LCA Tejas Mk 2 vs F-16 Blk 60

Discussion in 'Defence & Strategic Issues' started by ADITYA MAYUKH, Feb 27, 2013.

  1. ersakthivel

    ersakthivel Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2011
    Messages:
    6,014
    Likes Received:
    5,464
    The job of TEJAS mk-2 is not to protect the current dilapidated , obsolete MIgs and JAgs of IAf. It can carry out all the roles of MIG-23, 21, 27 and Jags in a stand alone capacity with double the weapon load and more potent flight specs like higher TWR, ITR ,long range BVRs , with state of the art avionics and ASEA radars, which are not present on any of the above obsolete 4th gen fleet of IAF.

    So it is a joke to say Teajs is only used to escort these junks on suicide mission across the border, as none of the to be junked museum pieces have any capacity to come back in one piece in the event of facing even a JF-17.

    Do people expect Tejas mk-2 pilots to behave like Taliban suicide bombers flying in between the PAf missiles and MIg-21s, 23s,27s and Jags, since they cannot defend themselves in their individual capacity. If this is the job explicitly specified for any young man joining IAf as Tejas mk-2 pilot, it is a sad day for the country.

    Saying that updated mig-21, 23, 27s and jags are comparable to Tejas mk-2 is like applying make up to an egyptian mummy and expecting it to come back to life.
     
    Last edited: Mar 1, 2013
  2. vishwaprasad

    vishwaprasad Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2012
    Messages:
    300
    Likes Received:
    103
    So if MK1 can fulfill IAF's needs without even MK2 then why are we going to burn 20+ billions on Rafales in the first place??? reason is since LCA is our first ever made fighter we are inducting it and nothing else...on IAF part it is actually being done half heartedly....and those test pilots can say anything but I am sure if same pilots are sent on bombing mission on PLAAF base in Tibet and choice is given them between F-16 block 52 or 60 and Tejas then I am sure those same pilots will prefer Viper....

    IAF obviously wont give lower specs in comparison of F-16 to ADA but what the choice they have with our domestic capacity?? Do we equal to LM, Boeing, Dassault, Mikiyon??? you will get only what you are capable of....its called NO CHOICE but to leave with it...

    Mirage 2000 is a fighter of the country who is in fighter jet making business from world wars era....Just because we wanted fighter in the class of Mirage not necessary we will be successful in it with our first experiment... and please don't tell MK2 will be significantly capable than Mirage...first we are all struggling to see Mk1 induction in the service....

    and I appreciate Mr.Raman Puri for saying that even after the induction of MRCA, Tejas will remain CUTTING EDGE technology.....after all he is also an Indian and he has to care about the sentiments of our scientists and people like you.....:rofl:

    jokes apart if even after the induction of Rafale LCA will remain CUTTING EDGE tech then there is no need of wasting billions of dollors for this slow going economy these days....

    Where is MK1 first??? has it joined service??? let it first join then we will see what is inside MK2....right now to me its not a real fighter...
     
    Last edited: Mar 1, 2013
  3. ersakthivel

    ersakthivel Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2011
    Messages:
    6,014
    Likes Received:
    5,464
    If you don't know where is MK-1? Go google.
     
    Last edited: Mar 1, 2013
  4. From Realm of D&T

    From Realm of D&T Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2013
    Messages:
    52
    Likes Received:
    25
    Location:
    Navi Mumbai
    You do dislike PDF? if Yes, then be warned, many PDFers may join DFI in coming days.

    ON Topic> Comparing F-16Block to LCA Mk2 is wrong idea, as both belong to different class

    F-16 is MWF while LCA is LWF.

    If they both enter fight,one against one,chances are high that F-16 will kill the LCA.

    But if they hunt each other in numbers, outcome will vary, depending upon factors like, pilot skills, AWACs help, number of fighters etc.
     
    Last edited: Mar 1, 2013
  5. vishwaprasad

    vishwaprasad Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2012
    Messages:
    300
    Likes Received:
    103
    So that means you agree that LCA is useless if we decide to send it on bombing missions inside enemy air space...Means I am Tiger but only in my house...If I go out I am a common man...to challenge LCA enemy will have to enter our air space which our Flankers, Rafales and air defenses will make very difficult for enemy and after that Tejas will jump if somehow enemy manages to come inside....means you agree that its out of the capacity of LCA to do the initial dirty operation on enemies and LCA is not qualified for this...BTW F-16 is good at doing dirty work in the beginning....

    LCA alone and that too against 1000s of PAF and PLAAF combined (with likes of Vipers, J-10,J-11s, MKKs) attack while our bigger fighters are out on bombing?? hmm very bad idea in my honest opinion.....we will need to keep some heavy fighters along with them for home defense....

    That is always appreciated....I have full respect for our scientists for what they have achieved...Nukes, Missiles, Space program....LCA is good effort but still its too early to comment on its capabilities against the things like F-16 especially 52 and plus versions....

    Chinese do not have a choice...they do not have access to top of the line western stuff and Russia many times supplied them down graded stuff...I never said they are equal to LM, Boeing....and we are certainly not even as good as Chengdu....

    Please do not tell what M2K was not having initially....it flew in 70s and it was also a talk of the town in those days...current M2K flying with France, UAE have everything that requires in true 4th generation fighters...even our M2K will have those after upgrades....so it was the M2K then and it is the M2K today...thing is we decided to make fighter in the class of Mirage in 83 and today in 2013 we are yet to see it in the service so pleas stop comparing it with even M2K...

    I googled and just came to know it is yet pass FOC :lol:
     
    Last edited: Mar 1, 2013
  6. Agnostic_Indian

    Agnostic_Indian Regular Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2010
    Messages:
    446
    Likes Received:
    111
    Location:
    Kerala
    we don't know exact spec of teajas mk2 so a comparison is not possible, but I expect f16 blk 60 to be better.
     
  7. average american

    average american Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2012
    Messages:
    1,540
    Likes Received:
    434
    Kongsberg NSM anti-ship missile test - YouTube Its going to be hard to take down cruise missiles.

    Joint Strike Missile

    A multi-role version of the NSM is in development. This missile is called Joint Strike Missile (JSM) and will feature an option for ground strike and a two-way communications line, so that the missile can communicate with the central control room or other missiles in the air. This missile will be integrated with the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II "Joint Strike Fighter". Studies have shown that the F-35 would be able to carry two of these in its internal bays, while additional missiles could be carried externally.

    According to Kongsberg, this "multi-role NSM" is the only powered anti-ship missile that will fit inside the F-35's internal bays.[9] Lockheed Martin and Kongsberg have signed a joint-marketing agreement for this air-launched version of the NSM, as well as an agreement committing both parties to integrating the JSM on the F-35 platform.[10][11] The project is funded by Norway and Australia.[12] Kongsberg signed a contract for the first phase of development of the JSM in April, 2009, which is scheduled for completion within 18 months.[13]

    Improved features for the Joint Strike Missile include:
    Shape changed to fit in F-35 internal bay.[14]
    Ability to attack sea and land based targets
    Aerial launch platform (F-35)
    Improved range over NSM to 280 km [15]
    Long-term, production start in 2013

    The JSM will have multicore computers running Integrity real-time operating system from Green Hills Software.[16]
     
    Last edited: Mar 1, 2013
  8. Defcon 1

    Defcon 1 Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2011
    Messages:
    1,367
    Likes Received:
    401
    Location:
    Lucknow
    I could go on and on you but obviously it will be useless. You just switch topics whenever you are asked to prove anything. You are still to prove how did you conclude that LCA Mk2 will detect F16 blk 60 before it is detected by the falcon. But obviously you can't prove it, cos you yourself don't know if it true or false, you just come here to satisfy your need of trolling.

    Well I am telling you what some connected people on PDF are telling. According to them F16 MLU will be much closer to blk 52. We should always discuss considering the worst possible case in my opinion.

    About the option of more F16s, that deal is in rough waters as well. Pakistan was supposed to more F16s by December 2012 but we know nothing of the sort has happened. Even if the deal comes back on track, the F16s pakistan will be getting will be used blk 15 or blk 40. Not blk 52
     
    Last edited: Mar 1, 2013
  9. one

    one Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2011
    Messages:
    114
    Likes Received:
    52
    You are absolutely right. I indeed very much dislike PDF.

    On topic: I feel the paki F16 would not come close to the LCA Mk 2 even on one-to-one.
     
  10. ersakthivel

    ersakthivel Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2011
    Messages:
    6,014
    Likes Received:
    5,464
    Also are you 100 percent sure about the power out put of both the Tejas mk-2's proposed ASEA radar and the existing F-16's ASEA Radar to make any reasonable conclusion?

    The nose cone of Tejas is comparable to RAFALE, So it will have a decent radar. The nose cone of F-16 is bigger than tejas, So it will always have a much bigger radar was what I agreed very earlier on.

    whatever be the block number the Tejas mk-2's chances of getting sophisticated ew suit and powerful asea radar are independent of the US- PAK deal.
     
    Last edited: Mar 1, 2013
  11. DivineHeretic

    DivineHeretic Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2013
    Messages:
    1,050
    Likes Received:
    1,165
    Location:
    Assam
    Ya, the PDF guys are indeed stating that the mlu for the vipers will be to level 52, but all other sources do say otherwise. In the absence of anything concrete either way, lets assume the worst for us i.e. 52s. This puts about 63 vipers as the spearhead of their AF.

    Now bear in mind that with the recent series of revelations regarding failed tests of BMs, their only credible source of nuclear weapon delivery would be the f16 or the mirage. With the survivability of mirage being too low in indian territory, it would be logical to assume that atleast half a squadron of the vipers would be earmarked for delivery role. This again reduces the number of effective 4th gen. fighters available of CAPS tasking.

    But I digress. The fact of the matter is that lca was initially designed to replace the Mig21, and not be a match to the mirage or the f16. Two decades later, increased funds and resources will most certainly have improved the sensors, avionics suites, but its basic purpose remains same, to replace the migs. Its requirement is interceptor, with a limited CAS ability, and a possible strike ability should an opportunity arise. And by all accounts, it will meet those marks, and that is its definition of success, not beating th block 60
     
  12. ersakthivel

    ersakthivel Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2011
    Messages:
    6,014
    Likes Received:
    5,464
    You can goolge and also find out the exact number of planes in mk-1 and mk-2 versions that are ordered.
     
    Last edited: Mar 1, 2013
  13. ersakthivel

    ersakthivel Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2011
    Messages:
    6,014
    Likes Received:
    5,464
    So by the same token If Tejas mk-2 exceeds Mirage specs in TWR,RCS , wing loading and asea radar , and long range BVRs in no way it can be a pushover for the F-16 any block within the forward air combat theater..


    Of course ,it does not have the higher range and weapon load of the F-16. But within it's operating range it is quite capable of holding it's own is my guess.

    Especially when larger number of Tejas are employed with AWACS support in India's western sector ,Tejas mk-2 has the capability to give a good account of itself, who wins is another matter.
     
    Last edited: Mar 1, 2013
  14. Defcon 1

    Defcon 1 Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2011
    Messages:
    1,367
    Likes Received:
    401
    Location:
    Lucknow
    Blatant lie.

    In post #10 of this thread, you said

    Now when I asked you to prove it, you are changing your words. Shows how low you can fall to win an argument.

    I disagree. The claims about failed tests of their missiles are only sketchy and it will be wrong to assume that this will compromise their whole BM program which has spanned decades. Missiles are still the primary nuke delivery systems for pakistan.

    F16 can't be used for nuclear operations. Americans won't allow it. They still keep the pakistani F16s under strict surveillance of the US staff present on PAF bases. Also, pakistan isn't allowed do any modification on the falcon other than some routine maintenance. So all fourth gen fighters of PAF will be available for CAS

    Mirage will be only airborne nuke option of pakistan. Pakistan has nuclear capable Ra'ad ALCM which has a range of 350 km so survivability of Mirage in Indian airspace is not an issue. It can fire Ra'ad without entering our airspace. But mirage will just remain as an option. Primary carrier will still be missiles.

    Yes Tejas is not supposed to beat F16 blk 60. Our countrymen should be able appreciate it without feeling the need to compare it with others. Though comparison is not bad if it used for educational purposes.
     
    Last edited: Mar 1, 2013
  15. ersakthivel

    ersakthivel Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2011
    Messages:
    6,014
    Likes Received:
    5,464
    Great discovery indeed!!!. what I typed was an immediate response highlighting the the role of lower RCS Tejas ,

    That was my guess then and I still stand by it.

    Lets see who is right when facts become known to public latter.

    Meanwhile do you have any answers for the following questions to prove me wrong?



    1. The cumulative RCS of Tejas with sleeker air to air missiles,

    2. The detection range of F-16 blk 60's Radar for that cumulative RCS figure,

    3. The cumulative RCS figure of F-16 with sleeker air to air missiles,

    4. The detection range of Tejas mk-2's radar for that cumulative RCS figure,

    I am 100 percent sure , you don't have them either.

    Nobody needs to win any argument here. this is supposed to be a debate , where people are allowed to bring forth differing points of views leading to an animated discussion , that is the beauty of the forums in the net. What I posted was not a blatant lie as you made it out to be. It was my view considering the supposed to be lower RCS of Tejas(in line with the RCS of TYPHOON and RAFALE,).

    No need to call the other guy a troll in a silly manner.

    If you want no one to post views opposing yours you can start a website with the warning "my words here are the final holy grail of truth"

    So I did post my views. If you have conclusive answers for the above questions you can prove me wrong and win all the arguments yourself.
     
    Last edited: Mar 1, 2013
    A chauhan likes this.
  16. p2prada

    p2prada Stars and Ambassadors Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    May 25, 2009
    Messages:
    10,233
    Likes Received:
    3,834
    Location:
    Holy Hell
    In terms of weight, dimensions and engine power, the Block 52 is like the LCA Mk2 while Block 15/20 are like LCA Mk1.

    Avionics may end up being similar, but performance won't.

    Meaning there are big differences between a Block 1/5/10/15/20 aircraft and Block 30/40/50 aircraft, hence they have the F-16 A/B and F-16C/D designations resply.

    A/B are 6.5 tonnes while empty while C/D are 8.5 tonnes while empty. A/B have small inlets and weaker thrust engines, so expecting avionics on the same level as the C/D won't be appropriate.

    LCA Mk1 is at the level as the A/Bs while LCA Mk2 (speculated to be around 7 - 7.5 tonnes) is a little below F-16 B52. But the use of composites and the increased internal volume should make it very similar to a B52. Add AESA to the Mk2 and it will be a better aircraft than the B52. Nevertheless, B52 will most probably generate an extra tonne of thrust.

    F-16 B60 is above 10 tonnes while empty. It is a whole difference class from there. No real specs comparison between the two if there is a difference of 3 tonnes.

    Similarly, no point expecting the PAF MLUs to bring a B15/20 to a B52 level. Technically, it is not even a B30/32 level.
     
  17. ersakthivel

    ersakthivel Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2011
    Messages:
    6,014
    Likes Received:
    5,464
    there won't be any significant weight increase for MK-2 over MK-1 is what we infer from BR karthik's talk with authorities at aeroindia 2013,
    SInce the 0.5 meter increase in fuselage won't have much weight implications. The naval version will definitely weigh more due to stiffened airframe and higher weight landing gear, But the airforce version has no reason to gain 1.5 ton weight simply for a 0.5 meter increase in length. even the range of MK-2 won't be significantly enhanced in naval version, the bit higher weight of fuel will compensate for the landing gear weight.For airforce version there won't be much weight gain.

    The more the aircraft weighs lesser it's TWR. SO what is important is the TWR of each fighter and wingloading combined.
    because a lightly loaded wing means larger wing with more weight.

    Why it is intentionally chosen?

    because the larger wing will give much better trans sonic acceleration and agility along with higher instantaneous turn rate which is vital in close combat or evading missiles.

    So plain vanilla TWR figures based on higher empty weight and high thrust engine hides more than it rveals about the performance of a fighter.

    If you have any doubts about this you can go to the following forum to se how lower TWR(0.97) Mirage -2000(low wing loading fighter) will fare against a higher TWR F-16(1 plus)(high wing loading fighter).

    Incidentally even in mk-1 version the LCA mk-1 has much higher TWR(1.07) and even lower wing loading than mirage -2000 even after the costly upgrade. This point is conveniently glossed over by posters who consistently say LCA mk-1 is not equal to Mirage -2000.

    higher weapon load and longer range won't aid you in close combat. In close combat the TWR along with Instantaneous turn rate resulting from lightly loaded wing is the critical factor whether you evede a missile of in dog fight.

    This is explained many times in the above forum .none other than the greek airforce chief's interview is posted to butress the points.

    http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-1872.html
     
    Last edited: Mar 2, 2013
    Kunal Biswas likes this.
  18. asianobserve

    asianobserve Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2011
    Messages:
    6,999
    Likes Received:
    2,829
    [​IMG]

    versus

    [​IMG]

    Since this is purely a fanboys club thread why don't we have a poll on which aircraft would be better (based on uninformed and biased opinions)... maybe the looks would be a good start?
     
  19. A chauhan

    A chauhan Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2009
    Messages:
    3,850
    Likes Received:
    3,198
    Location:
    Raipur
    That is not LCA mk II.
     
  20. asianobserve

    asianobserve Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2011
    Messages:
    6,999
    Likes Received:
    2,829
    I know but I can't get a photo of Mk2. In any case, I don't think there's much visual change between LCA Mk1 and Mk2.
     

Share This Page