Cruise Speed: 741 Km/h
  • Travel range: 4148 Km
  • Fuel economy: 0.68 km/litre
  • Take-off / Landing distance: 945m / 610m
  • Max. Take-off weight / Max. Payload: 22950 Kg. / 7257 Kg.
  • Fuel tank capacity: 7257 litres
  • Flight cost per hour: USD 20,000
    source: link

F-35 (introduction to service: 2015)

  • Cost: between $94 million (F-35A) and $122 million
  • Max. Cruise Speed: 1932 Km/h
  • Travel range: 2778 Km
  • Fuel economy: 0.46 km/litre
  • Take-off/ Landing distance: 168m / 213m
  • Max. Take-off weight / Max. Payload: 31751 Kg. / 8160 Kg.
  • Fuel tank capacity: 10448 litres
  • Flight cost per hour: USD 36,000
    source: link

As the A-10 was meant for attacking ground targets with its gun, it was designed to be able to fly at a slow 222 km/h without stalling. In contrast, while the F-35 can even hover in one position; but being a stealth fighter, is not exactly meant to be too close to enemy sites. The price difference between the two is obviously glaring. The A-10 costs $21 mil, the F-35, $122 mil. While the F-35 is a third more fuel efficient than the A-10, it is almost twice as expensive to fly an F-35 per hour, than the A-10. While the F-35 would certainly be relevant in a high-tech war against, say a China or Russia, for its regular action in the middle east, it is a very expensive overkill.

The A-10 was built in a time of a specific need, with numerous other constraints in mind. And that resulted in an innovative product that not just catered well to those needs, but as a result continues to stay relevant even today.

The F-35 in comparison, was built in more peaceful times, without perhaps a sharp focus on its intended purpose. And the result was an expensive Swiss army knife that isn’t too great in most of the individual specific roles it might be called in for.

To wrap it up simply, constraints can do wonders to the development of a truly innovative solution (the A-10). And just because a solution has exceptional features and capability, does not necessarily mean it is the greatest of all time (F-35), as has been proven by all the doubt looming over the F-35 project merely 6 years into service, while the 44-year old A-10’s service is already being considered for extension to 2040 or beyond.

Check out this incredible video about the A-10.

 Alternate title for this post was: Brrrrrrrrrrrrt

A Lego Stealth Fighter/ Drone

Just built a Lego stealth fighter/ drone.

It does need a little imagination to smoothen the edges, etc., bear with me on that…

But that said, have a look and let me know what you think.

Image above: Side-view. Completely collapsed for hangar/storage

 Image above: Wings fully extended (it folds at two points, one, the grey section mid-wing, and the other, at the edge of the body)

Image above : Top view. The Forward Swept Wing (FSW) & delta canard design, similar to the Sukhoi-47

Notice 4 jet engines (2 running), and stealth cover on the sides, to minimize heat signature in-flight

Image above: The wings also swivel at a point just off the main body. This dramatically improves Angle-of-Attack (AOA).

***

Look forward to your views. And if you liked this one, consider following/subscribing to my blog (top right of the page). You can also connect with me on LinkedIn and on Twitter.

Tejas: A Fighter Plane 33 Years In the Making

Tejas: A Fighter Plane 33 Years In the Making

In the early 1980s, there was a plan to build India’s first fighter aircraft, under the Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) program. After innumerous technological and process roadblocks, and possibly governmental delays, the LCA,  named Tejas (‘radiant’), was inducted into the Indian Air Force a few days ago.

Being in love with fighter planes since I was a toddler, I couldn’t resist the urge to compare our indigenous baby with the best of the world. I am sharing some glaring shortcomings, in the hope that its next versions surpass the best in the world.

Before I get to it, let me take another moment to drool at her in the picture above. Isn’t she just beautiful?!

Ok, back to business, I’ll start with picking three of my favorite fighter planes in the world. They are the USAF F-22 “Raptor“, the USAF F-35 “Lightning” and the SU-37 “Flanker” (or Flanker-F).

F-22, F-35 and SU-37

Image: F-22, F-35 and the SU-37

While it isn’t a fair comparison, pitting the new kid on the block with veterans, that is just what I am going to do. Let’s see how the Tejas compares.

Speed and Service Ceiling:

Comparing specifications of the Tejas with those of the above three, the Raptor’s top speed is Mach 2.25, with a service ceiling of over 65,000 feet. The Lightning’s is a slow Mach 1.61 with a service ceiling of 50,000 feet. The Flanker’s is a whopping Mach 2.35 with a service ceiling a little over 59,000 feet. In comparison, our Tejas has a respectable top speed of Mach 1.8 with a service ceiling of 50,000 feet.

Range:

The Raptor has a flying range of approximately 2,960 kms, the Lightning, 2,220 kms, the Flanker, a cool 3,300 kms. The Tejas has a 3,000 km range. Not bad for the new kid.

Some concerns:

The Raptor and the Lightning are stealth fighters. However, contrary to some misleading news articles in the last few days, which said the Tejas was a stealth fighter, it is not one. Specifications of the Tejas do boast of some stealth features such as its inherent small physical form, leading to a comparatively smaller radar signature, and radar-absorbent coatings and body composites and some design modifications which further reduce its radar impression.

20110217_Light_Combat_Aircraft_(LCA)_Tejas_India_021

Image: source

However, given that its weapons are external, and the fact that its body design isn’t at sharp angles to deflect radar, it would still make it easy to spot the jet, unless with primitive radar equipment.

Recent, fifth-generation fighters, and even some earlier jets include features which allow for better angles of attack. For instance, the Raptor has thrust-vectoring nozzles, as well as horizontal stabilizers at the back, which allow for a 60° angle of attack. The Lightning, despite the seemingly maneuverable appearance, thrust vectoring nozzle and lift fan (see image below), has a 50° angle of attack.

sdd_f35testb_104

Image: The F-35’s thrust vectoring nozzle and lift fan – source

The Flanker, with thrust vectoring engines and beautifully designed frame, has a deadly 180° angle of attack. Your eyes might light up like mine always do at the mention of the ‘Cobra maneuver’. This post, wouldn’t be complete without a video of Pugachev’s Cobra maneuver.

Even with the canard delta wing and possibly a thrust vectoring engine, the French Dassault Rafale too only has a 29° angle of attack. The Tejas however, lacks any of the above features, but still is capable of a 28° angle of attack.

From an improvement point of view, I would say that Hindustan Aeronautics and the Aeronautical Development Agency still have some way to go in terms of getting the next versions of the Tejas at par with the best in the world. So while the toughest hurdle (of actually getting the first one service ready) is now behind us, it’s only a matter of time before the world will be dropping at the specifications of India’s own fighter planes. After all, look what we achieved with our space program, in the shortest time span and in the most economical way.

But that said, the global investment into defense research and readiness is as astronomically high as it is stupid. The collective budget is sufficient to eradicate all the world’s problems, from that of sustainable energy, medical research, poverty and global warming; many times over. But till we become smart enough to spend that money to benefit mankind instead of wasting it on defense expenditure, let’s hope no country ever needs to use its fighter fleet.

20110217_Light_Combat_Aircraft_(LCA)_Tejas_India_009

Image: source

Fly-by-satire

Today, another MIG-21 crashed in Haryana. Thankfully the pilot was safe and apart from a big ass crater in a field, there was no major damage.

With 6 MIG-21 crashes in this year alone, the IAF has lost over 100 pilots in 283 accidents between 1993 and 2002. Till date it has lost over half the 976 MIG-21 fleet in air crashes. The Indian Air Force seems to have an innovative method of retaining only the best pilots. Send them all up in MIG-21s, if they survive, they must be damn good or bloody lucky.

The world has moved on to the fifth generation fighters with Short Take-off & Vertical Landing, Stealth, Internal weapons, the works, and yet we’re hell bent on sticking to flying coffins from the 1960s.

%d bloggers like this: