Imported Single Engine Fighter Jet Contest

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

  1. pmaitra

    pmaitra Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    33,131
    Likes Received:
    19,254
    Location:
    EST, USA
    This has nothing to do with blasphemy. It would be relevant in the theological/religious context, but not in the context of aviation. Think of Javagal Srinath and Wasim Akram. How they swing the ball is all about fluid mechanics and physics, and has nothing to do with religion, theology, blasphemy or Abrahamics. Similarly, how the aircraft flies should also be about build mechanics or physics.

    The laws of physics are same for everyone. No amount of sloganeering will change that.
     
  2. pmaitra

    pmaitra Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    33,131
    Likes Received:
    19,254
    Location:
    EST, USA
    Addendum to the comment above:

    Buy an RC plane and attach two weights at the wingtips. Then fly it and try to do some acrobatics.

    Now, remove those weights and place them close to the fuselage. Now repeat.

    Then come back and report how the acrobatics went in the two cases.

    The same experiments can be done with other things too, such as increasing weights, different wing shapes, etc., but I suppose modeling is not an easy option in India.
     
  3. Sancho

    Sancho Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2011
    Messages:
    230
    Likes Received:
    168
    Back then yes, but that was 20 to 30 years ago, when you had only single role fighters with limited endurance and no force multipliers. Today in modern air warfare, where a single MMRCA squad basically replaces 1 Mig 21 and 1 Mig 27 squad per base, with swing role capability and mid air refuelling, you need less numbers and sorites, as long as your fighters are capable enough.

    True, but they can also do the basic roles and that's the crucial difference! Any SE MMRCA can do more and still could do basic roles in a cost-effective way, while light class fighters are operationally limited to the low end. That capability gap forces IAF to medium class, while other Air Forces can do the same with a twin class combo and therfore less logistical burden and lower costs.
     
  4. 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
    MIG-21 was never single role, It was multi-role aircraft and was being used is such way since its induction, Its still takes the burden of air patrols and most sorties in war/ peace on its back, Nothing is much changed ..

    Operating mid air-refueler has its own set of rules as they are not available all the time and cannot be used on regular basis they are assigned for specific needs of specific squadrons and this is how IAF operates ..

    Indeed they can do, but that will put them in hanger more than in air, like i said every type has their own set of rules and role, One cannot mix up roles which they are not meant for, MIG-21 are more available than SU-30MKIs or MIG-29 or even Jaguar ..

     
  5. Sancho

    Sancho Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2011
    Messages:
    230
    Likes Received:
    168
    That's sadly a common issue that we see in discussions about Tejas, the reference to Mig 21. The problem is, that not the fighter that gets replaced is the benchmark, but the development goals, the possible threats it has to counter and the current level of capabilities for comparable fighters!

    You don't need high amounts of composites or FBW "just" to replace Mig 21s, but to be a modern 4th gen fighter. That's why most modernisations required by IAF were due to the fact, that the whole development got delayed and delayed, while new capabilities became state of the art.

    Initially R60 missile was planned, but by the time the fighter was developed and made it's first flight, modern HOBS capabilities became state of the art,,which is why all IAF fighters now use HMS and highly agile missiles. So should we reduce the benchmark for LCA then, just because it's development got delayed?

    Same goes for radar and EW, where basic pulse dipper MMR + RWR and an external SPJ were enough in the past. But once again time has passed and sadly LCA still was not developed, which is why the MK1A upgrades brings it up to the current standard in radar and EW, just as any other new fighter IAF gets in that time frame.

    So one has to understand why modernisations are required and not outright blame IAF for it. Just as we can't take the Mig 21 as a benchmark for LCA, especially not before it achieves FOC to be able to replace any Mig 21.

    The 4th gen benchmark in the light class is the Gripen C/D and that should be the aim of Tejas to compete with, not MMRCAs. To be comparable to the Gripen C/D we need to improve the flight performance, payload, avionics EW and radar, that's what the MK2 upgrade was about.
     
  6. Sancho

    Sancho Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2011
    Messages:
    230
    Likes Received:
    168
    And still IAF requires all fighters to be refuelable to extend their endurance (on of the key requirements in FOC!), because that extends the sorites, as suppose to need another set of fighters to take over, as you correctly explained wrt loiter time in CAS or interdiction roles. In the past you only had the option to fly to the target, strike and get back, today with more capable fighter or IFR, you can extend the operational time.

    Of course you can mix it up, a upg Mig 29 can do more than a Jag today and can take over basic CAP and CAS too.
    An F16 in the USAF or Israeli Air Force does the same basic roles that Mig 21 or LCA are planned to do in IAF.
    There is simply no operational limitation downwards to basic roles, only upwards where the design limitations of light class fighters, restricts them from long range, high loads or certain integrated systems.
     
  7. Kshithij

    Kshithij Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2017
    Messages:
    642
    Likes Received:
    529
    Your logistical burden is a made up concept. Don't keep bringing your own concepts and forcing it down everyone's throat.

    A medium sized plane can do more but is also more risky and can get shot down more easily. A war is always about attrition. So, the more focus is on replacing the damaged plane than just your fuel cost. Otherwise, why would anyone need mass manufacturing? The whole point of wartime manufacturing is to make up the losses.

    Please focus on minimising losses in the most needful hour - war than regular sorty. Also, don't expect the war to be like the 1990 Gulf war - while world against Iraq with no arms manufacturing, 1.6 crore population. One must always assume that the enemy will not be weak.

    Expect massive losses and then make proper reasoned arguments as to which is better - 2 squadrons of light fighter or 1 squadron of medium one for usage in war. A light fighter can also take down a medium fighter by dogfight. A BVR missile is not 1 ton type missile that give advantage to MCA.

    Attrition always trumps logistical burden in a big war against a decent enemy
     
    Last edited: Dec 7, 2017
  8. Kshithij

    Kshithij Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2017
    Messages:
    642
    Likes Received:
    529
    These refueling is meant for patrol duties, air superiority and escort jobs for AEWACS etc and not for active combat. In active combat, bombs and missiles are expended and a landing is needed to reload the ammunition. Just endlessly refueling is not meaningful.

    So, first understand the difference between active and passive roles.

    The situation where long range, high payload is required is not often. And for this scenario, we are making AMCA and also are capable of making Su30 if 125kN engine is finalised.

    Generally, in most cases the payload can be split into 2 planes at the expense of some fuel.
     
  9. Sancho

    Sancho Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2011
    Messages:
    230
    Likes Received:
    168
    Good to see u here too

    And he is absolutely right about that, which is evident in so many of our developments.
    LRDE is largely dependent on Israeli partnerships for their radars
    Same goes for DARE, which are developing LCA and MKI EW upgrades with Israeli partnerships.
    Dhruv, Rudra and LCH already use Saab's EW in high numbers.
    Kaveri now gets French techs to make it work.
    Brahmos and Nirbhay uses Russian techs.
    And
    So
    On

    So there is no going around partnerships if we want to be successful in the defence field. Partnerships bridge the gap of experience and know how, that we still have in many fields. And it prevents us from going the Chinese way, of investing billions into industrial capability, but end up copying Russian or US designs and techs.
    China invested huge sums of money in their engine developments and still are dependent on Russia. We now get French partnerships, hopefully with enough ToT and know how sharing, to get us there too.

    Partnerships are an advantage for India, because we have the unique possibility to team up to with Russia, Israel, Europeans ans slowly going in the same direction with east Asian countries and the US.
    We only need to play our cards right and get the most out of the money we spend. That's why the MMRCA or now the SE MMRCA tender are crucial for the aviation industry too.
     
    Last edited: Dec 7, 2017
  10. Sancho

    Sancho Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2011
    Messages:
    230
    Likes Received:
    168
    That's not correct, a swing role fighter for example can strike it's targets and still have enough A2A missiles to automatically switch to air superiority or CAP missions. All it needs to stay operational is mid air refueling.

    We have reports about MKIs doing air superiority missions for up to 8hs, thanks to IFR. So the sortie rate gets cut it you have force multipliers, even for LCA with IFR capability.
     
    binayak95 likes this.
  11. Kshithij

    Kshithij Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2017
    Messages:
    642
    Likes Received:
    529
    Many ToT was to pacify india to ensure that it is not forced to make its own technology by creating a false sense of immediate security. I wouldn't buy too much into these things.

    Yes, air superiority involves extensive patrol and vigilance. It, however, does not include action in most cases unless enemy tries to fight back. Whenever there is strong action involved, there will be a need to reload. Otherwise, simple refueling will be enough to keep patrolling and surveillance.
     
  12. Willy2

    Willy2 Regular Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2017
    Messages:
    751
    Likes Received:
    1,347
    Location:
    The land which was in East Pakistan for 3 days
    I am sorry that I can't contribute anything technical in this thread..

    But when I try to understand the discussion in between posters , I lose the plot completely despite reading last 4/5 pages, It's like I fail to catch the main point in the debate in last 2/3 pages in between @Sancho @Kshithij and @TPFscopes ...

    members can u provide a hint on what are the point on which u are fighting ? and the jist of ur debate so far ...
     
    SanjeevM likes this.
  13. Sancho

    Sancho Regular Member

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

    There are posts moved from other threads to this one, which makes it a little bit difficult to follow I guess, since they are talking about different topics.

    Kunal and I were talking about the different roles of light and medium class fighters.
    Abingdonboy refered to the Saab video
    Kshithij and I were talking about difference between LCA and MMRCAs.
     
    Willy2 and BlackJay like this.
  14. Sancho

    Sancho Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2011
    Messages:
    230
    Likes Received:
    168
    Translated

    http://www.defesanet.com.br/gripenbrazil/noticia/27884/O-ataque-da-Saab/
     
  15. Kshithij

    Kshithij Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2017
    Messages:
    642
    Likes Received:
    529
    Sancho says Tejas is designed to be a light fighter and merely as a replacement for MiG21 and will not be any better to be used as a multirole fighter. He also says that expecting Tejas to be multirole and as a decent fighter is stupid as it was not designed for it.

    I am claiming that design is done to provide best possible design under cost and time constraints and there is no reason to be adamant about Tejas being just a replacement to Mig-21. If Tejas can be designed better, it will be. I am also claiming that 2 Tejas Mk2 will cost less than 1 F16 and can perform even better role than F16. Overall, it is more prudent to use 2 TEJAS Mk2 as in war, the large number of planes is required to replace for attrition and here the losses is minimised by having lower coat fighter. Mere fuel cost increase shouldn't be a problem in full scale war.

    This is the gist
     
    Willy2 and SanjeevM like this.
  16. Sancho

    Sancho Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2011
    Messages:
    230
    Likes Received:
    168
    Lol why are you making these things up? :biggrin2:

    I said, that Tejas will be limited to basic roles, as Kunal said as well, because that is what light class fighters are aimed on.
    Just as I told you that it's enough for Tejas to be a good light class fighters and it should not be burdened with unrealistic expectations, like competing with medium class fighters or carrying cruise missiles.

    Don't put words in my mouth just to make a point!
     
  17. 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 Indian context, It does not work as the IAF does with sortie math ..

     
  18. Sancho

    Sancho Regular Member

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

    Similar industrial offer for India =>
     
  19. 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
    SAAB is doing a lot of PR for marking purpose, snake oil included ..

    I have seen their mission of winning hearts and minds during MMRCA competitions at Delhi ..
     
    aditya10r and Willy2 like this.
  20. Sancho

    Sancho Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2011
    Messages:
    230
    Likes Received:
    168
    Saab technology proposal for LCA MK1A - AESA:
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    Saab technology proposal for LCA MK1A - EW:
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    Example of Saab EW parts in Malaysian Su 30 MKM:
    [​IMG]

    Example of Saab EW in HAL Rudra:
    [​IMG]

    Saab Arexis EWS on Gripen E:
    http://saab.com/arexis

    [​IMG]

    http://www.janes.com/article/70320/gripen-e-to-feature-next-generation-electronic-warfare-capability

    Saab / Adani:
    http://www.livemint.com/Companies/8...mp&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=googleamp

    Maybe this one?

    http://saab.com/air/airborne-solutions/unmanned-aerial-systems/skeldar-v-200-maritime/
     
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2017
    asianobserve and Tactical Frog like this.

Share This Page