ADA Tejas Mark-II/Medium Weight Fighter

Pulkit

Satyameva Jayate "Truth Alone Triumphs"
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2014
Messages
1,622
Likes
590
Country flag
what the Fu*king A** u are.... Mor*n a Big one....

the requirements which are not met by Tejas are confidential ..According to ur statement only....and few burgers like you stand up and start shouting bla bla bla bla.....it did not met it did not met... what it didn't meet?what? and when it comes to rafale... without knowing it s performance in India you call it the best....

there has been no major issue in Tejas Flight till date that in itself an achievement...
It can Fly
It can carry
It can destroy
but its made in India....

poor chap Tejas....

And I have been saying for a while it cannot be achieved 100% in any case..... so yes few req met have not been met ,,,,,but how imp were they ? was a different added asset added in its place... how vital was that req.... do you even think abt it....

don't b a bit*h..... think

That is confidential. However as clearly written in the document published by CEMILAC. LCA Mk1 did not meet requirements. Since you deny this, probably you are saying that the agency which certified LCA is wrong and you are correct. Good going.
 

Defcon 1

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2011
Messages
2,195
Likes
1,842
Country flag
the requirements which are not met by Tejas are confidential ..According to ur statement only....and few burgers like you stand up and start shouting bla bla bla bla.....it did not met it did not met... what it didn't meet?what? and when it comes to rafale... without knowing it s performance in India you call it the best....
Wrong. CEMILAC has stood up and said that LCA Mk1 has not met the requirements. Its the agency which certifies every new aircraft in India.

And I have been saying for a while it cannot be achieved 100% in any case..... so yes few req met have not been met ,,,,,but how imp were they ? was a different added asset added in its place... how vital was that req.... do you even think abt it....
Good, now since you have accepted that all requirements were not met, the discussion is over.
 

power_monger

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2014
Messages
642
Likes
653
Country flag
Wrong. CEMILAC has stood up and said that LCA Mk1 has not met the requirements. Its the agency which certifies every new aircraft in India.


Good, now since you have accepted that all requirements were not met, the discussion is over.
wasnt the cemilac report you are referring was given in 2011? i think cemilac report of 2013 given before ioc-2 did not report much issues.
 

Pulkit

Satyameva Jayate "Truth Alone Triumphs"
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2014
Messages
1,622
Likes
590
Country flag
Wrong. CEMILAC has stood up and said that LCA Mk1 has not met the requirements. Its the agency which certifies every new aircraft in India.


Good, now since you have accepted that all requirements were not met, the discussion is over.
Did it achieve IOC 1 and 2 or not... and it will achieve FOC ... just for the sake of argument with a few relaxations....
So if the discussion is over acc to you I hope you now will agree TEJAS is great asset which suites IAF requirement(SUITEs ok SUITEs) Its just that IAF is stuck with love for Foreign brands which has made life of Tejas difficult.....

Thanks to Navy we can hope Tejas Mk2 will have a great future....
 

SajeevJino

Long walk
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2012
Messages
6,017
Likes
3,364
Country flag
.






It says that tejas can carry 1.5 ton bomb, needs some clarification.
It's my work

It not Certified to carry ALCM and Anti Shipping Missions or Never Performed.

It's pylons not capable to carry 3000 pounds or 1500 Kg Bombs.

More Accurately I and most of them expected the above from Tejas But Truth is it can't even perform 20% of the above missions
 
Last edited:

Defcon 1

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2011
Messages
2,195
Likes
1,842
Country flag
wasnt the cemilac report you are referring was given in 2011? i think cemilac report of 2013 given before ioc-2 did not report much issues.
No, but as identified in the earlier report itself, the limitations of Tejas were design issues, i.e. they couldn't be corrected in Mk1, hence the next variant. Anyways, it was known for a long time that Mk1 was not going to meet the ASR requirements. That was the reason behind starting the Mk2 program. This is an extremely old cutting from the hindu. As can be seen, it was clear long back that Mk1 won't be meeting 1985 ASR requirements
http://icast.org.in/news/2008/dec08/dec05ha.pdf
 
Last edited:

Defcon 1

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2011
Messages
2,195
Likes
1,842
Country flag
It's my work

It not Certified to carry ALCM and Anti Shipping Missions or Never Performed.

It's pylons not capable to carry 3000 pounds or 1500 Kg Bombs.
Leave it, you are talking to an idiot.
 

Punya Pratap

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2013
Messages
474
Likes
361
Country flag
Deputy air chief flies light combat aircraft Tejas - The Times of India

Deputy air chief flies light combat aircraft Tejas
Chethan Kumar,TNN | Sep 3, 2014, 07.40 PM IST

Air Staff Air Marshal SBP Sinha (R) with a test pilot at HAL airport in Bangalore. (TOI photo)
BANGALORE: Deputy chief of Air Staff Air Marshal SBP Sinha, on Wednesday took to skies light combat aircraft (LCA) Tejas here, and said that the aircraft handles well both on the ground and in the air.

This is the first flight by a senior officer of the rank of Air Marshal from Air headquarters (New Delhi).

He was on a two day visit to Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) and Hindustan Aeronautics Limited during which, he took a review of various aspects of Tejas programme.

ADA chief P S Subramanya said, "This flight of Tejas by a senior IAF commander indicates the high degree of confidence in the indigenous light combat aircraft."

Tejas has, after a lot of criticism from former air chief marshal P V Naik, who had said, he "would not let his boys fly the plane...", today reached a stage close to being inducted into IAF.
 

Punya Pratap

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2013
Messages
474
Likes
361
Country flag
The thing with most people is that they jump to conclusions without knowing the entire situation.... do the arguing worthies here know what were the design parameters refereed in the said IOC certification (almost 4 year old) that is being brought up today??

Do the well-read, knowledgeable ones know what were the said ASR requirements that were causing all the head aches and when were they added ??

Check the facts before you speak cause if I get down to shredding the facts the well-read ones shall feel like they ought not to take one sentence out of the entire report and twist it with their limited knowledge and comprehension skills to suit their claims.

The other thing I was wondering was since when has a single seater become a LIFT trainer?? I was brought up to understand that a LIFT is a tandem seat trainer!!

IAF keeps throwing extraordinary logic...the same way it throws a HI/Med/Lo fighter mix logic that NO OTHER AIRFORCE IN THE ENTIRE WORLD THINKS ABOUT!!
 

Punya Pratap

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2013
Messages
474
Likes
361
Country flag
Err another update, much heat that is being generated on forums shall see a very interesting twist since the Modi Govt. is going to take a few decisions soon (after PM completes his foreign relations exercises) !!

Watch for the breaking news here ;)
 
Last edited:

ersakthivel

Brilliance
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
7,029
Likes
8,762
Country flag
Leave it, you are talking to an idiot.
I feel very happy and satisfied when I see such "great posts" from you.(As usual You will pretend , that you have never read the words"some clarification needed" typed by me below that picture.)

The imaginary bubbles floated in this forum by folks like you and your ilk for a few years are going to burst very soon.

Then lets see who is an idiot.

Once again,"How much distance can a Mig-21 cover with mach 2 speeds and how many litres of fuel will be left in its tank after it has completed its entire duration of mach 2 flight",

Your highness can take time off, Google and answer whenever it is possible.
 
Last edited:

ersakthivel

Brilliance
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
7,029
Likes
8,762
Country flag
It's my work

It not Certified to carry ALCM and Anti Shipping Missions or Never Performed.

It's pylons not capable to carry 3000 pounds or 1500 Kg Bombs.

More Accurately I and most of them expected the above from Tejas But Truth is it can't even perform 20% of the above missions
can you post the correct load out picture?

can you clarify what are the weight limitations of the six pylons on the wing and and the center line pylon?




SO I found it, Actually I was searching for this picture and mistakenly found the one above,



I hope tejas mk2 with much higher weapon load will have a center line station to carry 1.5 ton weight, In fact it is possible to design tejas mk2 with a center line pylon and two inner wing pylon capable of carrying 1.5 ton loads, I think.

because tejas mk2 is siad to be capable of carrying 5 tons with just the same seven hard points. SO there should not be any issues about it.

You should also know that many other engine fighter makers claim that their fighter can carry 5 plus tons in their brochure (by simply adding the weight of all stations , knowing fully well that all the stations can not be loaded to maximum weight , if they want their fighter to take off with full weapon load, because then it will exceed its max take off weight. But they will say it can take off with just a ton of fuel and once it reaches higher altitude it can be refuelled to carry such heavier loads. )

So what we seen in brochures is not we always get in reality.
 
Last edited:

ersakthivel

Brilliance
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
7,029
Likes
8,762
Country flag
Our Cinderella must step out : Manoj Joshi, News - India Today
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is important to see the aircraft in comparison with the others that are flying, both as potential adversaries, as well as competitors for the export market. The aircraft under 10 tons of operational empty weight are the American F-16, the Chinese JF-17, the Swedish Gripen. Of these the LCA is the lightest at just 5.9 tons.

In part this is because of its use of carbon fibre composites. The US and the Chinese aircraft have a carbon composites content of near zero, while the more modern Gripen has 30 per cent content by weight. The LCA has 45 per cent, but as much as 90 per cent of the surface of the LCA is made of carbon fibres. This makes it light, strong and rugged, since the carbon fibre composites neither age nor corrode.

Stealth

But its most important quality is that it does not reflect radar beams, unlike the metallic components of aircraft. In other words, this gives the LCA a naturally low radar signature or 'stealth' characteristics. Given its small size anyway, it is, in the words of a former fighter pilot, "virtually invisible" to adversary fighters.

The use of carbon fibre gives the LCA another advantage: with its low operational empty weight, and compared to an aircraft with similar engines, the LCA has greater thrust to weight ratio. The LCA Mk 2 is likely to have 1.53, compared to the other agile fighter, the F-16's 1.64. The Gripen has 1.44 and the JF-17 has 1.28. Indeed, the LCA's rate of acceleration compares favourably with heavy two-engined fighters like the Eurofighter, which has a thrust to weight ratio of 1.64.

Carbon fibre parts do not deteriorate with age or corrode and hence the navalised version of the LCA will prove a big advantage. But it is true that carbon fibre parts are expensive to make and ideally, the process should be automated and procured in large numbers to keep their prices low. India has already invested a great deal in this technology beginning with the Dhruva programme in the mid-1980s and it is one of the world leaders in such technology.

Clearly, its natural stealth characteristics, low operating costs, maneuverability and its sensor and weapons suite make the LCA a real player in the global market. Indeed, according to an air force officer, the performance of the LCA as a fighter exceeds that of the Mirage 2000, even when the latter is upgraded.

Although the IAF has committed itself to inducting two squadrons of 40 LCAs, its actual needs are much greater. As of now the air force puts "close air support" or missions in support to the army in a low priority. But there is great need for the IAF to take up that mission seriously, especially in the mountain areas, and for that the LCA is the ideal machine. Further, the IAF's reliance on heavy and expensive fighters would make its reaction time to emergencies-cruise missile or UAV ingress at the country's periphery-rather slow because they cannot afford to base their expensive assets too close to the border. Here, the LCA provides a quick reaction option as it can be forward based.

Export

The most interesting aspect of the LCA is in relation to exports. This is clearly the one worldclass product which can be used to woo friends and allies, especially in the neighbourhood. The LCA gives India the option to compete with the Chinese JF-17 in a score of countries including Egypt, Bangladesh, Myanmar, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Sri Lanka.

Indeed, there is a wider market, too, if HAL is willing to dream big and do something about it. There is a market for some 3,000 fighters to replace the MiG-21s, F-5s, early model F-16s which will retire in the coming 10-15 years in countries of Eastern Europe, Asia-Pacific and elsewhere. Getting even ten per cent of that market would be a stunning achievement for India.

But to reach that goal, India needs to think big. HAL, is still making its current limited series aircraft by hand, as it were, and it has no experience in sales and marketing abroad. As it is, there will be a need to transform HAL's work culture to make a product to the highest world standards. Equally important would be product support, again an area in which the HAL has not done too well in the past.

But all this cannot be done by the HAL itself. The LCA programme was a national endeavour to lay the foundations for India's aerospace industry. If it is to meet that mandate- and it is on the threshold of doing that- it needs attention right now from the topmost levels of government and the Ministry of Defence.


Read more at: Our Cinderella must step out : Manoj Joshi, News - India Today
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Last edited:

Punya Pratap

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2013
Messages
474
Likes
361
Country flag
Another food for thought!!

As and when the LCA Tejas Mk 2 comes along..... as stated by IAF that Mk 2 is what the IAF ASQR required from the "beginning"

Let me tell you well in advance that TEJAS MK 2 WILL BE ANYTHING BUT A LIGHT COMBAT AIRCRAFT !!

So please change the denomination of Tejas Mk 2 to Medium Combat Aircraft...if you are so stuck up in believing that LCA Tejas Mk 1 does not comply to the 2004 IAF ASQR.

What confounds logic is the behaviour of both IAF & IA and they come up with all kinds of logic defying things and if anyone doubts it then please go through the below link....after all 05 Sept is tomorrow!

Broadsword

The day nothing happened

Pakistan's F-104 Starfighter -- a cutting-edge fighter -- delivered mixed results, but the F-86 Sabre was impressive

By Ajai Shukla
Business Standard, 2nd Sept 14

A popular tale --- apocryphal but grounded in truth --- recounts an air force student at the National Defence College asking the librarian where he could find a book on the war history of the Indian Air Force (IAF). Without looking up, the librarian responded, "In the fiction section, Sir."

On Sept 5, the IAF will launch a yearlong commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the 1965 Indo-Pakistan war, culminating in Sept 2015, the actual anniversary. There are at least three reasons to stop this self-congratulatory nonsense. First, as the centenary of World War I has illustrated, countries have fought terrible wars without feeling the need for a yearlong commemoration. Second, by every independent account the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) convincingly got the better of the IAF. Old-timer pilots frankly confess that 1965 was a learning experience, not a victory. Third, and importantly for military history aficionados, no fighting happened on Sep 5. Why is the IAF commemorating this day?

The answer is simply that we care little for military truth. India has victories, brave deeds and valorous soldiers who deserve celebration. We have won battles, even wars, handily; and sometimes just by the skin of our teeth. But our voluminous regimental histories firmly reject the gritty reality of war, painting every engagement in the unsullied colours of heroism and triumph.

As the IAF kicks off another round of myth-making, it is worth remembering how little there was to celebrate in those September days when the underdog PAF got the better of the IAF in raid after raid, dogfight after dogfight. This comes not from the fevered imagination of Pakistani jingoists, but from the official Indian history of the 1965 war, which was endorsed on Dec 31, 1992, by then defence secretary NN Vohra. Yet, it was held back and remains classified even today, further burnishing its credentials. Interested readers can access it at Official 1965 War History

To set the stage, the PAF in 1965 was a well-trained, American supplied air force of 17 squadrons (12-16 aircraft per squadron), which included a squadron of F-104 Starfighters, then the most formidable fighter in Asia; eight squadrons of F-86 Sabres; two squadrons of highly regarded B-57 bombers; and a high-altitude reconnaissance squadron of RB-57, including the secret RB-57F photo-recce aircraft that flew at 70,000 feet, beyond the reach of Indian fighters and anti-aircraft weapons. The PAF imaginatively used its two squadrons of light trainers for reconnaissance and ground attack.

The IAF, in contrast, had 48 squadrons, almost thrice the PAF's strength, although six Vampire and three Toofani fighter squadrons were clearly obsolescent. Furthermore, India retained a number of squadrons in the east to guard against China. With Indian quantity offset by PAF quality, the decks were evenly stacked.

Even so, the PAF was clearly superior in its training and operational doctrines. The held-back history says, "Compared to (the PAF's) elaborate and determined plan of attack, the IAF, it seems, operated on the basis of ad-hoc decisions, and in the hope that full-scale war would simply not come."

On September 1, 1965, the IAF launched its first strikes against a Pakistani invasion at Chhamb, near Jammu. Foolishly, 12 obsolescent Vampires and 14 Mystere fighter-bombers were thrown in, which began shooting up Indian tanks from 20 Lancers, which was opposing the Pakistani advance. 20 Lancers officers recount their relief when the PAF Sabres swooped down on the IAF, shooting down four Vampires. A shocked IAF grounded its Vampire and Toofani squadrons, reducing its strength by one-third. Clearly, this was not a day to be celebrated.

After a quiet September 2, the IAF claimed its first kill on September 3, when Squadron Leader Trevor Keelor, flying a Gnat fighter, hit a PAF Sabre. The IAF, in need of something to celebrate, announced a "kill" and awarded the pilot a Vir Chakra. In fact the IAF knows that the Pakistani pilot, Flight Lieutenant Yusuf Ali Khan, nursed his damaged Sabre back to Sargodha air base. Not until September 4 did an Indian pilot, Squadron Leader VS Pathania, shoot down a PAF Sabre. Perhaps that is the day to commemorate.

The next day, September 5, saw absolutely no action. On September 6, the PAF made its big move, launching multiple strikes against IAF bases to destroy aircraft on the ground and whittle away the IAF's numerical superiority. Indian accounts say 10 IAF fighters were destroyed on the ground at Pathankote, with another three damaged. Separately, hunters became the hunted, when two of the four IAF Hunter fighters patrolling over Halwara air base to ambush incoming Pakistani fighters were shot down by the Sabres when they arrived.

Alongside the PAF air strikes, Pakistani commandoes were airdropped around Indian air bases to launch attacks on the ground. Fortunately, the villagers around Pathankote, Halwara and Adampur captured scores of disoriented commandoes, who had little idea of what to do after reaching the ground.

Sep 6 was also when Indian troops crossed the border at Amritsar and, taking the Pakistan Army by surprise, reached Lahore's outskirts. The official history recounts that this was achieved without IAF support, a devastating accusation endorsed by noted historian, John Fricker. In his authoritative work, "Battle for Pakistan: The Air War of 1965", Fricker writes: "Incredibly, the Indian offensive struggled on without any form of air support, and the IAF did not challenge the repeated ground attack sorties flown without loss by the PAF throughout the day"¦" That evening, battered by the PAF and without a clear plan, Indian troops pulled back from the brink of a war-winning victory --- the capture of Lahore.

September 7 saw a debacle in the eastern theatre, where the PAF had only a single squadron of Sabres. Early morning IAF raids on Chittagong and Jessore achieved nothing. However, a retaliatory PAF raid devastated the IAF's Kalaikunda base, in West Bengal, destroying 12 aircraft on the ground.

Thereafter, both air forces went slow, husbanding their strength for a long war. The IAF destroyed 43 PAF fighters, while losing 59 of their own. The PAF celebrates September 6 --- when it ravaged Pathankote and saved Lahore --- as "Defence of Pakistan Day". What does it say about the IAF that it is commemorating September 5 --- the day when nothing happened?


My dear fellow gullible Indians, I ask you "WHETHER THE IAF SERVES THE NATIONS INTEREST OR THE NATION SERVES THE IAF'S INTEREST??"

Some of the wise heads here blindly believe IAF is the sole authority in deciding what it wants and how it should function...if that be true than make it a super-authority and let it run the nation!!

Had China let its defense forces decide they would still be the worlds' largest importers of weapons!!

I see the IAF & IA constantly acting like spoilt brats and demanding the most expensive weapons system and doing a dirty on domestic weapons such as Arjun & Tejas!!

Off topic but Arjun Mk2 is heavy because of the additions demanded by IA where as they act like a coy girl when the Russians sell them T90's.

I know how IA behaved since I was one of the transporters who provided the logistics to Russians when they came for evaluations of T90's!! I know a bit about how the Garuda exercises went with the Rafale and how the IAF collectively is hankering for Rafale !!
 

ersakthivel

Brilliance
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
7,029
Likes
8,762
Country flag
Another food for thought!!

As and when the LCA Tejas Mk 2 comes along..... as stated by IAF that Mk 2 is what the IAF ASQR required from the "beginning"

Let me tell you well in advance that TEJAS MK 2 WILL BE ANYTHING BUT A LIGHT COMBAT AIRCRAFT !!

So please change the denomination of Tejas Mk 2 to Medium Combat Aircraft...if you are so stuck up in believing that LCA Tejas Mk 1 does not comply to the 2004 IAF ASQR.

What confounds logic is the behaviour of both IAF & IA and they come up with all kinds of logic defying things and if anyone doubts it then please go through the below link....after all 05 Sept is tomorrow!

Broadsword

The day nothing happened

Pakistan's F-104 Starfighter -- a cutting-edge fighter -- delivered mixed results, but the F-86 Sabre was impressive

By Ajai Shukla
Business Standard, 2nd Sept 14

A popular tale --- apocryphal but grounded in truth --- recounts an air force student at the National Defence College asking the librarian where he could find a book on the war history of the Indian Air Force (IAF). Without looking up, the librarian responded, "In the fiction section, Sir."

On Sept 5, the IAF will launch a yearlong commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the 1965 Indo-Pakistan war, culminating in Sept 2015, the actual anniversary. There are at least three reasons to stop this self-congratulatory nonsense. First, as the centenary of World War I has illustrated, countries have fought terrible wars without feeling the need for a yearlong commemoration. Second, by every independent account the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) convincingly got the better of the IAF. Old-timer pilots frankly confess that 1965 was a learning experience, not a victory. Third, and importantly for military history aficionados, no fighting happened on Sep 5. Why is the IAF commemorating this day?

The answer is simply that we care little for military truth. India has victories, brave deeds and valorous soldiers who deserve celebration. We have won battles, even wars, handily; and sometimes just by the skin of our teeth. But our voluminous regimental histories firmly reject the gritty reality of war, painting every engagement in the unsullied colours of heroism and triumph.

As the IAF kicks off another round of myth-making, it is worth remembering how little there was to celebrate in those September days when the underdog PAF got the better of the IAF in raid after raid, dogfight after dogfight. This comes not from the fevered imagination of Pakistani jingoists, but from the official Indian history of the 1965 war, which was endorsed on Dec 31, 1992, by then defence secretary NN Vohra. Yet, it was held back and remains classified even today, further burnishing its credentials. Interested readers can access it at Official 1965 War History

To set the stage, the PAF in 1965 was a well-trained, American supplied air force of 17 squadrons (12-16 aircraft per squadron), which included a squadron of F-104 Starfighters, then the most formidable fighter in Asia; eight squadrons of F-86 Sabres; two squadrons of highly regarded B-57 bombers; and a high-altitude reconnaissance squadron of RB-57, including the secret RB-57F photo-recce aircraft that flew at 70,000 feet, beyond the reach of Indian fighters and anti-aircraft weapons. The PAF imaginatively used its two squadrons of light trainers for reconnaissance and ground attack.

The IAF, in contrast, had 48 squadrons, almost thrice the PAF's strength, although six Vampire and three Toofani fighter squadrons were clearly obsolescent. Furthermore, India retained a number of squadrons in the east to guard against China. With Indian quantity offset by PAF quality, the decks were evenly stacked.

Even so, the PAF was clearly superior in its training and operational doctrines. The held-back history says, "Compared to (the PAF's) elaborate and determined plan of attack, the IAF, it seems, operated on the basis of ad-hoc decisions, and in the hope that full-scale war would simply not come."

On September 1, 1965, the IAF launched its first strikes against a Pakistani invasion at Chhamb, near Jammu. Foolishly, 12 obsolescent Vampires and 14 Mystere fighter-bombers were thrown in, which began shooting up Indian tanks from 20 Lancers, which was opposing the Pakistani advance. 20 Lancers officers recount their relief when the PAF Sabres swooped down on the IAF, shooting down four Vampires. A shocked IAF grounded its Vampire and Toofani squadrons, reducing its strength by one-third. Clearly, this was not a day to be celebrated.

After a quiet September 2, the IAF claimed its first kill on September 3, when Squadron Leader Trevor Keelor, flying a Gnat fighter, hit a PAF Sabre. The IAF, in need of something to celebrate, announced a "kill" and awarded the pilot a Vir Chakra. In fact the IAF knows that the Pakistani pilot, Flight Lieutenant Yusuf Ali Khan, nursed his damaged Sabre back to Sargodha air base. Not until September 4 did an Indian pilot, Squadron Leader VS Pathania, shoot down a PAF Sabre. Perhaps that is the day to commemorate.

The next day, September 5, saw absolutely no action. On September 6, the PAF made its big move, launching multiple strikes against IAF bases to destroy aircraft on the ground and whittle away the IAF's numerical superiority. Indian accounts say 10 IAF fighters were destroyed on the ground at Pathankote, with another three damaged. Separately, hunters became the hunted, when two of the four IAF Hunter fighters patrolling over Halwara air base to ambush incoming Pakistani fighters were shot down by the Sabres when they arrived.

Alongside the PAF air strikes, Pakistani commandoes were airdropped around Indian air bases to launch attacks on the ground. Fortunately, the villagers around Pathankote, Halwara and Adampur captured scores of disoriented commandoes, who had little idea of what to do after reaching the ground.

Sep 6 was also when Indian troops crossed the border at Amritsar and, taking the Pakistan Army by surprise, reached Lahore's outskirts. The official history recounts that this was achieved without IAF support, a devastating accusation endorsed by noted historian, John Fricker. In his authoritative work, "Battle for Pakistan: The Air War of 1965", Fricker writes: "Incredibly, the Indian offensive struggled on without any form of air support, and the IAF did not challenge the repeated ground attack sorties flown without loss by the PAF throughout the day"¦" That evening, battered by the PAF and without a clear plan, Indian troops pulled back from the brink of a war-winning victory --- the capture of Lahore.

September 7 saw a debacle in the eastern theatre, where the PAF had only a single squadron of Sabres. Early morning IAF raids on Chittagong and Jessore achieved nothing. However, a retaliatory PAF raid devastated the IAF's Kalaikunda base, in West Bengal, destroying 12 aircraft on the ground.

Thereafter, both air forces went slow, husbanding their strength for a long war. The IAF destroyed 43 PAF fighters, while losing 59 of their own. The PAF celebrates September 6 --- when it ravaged Pathankote and saved Lahore --- as "Defence of Pakistan Day". What does it say about the IAF that it is commemorating September 5 --- the day when nothing happened?


My dear fellow gullible Indians, I ask you "WHETHER THE IAF SERVES THE NATIONS INTEREST OR THE NATION SERVES THE IAF'S INTEREST??"

Some of the wise heads here blindly believe IAF is the sole authority in deciding what it wants and how it should function...if that be true than make it a super-authority and let it run the nation!!

Had China let its defense forces decide they would still be the worlds' largest importers of weapons!!

I see the IAF & IA constantly acting like spoilt brats and demanding the most expensive weapons system and doing a dirty on domestic weapons such as Arjun & Tejas!!

Off topic but Arjun Mk2 is heavy because of the additions demanded by IA where as they act like a coy girl when the Russians sell them T90's.

I know how IA behaved since I was one of the transporters who provided the logistics to Russians when they came for evaluations of T90's!! I know a bit about how the Garuda exercises went with the Rafale and how the IAF collectively is hankering for Rafale !!
Actually the younger sections of IAf and IA will have a safer and better time in tejas and Arjun.

if you ask the 400 pilots who fly flying fossils of IAF , which were designed 40 years ago, they will gladly accept 300 tejas mk1s and mk2s are the only way for them to make their service more meaningful for the country.

in the same way if you ask young tank crews they will prefer safer and effective Arjun mk1 and mk2 any day over T-72 and t-90.

but it is all politics and the way the country was ruled by a corrupt oligopoly for the last 10 years that made things much worse.

Thats why we see top brass criticizing arjun and tejas based on lies while lavishing praise on any foreign platform, even knowing fully well most of their top brochure specs (which will sap ten percent of engine thrust and and close to ten percent of wing lift)are not achievable in hot indian climates, which will sap ten percent of engine thrust and and close to ten percent of wing lift, which was cryptically stated by Cmde Jaydeep Maolankar, Test Pilot of the Tejas program in aeroindia 2013.

Attended my first Aero India this Saturday. I won't describe the difficulties in getting into the show, but once I did, it was quite alright. The highlight for me was the conversations I had with Cmde Jaydeep Maolankar, Test Pilot of the Tejas program and Cmdr Sukesh Nagaraj (Deputy Project Director, NLCA).

I was lucky to spot Mao sir alone and walked up to him, introduced myself and spoke of my association with BRF and then we had a conversation on the Tejas program for half an hour..he was incredibly frank, friendly, didn't hold back any facts and only left when he got a call from someone..here are the salient points of our conversation, some of which we already know but am listing it anyway.

- Tejas LSP6 is the platform on which the spin chute will be integrated but it's not here as yet. Will get done before FOC.

- Tejas Mk1 has achieved the IOC AoA limit of 22 deg (in IOC-2 it was officially stated that it has cleared 24 deg AOA and will reach 26 to 28 deg according to test pilot Suneeth krishna )and they will go a couple of degrees further in tests, when the spin chutes are integrated on LSP6.

This is to ensure that they know that the airplane is safe even at higher alpha although the FBW will restrict it to the AoA limit for FOC for service pilots (which is higher than 22 deg, but he didn't say how much)

- Mao Sir scoffed at the suggestion that the engine was choking at higher alpha. He said there is no such thing, but rather because it was designed initially for the Kaveri's airflow and had to redesign it for the F-404. They have already tried various intakes on the LCA, with/without spring mounted doors on the intakes.

- Tejas MK2 will get an approx 10mm increase in diameter for the increased air flow requirement of the F-414 (Cmdr Sukesh Nagaraj confirmed this as well). Too small a difference to be visible to the naked eye for us jingos. The spring mounted doors may also be bigger if needed

- When asked about the STR and ITR rates of the Tejas, he simply smiled and said "it's enough, let me put it that way". When I queried him further, asking about the ASR that the IAF had set based on the Mirage-2000 and MiG-29's STR and ITR, his smile vanished and he got serious.

He said that when people look at 10 different brochures and come up with requirements, without looking at whether meeting all those requirements is even possible for ANY one fighter, they set themselves and the program up for failure.

He was very frank about this, stating that even those brochure specs were just that- brochure specs that even those famed fighters sometimes don't meet. But they were taken as benchmarks anyway and then, without even bothering to look at the technological base in India, the ASR was prepared.


- He was full of praise for the handling of the Tejas. It's a true delight to fly and both he and Grp Cpt Suneet Krishna have tremendous confidence in the aircraft itself. He said that they both push the aircraft to its current limits without any worry since the FCS is very good. He did mention that they didn't push the Tejas Mk1 to its limits at the airshow but just wanted to display that it is maneuverable enough.

- When I asked him whether the Navy fully backs the NLCA program, he laughed and said "I'm here, aren't I?". So all in all, it appears that the IN is backing the program fully

- NP1 hasn't flown more than 4 flights because they're re-designing some of the structures on board. This is the additional strengthening required for handling the thumping that is a carrier landing. The landing gear is being re-designed since its overweight and NP2 is going to fly soon.

- I brought up the point he made at AI-2011 about how the Tejas should've started as a carrier variant and then gone on to the IAF variant. He seemed genuinely happy that someone had remembered that point of his and described the main issue with the NLCA NP1.

The issue as he described it was that the LCA didn't have a central keel to pass the structural loads to, something he said that the AMCA won't face since it's a twin engine fighter. This meant that they had to put new attachment points which aren't the ideal solution and result in the bulky appearance of the current landing gear.
- I was going to ask him about the AMCA naval variant and he said that currently there is no plan for it.

At this point he had to leave and I was disappointed since I hadn't gotten to discussing anything about the Elta 2032/MMR, Litening LDP and the weapons on the Mk1 such as the Derby/Python V/R-77/Astra and Sudarshan..


What is disgusting is a few posters here singing like canary , based on these standard lies sprouted by retired brass and Desi Dork media, which doubles up as Desi Defence Media (with tons of planted news ofcourse!!!. )Even yester day one guy pompously announced that "IAF considers that tejas mk1 is a trainer" as if IAF chief has signed a note saying so and handed it over to him in full media glare!!!

http://www.sps-aviation.com/exclusive/?id=30&h=Crucial-to-IAF-plans-all-eyes-on-LCA-Tejas-Mk.2

The action taken report on the Mk.2 so far doesn't inspire great confidence. The Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) has so far completed a preliminary design review of the GE414-INS6 turbofan engine, but moved no further. Systems designs of fuel system, hydraulic system, electrical system, environment control systems were completed in the 2012-13 period and Limited System Design reviews had been carried out at the time, but not moved forward in a substantive manner. Fabrication of 1:15 scales force & moments models and 1:7.645 scale air intake models were completed, while wind tunnel tests at Calspan, U.S. ADA has also managed to complete the preliminary design review of the Integrated Flight Control System and critical design review of the GTSU-127 Jet Fuel Starter. A redesign of the vertical stabiliser (fin) of the LCA Mk.2 has been carried out to based on changes required to accommodate conformal antennas that will form part of the platform's improved electronic warfare suite. Studies of an alternate gun for LCA MK.2 were also carried out, with detailed studies still on to zero in on a final weapon, likely to be the Gryazev-Shipunov GSh-23. After eight options for in-flight retractable refuelling probes proposed by Cobham, U.K., weren't found feasible, a ninth option has been chosen, with detailed studies in progress to finalise the configuration

1.So design review of Ge-414 is done,

2.Systems designs of fuel system, hydraulic system, electrical system, environment control systems were completed in the 2012-13,

3.Fabrication of 1:15 scales force & moments models and 1:7.645 scale air intake models were completed, while wind tunnel tests at Calspan, U.S. ADA has also managed to complete the preliminary design review of the Integrated Flight Control System and critical design review of the GTSU-127 Jet Fuel Starter.

4.A redesign of the vertical stabiliser (fin) of the LCA Mk.2 has been carried out to based on changes required to accommodate conformal antennas that will form part of the platform's improved electronic warfare suite.

5. Studies of an alternate gun for LCA MK.2 were also carried out, with detailed studies still on to zero in on a final weapon, likely to be the Gryazev-Shipunov GSh-23.

6..After eight options for in-flight retractable refuelling probes proposed by Cobham, U.K., weren't found feasible, a ninth option has been chosen, with detailed studies in progress to finalise the configuration


Are these substantial or not? And does the journo know nothing further was done besides this?

"The G limits on the Mk.2 will be up from +8/-3.5 to +9/-3.5. The platform will also sport an on-board oxygen generation system and will be 45% composites by weight."

The above statement is the only one that attempts to give a specification , in the whole article and even in this , half the statement is wrong.

Mk1 itself has 45 percent weight in composites. In mk2 it is going to go up further. Without even knowing this century old fact, journos call tejas mk1 a fast jet trainer with limited offensive capability!!!!

Which fast jet trainer has 120 Km range radar tracking range and capability to fire 120 Km range BVR missiles once Quartz radome is installed.

Then right now Rafale is much worse than a trainer because it neither has the HMDS enabled visually cued , high off bore sight R-73 deadly close combat missile which was validated in Tejas years before. this HMDS - R-73 combo is the deadliest weapon in WVR close combat in which tejas is second to none even in mk1.

Also tejas mk1 has a bigger radar than rafale, which was probably ignored by the "eggspert", may be he does not know what is the significance of that!!!

jackass who cant write a few lines on Maruthi 800 radiator assembly to even save his life is posing as a mil-aviation expert!!!!

It is the same old attempt of repeating the centuries old old hag rants of import lobby, with next to nothing qualification to write any serious piece.

So I wont waste much time on it..
it is the very senior about to retire and just retired brass which makes all the song and dance.
 
Last edited:

Zebra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2011
Messages
6,060
Likes
2,303
Country flag
Err another update, much heat that is being generated on forums shall see a very interesting twist since the Modi Govt. is going to take a few decisions soon (after PM completes his foreign relations exercises) !!

Watch for the breaking news here ;)
'breaking news'.....!.....?

:notsure:
 

ersakthivel

Brilliance
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
7,029
Likes
8,762
Country flag
Deputy Chief of Air Staff Flies Tejas | Frontier India

Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (trainer version) was flown today by Air Marshal SBP Sinha AVSM,VM, Deputy Chief of Air Staff at Bengaluru. Having had first hand experience and feel of the aircraft DCAS expressed that the aircraft handles well both on the ground and in the air. He was on a two day visit to Aeronautical Development Agency and Hindustan Aeronautics Limited during which, he took a review of various aspects of Tejas programme.
As usual while TOIlet offered the words of wisdom of "naik not allowing his boys to fly this tejas plane", has failed to mention the few lines above.

Down the TOIlet these words have been flushed of course, "Having had first hand experience and feel of the aircraft DCAS expressed that the aircraft handles well both on the ground and in the air".

So the high standards are being kept up, Good going , keep it up. never report a single positive sentence on tejas and Arjun.
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top