Imported Single Engine Fighter Jet Contest

Discussion in 'Indian Air Force' started by Galaxy, Nov 30, 2011.

  1. Kshithij

    Kshithij Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2017
    Messages:
    642
    Likes Received:
    529
    We want or not is different. The question here is what is the deficiencies due to which it is not possible to make Tejas as good as possible instead if limiting to some arbitrary doctrine requirements?

    Why are you behaving like an Abrahamist who always has to quote from some fixed scriptures to justify anything? Why not be open minded - with an attitude - do the best possible thing?

    The way I see it - if it is FEASIBLE to be done and is better than not doing so ONLY because of dear of exceeding the requirements set by doctrine
     
  2. Sancho

    Sancho Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2011
    Messages:
    230
    Likes Received:
    168
    F16
    [​IMG]
    1 x LDP
    1 x SPJ
    2 x fuel tanks
    2 x 2000lb LGBs
    2 x BVR missiles
    2 x WVR missiles

    Gripen NG
    [​IMG]
    2 x fuel tanks
    2 x 2000lb LGBs
    2 x BVR missiles
    2 x WVR missiles


    A light class fighter can't carry the same LGBs, to the same distances, because they are often limited by the number or weight limit of hardpoints. You would need 2 x light class Gripen C/D, to do the same strikes as the above F16 or Gripen NG/E.
     
  3. Sancho

    Sancho Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2011
    Messages:
    230
    Likes Received:
    168
    It starts with the requirement itself. Nobody required Tejas to be a medium class fighter, but a good light class fighter. That alone sets a limit to the needed changes. But more than that, the modifications from MK1 to MK2 already require major re-designs, which neither will be easy, nor can be done in a short time. That's why HAL proposed the MK1A compromise, with minimum upgrades on the old airframe, to keep the production line running. So any further re-design to the gear bays or the wings to bring it to medium class levels, will only further delay the MK2 and makes it even less useful. Keep in mind that we are talking about an arrival in 2027, a whole decade from now and even that, only if everything works fine!

    The time to dream about Tejas and it's capabilities is long gone, we need to focus on make it happen and get it ready ASAP.
     
  4. Kshithij

    Kshithij Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2017
    Messages:
    642
    Likes Received:
    529
    That is the point I am trying to make. Since there is a redesign anyways, it is perfectly possible to redesign it in a manner that makes it a little better than just the original MK1. 8 years is more than enough time to make Tejas as perfect as possible if there is enough government support. This is the similar timeline for other countries too. There is no reason to assume ADA is a nut case that takes more time than other countries even if the government is supportive.

    You are trying to say that ADA is a useless agency that takes too much time and does too little. I differ wrt this notion. I see that it was UPA that caused Tejas delay as congress is filled with foreign spies. So, with BJP in power, ADA will not be inefficient is what I claim.

    Gripen E is not medium class fighter. It also uses F414 with 100kN thrust. It is a light class fighter. No one is comparing the payload of F16 with that of Tejas MK2 or Gripen E. The point of making light fighter is to get an inexpensive fighter which can be built in numbers. So, compare 1 F16 with 4 Tejas. The cost if F16 is 4 times of Tejas MK2. It is only just if 4 Tejas is made in place if 1 F16.

    The way I see it - it is always better to have 2 light planes than 1 medium plane for same cost. 2 planes will give better surveillance and patrol ability as there will be 2 set of eyes while the combined strike ability will also be higher than medium fighter due to the fact that even if one light fighter gets shot down, the other will be able to deliver at least half the payload.

    The moment you understand that light fighters are made for numbers and not for the payload performance of medium class fighters, you will understand what I am saying. For a country like India, finding a few acres of wasteland to build airbase or finding a few extra pilots is not a big deal. India is not a small country like Israel that has to strictly rely on more mechanisation and less manpower

    Next,about the wing edge hardpoint - it is extremely reasonable to expect that the hardpoint can carry 200kg of weight at least in MK2 considering the increase in total payload ability and increase in wing size. 50kg extra is not a really big change but definitely big enough to enable Astra missile to be loaded instead of Derby or R73. I don't see why you think that this measly change will cause delays when Tejas Mk2 is already expected to have a completely redesigned wing with larger dimensions? Why not include this 50kg change along with the redesign?
     
  5. Kunal Biswas

    Kunal Biswas Member of the Year 2011 Moderator

    Joined:
    May 26, 2010
    Messages:
    30,857
    Likes Received:
    38,693
    Location:
    BHARAT, INDIA, HINDUSTHAN
    On the contrary, Tejas are given priority as it is obvious by operational nature of IAF, There are more sorties and more airspace are patrol and scanned by light fighters only, Medium fighter such as MIG-29 and mostly tasked with interception and escort duties this was noted during Operation Safed Sagar where as Light fighters tasked with CAS and CAP and more sorties were taken at back of light fighters which still the same even today as highest sortie rate are of Light fighters and medium fighters such as MIG-29 are still doing escort and interception duties with AWACS and mainly tasked with air to air role rather multi-role, This make abundantly clear why IAF asking for successive variants of Tejas and not so hurried for AMCA ..

    AMCA specs are much similar to SU-30MKI in terms of range and other few details, It will make more sense that a more efficient machine in terms of operational cost and maintenance cost giving same capabilities..

    =============

    The recent expose by ex-IAF chief give a tunnel view into the IAF procurement business, now let it be HAWK, BTA etc are waiting to be exposed ..

    [​IMG]

    Read : http://naradanews.com/2016/12/air-force-chief-sp-tyagi-augustawestland-scam-corruption-cbi/

     
  6. Sancho

    Sancho Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2011
    Messages:
    230
    Likes Received:
    168
    And that's what MK2 is about although your cost figures are way off. But then again, you still need more capable fighters for more advanced missions. That's why most larger Air Forces go for the 2 class split, while IAF has a 3 class split. So either way, there is no going around making MK2 to fix LCAs problems, nor to add medium class fighters ASAP.

    That's wrong, because higher numbers of less capability, doesn't increase the capability.

    2 x LCAs still have lower patrol range and endurance, that 1 x MMRCA, can be detected easier, have lower radar range than larger MMRCA radars and so on.
    Even cost and logistic wise, 2 x LCAs add costs above 1 x SE MMRCA.
     
  7. Sancho

    Sancho Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2011
    Messages:
    230
    Likes Received:
    168
    =>

    So you confirmed what I said and by pointing out that medium class fighter like the Mig 29 were tasked with higher threat perception roles, it also makes clear why we need MMRCAs above light class fighters in future too, because the higher the threat perception, the higher capability you need to counter it.

    The higher sortie rate of Mig 21s however, came also from the fact that they were available in much higher numbers in the past, while LCAs and MMRCAs will be roughly in the same numbers, possibly even higher for MMRCA's. So that will change in future for sure.

    Our enemies are increasing capabilities by far and IAF neither can wait for another decade till LCA MK2 might arrive, nor can it limit it's operational capabilities, by the limitations of light class fighters.
     
  8. Sancho

    Sancho Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2011
    Messages:
    230
    Likes Received:
    168
    And there is the problem, DRDO claims things for marketing reasons, but doesn't include operational limitations of fighters or even the need of the IAF.

    Take Astra for example, where DRDO claims that it will be integrated on Mirage 2000. The fuselage stations of the upgraded M2K are in between the gear bay of the fighter, so you can add only weapons of a certain length to it. That's why MICA fits at those stations, while longer BVR missiles like Derby, Meteor or Astra won't and could be used only at the wing stations, instead of fuel tanks. So what DRDO claims might be theoretically possible, but makes no practical sense!

    Same goes for Brahmos NG or Nirbhay. In theory you could integrate them to the inner wing station, instead of a 1200l fuel tank. That however means reduced fuel capacity, possibly the need of asymmetric loads and for what? These missiles are meant for long range strikes at high value targets. Why would IAF use a limited range platform as the launch platform then? Especially with MKI and Rafale in the fleet, there is no need for IAF to divert strategic roles to it's low end fighter.

    It's much more likely that LCA would get a smaller anti ship missile comparable to Harpoon, or Kh 35, which would suit a light class fighters more, rather than heavy and large cruise missile.
     
    Willy2, sthf and BlackJay like this.
  9. Kshithij

    Kshithij Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2017
    Messages:
    642
    Likes Received:
    529
    Range depends on fuel ratio, not on absolute fuel. Fuel in F16 is 3.4ton. Fuel in Tejas MK2 is expected to be 3.2ton.

    Tejas MK2 has 7 hardpoint while F16 has 9. The two right and left point under fuselage will have cannon and LDP for both Tejas and F16(The SPJ will be internal to MK2). So, the total hardpoint for 2 Tejas will be 14 and for 1 F16 will be 9.

    Let us take a configuration of strike cum air superiority role-
    Taking 2 drop tank per plane, we have Tejas combo hardpoint at 10 while F16 at 7. Tejas Mk2 will have payload of 5ton each while F16 will have 7ton. So, after carrying 2 fuel tank of 1 ton each for Tejas and additional 200kg of LDP per plane, we still have carrying ability of 5.6 ton for 10 hardpoint while F16 with 1.2 ton fuel tank pair and LDP, has 4.4ton payload for 7 hardpoint.

    Tell me, by what means will F16 fly further, strike better or patrol better than the pair of Tejas? F16 also has higher empty weight of 8.7 ton while MK2 is expected to be 6.8 ton. This means that if 2 Tejas is used in place of 1 F16, the Tejas can patrol better, deliver payload better and also has higher fuel to weight ratio and hence better range.

    The radome size of Tejas MK1A is 650mm. In MK2 it may remain same or increase. The radome size of radome in F16 is 660-700mm. So, the radar in F16 is almost similar in size. Moreover, the real air superiority will involve AEWACS.

    Logistics cost is seen only for training or for economic wars like in Iraq for control over oil. Wars against evil forces don't involve cost counting of fuel and logistics. The priority is efficiency. In this case, Tejas wins as Tejas needs lesser time for assembling and manufacturing per plane compared to F16 and hence has lower cost of in case of loss of plane.

    The cost of training is low per plane due to lower fuel consumption and smaller size. Just because one has purchased Tejas in the ratio of 2-1 wrt F16 doesn't mean even the regular sortie has to be in that ratio. We can keep the peacetime sortie low to save logistic costs.
     
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2017
    indiatester likes this.
  10. shuvo@y2k10

    [email protected] Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2010
    Messages:
    1,346
    Likes Received:
    912
    Location:
    kolkata
    Bhai every arms company does claim things which are for marketing purposes and evaluating them in Indian conditions have proved them way short in performance than what is claimed in Brochure. For example the foreign rifles for example repetedly failed in the army trials resulting in scrapping of tender multiple times. Hence marketing is not a trademark of DRDO but all arms company.
    Secondly as far as Bhramos mini and Nirbhay ALCM is concerned the requirement of air-launched cruise missile capability is a primary requirement of IAF and DRDO is merely working to fullfill that requirement. Now you must try to understand things from IAF perspective. The IAF lacks a long range strategic bomber aircraft which can launch ALCM. In view of that, long range bombing of strategic and anti-shipping operations require existing and future fighters which are to be inducted to be made capable for that bombing role. Now the fighters of IAF is depleting at an alarming rate and the only fighters which is assured of getting inducted in 100+ numbers in the next decade is the Tejas (in MK1,MK1A and MK2 avatar).Hence it is very natural for IAF to want to make Tejas capable for long range bombing missions in addition to Su-30mki. Integrating Bhramos and Nirbhay on Rafael would prove to be a tricky affair as the French company Dassault and their government have to made involved.
    From Saurav jha's blog(which is a reliable source) it can be said that Tejas Mk2 will have a MTOW of 16.5 tons with a payload of 5 tons and increased combat range.
     
    Johny_Baba and aditya10r like this.
  11. Sancho

    Sancho Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2011
    Messages:
    230
    Likes Received:
    168
    Nope, it depends on the total internal and external fuel capacity. An F16 with 3 fuel tanks and CFTs carries more fuel than an MKI. And the maximum combat range of Rafale will only be achieved with 3 x 2000l subsonic fuel tanks, not with internal fuel, nor with 1150l supersonic fuel tanks.

    I already did

    - it has more range and endurance than Tejas
    - has a larger radar, therfore more detection capability
    - it has more hard points, therfore can carry more missiles or strike weapons
    - you need less fighters, therfore less detectability

    Just because you take 2 LCAs doesn't mean they suddenly have more range, bigger radars or more missiles...,


    Almost similar, means not similar. Uttam AESA is developed for LCAs and estimated with around 700 TR modules, most MMRCAs have radars estimated around 1000 modules, EF even up to 1500.
    So Tejas has a good nose diameter for it's class, but still falls short compared to larger MMRCAs.

    It's not only cost, but a higher logistical burden. If you are in war your spare and weapon supplies or even the number of available pilots can be limited. So the higher numbers you need, the higher the logistical requirement and burden.
    In Kargil for example, a single strike mission of the M2Ks required multiple fighters in strike and escorts configs. While SE MMRCAs could do the same with at least half the numbers => half the logictics.
    That frees logistics and fighters for other missions and adds to more efficiency.
     
  12. Sancho

    Sancho Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2011
    Messages:
    230
    Likes Received:
    168
    Absolutely agree, which is why one should not only accept things because a company or a media report said so, but also think about it for a moment and consider how reliable the infos are and if they make sense!

    Exactly because range is required for this role, you don't choose the platform with the least range in the fleet.
    Just as you don't take 8 x LCAs each with 1 missile, when 4 x Rafales or MKI can carry the same, which is why your argument about the depleting numbers doesn't fit either.

    A pyload of 5t only means, that this weight can be carried by ALL external hardpoints. That however doesn't tell your which hardpoints can carry loads of 1400Kg or more, nor which of them can carry fuel tanks.

    LCA in every standard has 3 heavy / wet stations, the centerline and the inner wing stations. The centerline can't carry larger payloads, because of size restrictions between the gear bays, which leaves only the inner wing stations for heavy loads. So no matter if you have 3.5t payload or 5t, the only possible load configs would be:

    1) symmetric load:
    left wing station - Brahmos NG
    right wing station - Brahmos NG
    centerline 725l or 800l tank

    2) asymmetric load:
    left wing station - Brahmos NG
    right wing station - 1200l tank
    centerline 725l or 800l tank

    The maximum range of LCA however can be achieved only with 2 x 1200l + 1 x centerline tank. So using such a heavy load, automatically restricts LCAs fuel capacity and therfore it's range.
     
    BlackJay likes this.
  13. Kshithij

    Kshithij Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2017
    Messages:
    642
    Likes Received:
    529
    I
    2000 litre tank will weigh 1.6 ton fuel +100kg tank. 3 such tanks will weigh over 5 tons.

    F16 will not be able to carry any decent payload with such tanks. It is meaningless to compare such scenarios.

    I am saying that India has lot of labour. I am assuming pilot : population, mechanics : population ratio as same for all countries. Since india has large population, India can field larger force.

    Radar capability of UTTAM is lower as India has not yet matured its development. More miniaturization is needed. USA had headstart of 10 years in GaAs AESA radar which they matured a few years ago. They have a few years headstart in GaN radar too. But, it is a matter if maturity and that only means, some orders, time and feedback is needed. By 2030, the maturity levels of Indian AESA will be comparable to western and hence this is a matter of time lag.

    2 LCA don't have higher range because they are 2 in number but because payload is distributed and more fuel is carried per weight. 2 LCA will need more fuel - 2x(3.2+1+1)= 10.4 ton. While F16 will have fuel - 3.4+1.2+1.2 = 5.8 ton, give or take a little. The engine of F16 has 130kN thrust while Tejas MK2 has 2x100kN = 200kN thrust.
    The increase in range is due to increase in fuel consumption. It may have been desirable to have a bigger fighter or not is a different issue. But since we have this LCA already, it can be used in a slightly more inefficient manner to improve performance like range and Payload. If the operation of India if limited to Pakistan and Bangladesh, then the LCA can offer better efficiency as the range required is short and maximum payload can be carried without worrying of fuel tank
     
    Last edited: Dec 7, 2017
  14. Kunal Biswas

    Kunal Biswas Member of the Year 2011 Moderator

    Joined:
    May 26, 2010
    Messages:
    30,857
    Likes Received:
    38,693
    Location:
    BHARAT, INDIA, HINDUSTHAN
    In that sense, perhaps yes ..

    The larger number of Single engine fighter from start shows the need for cheaper platform ( Unit, operational, maintenance ) with higher sortie rate requirement, MK2 cannot lose its merits of light fighter, Medium class fighters so does Heavy have their own set of rules and roles ..

     
  15. Butter Chicken

    Butter Chicken Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2016
    Messages:
    1,511
    Likes Received:
    4,243
    SAAB CMD on ToT in deal with India

     
    SanjeevM and Sancho like this.
  16. pmaitra

    pmaitra Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    33,131
    Likes Received:
    19,254
    Location:
    EST, USA
    It is not arbitrary. If size, shape, weight, thrust, etc. are defined, the capabilities and limitations are also defined.

    One can use a Ford Mustang to race and a Ford F-150 to haul furniture. One can do the opposite too, but that would not be appropriate.

    • Firstly, this is an ad hominem comment.
    • Secondly, this is not a thread to peddle religious gibberish.
    • Thirdly, an overwhelming majority or aviation was pioneered by Christians (Abrahamic), be it the Lilienthal Brothers, Wright Brothers, Andrei Tupolev, Kurt Tank, etc..

    Then let's debate what is feasible.
     
  17. pmaitra

    pmaitra Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    33,131
    Likes Received:
    19,254
    Location:
    EST, USA
    Tejas was meant to be a high-altitude interceptor and was meant to be a replacement of the MiG-21. With the passage of time and delays, without going into who is to blame, I can say it is reasonable to introduce modernity into what would have been simply a replacement of the MiG-21. If it is feasible, it should be done.

    We can debate that based on metrics.

    I am assuming you are refering to the two hardpoints at the extremes having 150 kg capacity each? I would say it is so because they are at the end of the wings and in any aircraft, the tendency should be to concentrate all the mass towards the centre. Having too much mass at the edges will only increase the gyroscopic effect and make the aircraft unstable, especially after one of the two missiles is launched. Even if both the missiles are being carried, it would still make the plane unstable.

    You are right.

    This is an emotional comment.

    It is possible that over several iterations, the LCA would see an increase in the fuselage size and therefore, also the size of the wings. As of now, it is still a light fighter.
     
  18. Kshithij

    Kshithij Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2017
    Messages:
    642
    Likes Received:
    529
    The point that Tejas usage is defined as light weight fighter and improving its performance is BLASPHEMY even though perfectly feasible just because it has already been defined is what I am peeved about.

    Why define the developmental needs in such a narrow manner? Why not define it as 'as good as possible'. This is what I state as abrahamic fanatic - the revelation is final even though there is no reason to justify.

    Let us be more open. I am trying to say that if it is possible to be done, then do it.

    Indian primary security requirements is in its neighbourhood. There is little need to bring in heavy weight fighters with 4000km range for it. It is also possible to double up Tejas as a better fighter
     
  19. abingdonboy

    abingdonboy Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2010
    Messages:
    2,568
    Likes Received:
    4,409
    What an actual load of BS throughout this entire video.

    Entire thing can be summarised as- "India NEEDS a foreign OEM to create its aerospace industry, to create tier 1/2 suppliers and we will give ToT".

    1) HAL has already targeted 70% outsourcing of LCA production to pvt sector in India (currently attained >60%) including signing agreements with a number of tier 1/2 suppliers in India.
    2) SAAB can't offer ToT on the most critical elements of the Gripen as they aren't SAAB made
    3) NO ONE will give ToT, let's stop being duped by this and allowing foreign OEMs to justify their uber expensive and corrosive deals (for Indina industry) under the guise of "ToT".

    Today China is rolling out a near world class passenger plane, has semi-decent 4/4.5 gen fighter(s) etc etc not because it got "ToT" from a foreign OEM but because it invested in its own industry and protected it from predatory practices of others.

    At some point if India is going to be a great power it will have to stop thinking it can buy power off the shelf and stop buying the [email protected] these snakeoil foreign salesmen spout in front of paid media.

    There is no easy solution, it will take time and there will be setbacks but eventually the fruits will make it worthwhile. Just look at the DRDO's missile projects now, going from strength to strength and we can confidently say by 2030 India will be 100% self reliant in missile from 500m right up to 300+ KM.

    Sadly we cannot say that in 2030 the IAF won't still be the imported air force.

    There needs to be vision shown NOW and hard calls made today- sacrifice a few years of falling SQN strength (today's AF is more capable at even fewer numbers than before anyway because of the multirole nature of the jets) so that the future will be secure.

    Today this SEF nonsense is playing out, in 10-15 years we all know we will be back here saying the same things about the "next gen/5th gen" fighter competitions where there will be the F-35/X being pushed on India and the AMCA being targeted by presstitutes and lobbyists.
     
  20. mayfair

    mayfair Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2010
    Messages:
    4,224
    Likes Received:
    6,212
    Location:
    India
    Not to mention, espionage and reverse engineering. This coupled with their own efforts and investment in R&D is what made the above possible.

    But you are right. SAAB CEO is talking out of his Musharraf. He cannot offer ToT on the engine, or the radar or any of the weapon systems as they are US made.
     
    Willy2 and aditya10r like this.

Share This Page