ADA Tejas (LCA) News and Discussions

[Advaidhya Tiwari]

Fuel cost is the least of the worries for any airforce!!
The only reason they worry about engine efficiency is to maximize the fuel onboard. If an aircraft can carry more fuel (to lift heavy load or travel farther) airforces don't give a damn!

For a poor country like India without much oil resource, it will matter. It may not matter during peace time exercises but during war the logistics would be cramped and serious pressure on rationing oil will be there.

Don't forget that Japan lost WW2 due to oil supply cut-off. Similarly, Germany lost WW2 due to bombing of its coal liquefaction plants. Oil usage is critically important when there is tight supply

 

[Enquirer]

For a poor country like India without much oil resource, it will matter. It may not matter during peace time exercises but during war the logistics would be cramped and serious pressure on rationing oil will be there.

Don't forget that Japan lost WW2 due to oil supply cut-off. Similarly, Germany lost WW2 due to bombing of its coal liquefaction plants. Oil usage is critically important when there is tight supply

There's a world of difference between having fuel completely cut off and a heavier aircraft needing more fuel!!

You're like saying that someone will not buy a bigger tv because it consumes more electricity; and then justify the argument with 'look the TVs don't function during a blackout'!!!

 

[Sancho]

There are three class of fighter
Light
Medium
Heavy.

See, you already learned something, the rest will take time.

Light fighters doesn't mean inferior fighters

True, not inferior to all accounts, but limited in certain areas!

If Tejas for example would meet the flight performance requirements, it would be a good "light class fighter", that can be a threat to more capable enemy fighters as well. We have seen that with the Mig 21, where tactics countered it's shortfalls, but flight performance and upgraded weapon and EW capabilities made it lethal too.

Sadly flight performance is one of the main shortfalls of Tejas and that's why IAF insisted on HMS and Hobs missiles, to counter the problem, till MK2 can be available.

The limitations by design however, are at internal and external space, which is evident by the fact that Uttam AESA is developed with around 700 TR modules, while all MMRCA AESAs, offer around 1000 up to 1400 TR modules.
Same goes for the the number of weapon stations, where around 7 is a common number for modern "light class" fighters, while MMRCAs offer between 9 and 13.

So "light class" fighters, can be good for air defence roles, with limited AAM loads...
...for CAS, with limited bomb loads...
...for reconnaissance, with enough fuel and limited AAM loads

For anything above, you need more capable fighters medium or heavy class once.That's why no other modern air force uses light class fighters anymore.

 

[Sancho]

BUT Tejas and Mig29 have the similar payload capacity. Now does it make any sense?

Yes it does, because not payload, but MTOW is the key criteria. Payload is just a paper figure of the external load that the hardpoints theoretically can carry, within the weight limits of each hardpoint, but that can be maximised by reducing the internal fuel, to stay within the MTOW.

Russian carrier fighters for example, can take off with a certain weapon load, but with limited fuel, to stay within the reduced MTOW. They then will be refuelled in air, to carry maximum fuel and weapons again.

Payload also is just a fake figure, since only the number and limitations of the hardpoints, tell you what the fighter actually can carry.
Rafale has superior payload to the MKI on paper, in reality most of the payload is reserved for external fuel and it only has 2-3 hardpoints for A2G weapons. The MKI on the other hand carries fuel internally only, which gives it up to 8 hardpoints for A2G weapons.

 

[Foff-Merceneries]

LCA has the capability to handle our Western neighbour and it's not the backbone of fight against the Northern neighbour. While Paki's have introduced JF-17 and kept on increasing effectiveness. IAF kept on expecting ASR requirements and added new expectations. At the same time never questioned imported stuff - Mig 29, Su 30, P8, Mig 21 all were added with deficiencies.

Isn't it not clear with these yardsticks.. With MII that we have Tejas was not bad and deserves a bigger role in western border. It's not that it cannot fire bvr or wvr today.

Sent from my Coolpad 3600I using Tapatalk

 

[Enquirer]

I am going into convulsions hearing the nonstop 'light fighter' trumpeting!

Let's do a simple brain exercise (if one can take that risk that is...)

Tejas Mk1 is a 'light fighter'!
Ignoring any changes to the avionics package etc. Tejas Mk2 has a slightly more powerful engine (that probably costs about a $1 million extra) and 'bug fixes' for aerodynamic defects in Mk1. Now suddenly Mk2 becomes a Medium fighter (for an additional $1 million dollars in variable cost).

Do all the pundits that stalk this forum think IAF should go for a large number of 'light fighters' (for reasons best justified by their brains) and go for a lower number of 'medium fighter' Tejas Mk2??
Is IAF incorrect in ordering 201 Mk2, but less than 100 Mk1s? Where's the so called balance of light and medium?

 

[Sancho]

MiG21 is not a capable fighter.

In A2A and with the Bison upgrade, it was very capable, since IAF combined it very early with modern BVR tactics.

We are speaking in fuel that weighs tons per sortie.

Wrong, because you need multiple LCAs to carry the same amount of A2A and A2G weapons per mission, compared to a single MKI or MMRCA. Tejas with just 7 hardpoints is not able to carry enough fuel, A2G weapons and a full set of BVR and WVR missiles. So you need some of them in strike config + others in escorts config, to do the same job that a single MKI could do.

If you reduce the loads however, as explained earlier in basic roles, like reconnaissance, the load advantage of the MKI is gone and the per hour cost advantage goes to Tejas again.

 

[Enquirer]

Yes it does, because not payload, but MTOW is the key criteria. Payload is just a paper figure of the external load that the hardpoints theoretically can carry, within the weight limits of each hardpoint, but that can be maximised by reducing the internal fuel, to stay within the MTOW.

Russian carrier fighters for example, can take off with a certain weapon load, but with limited fuel, to stay within the reduced MTOW. They then will be refuelled in air, to carry maximum fuel and weapons again.

Payload also is just a fake figure, since only the number and limitations of the hardpoints, tell you what the fighter actually can carry.
Rafale has superior payload to the MKI on paper, in reality most of the payload is reserved for external fuel and it only has 2-3 hardpoints for A2G weapons. The MKI on the other hand carries fuel internally only, which gives it up to 8 hardpoints for A2G weapons.

Payload is a useless criterion? - most laughable!!!
With 1/20 of fuel tank full, any aircraft can double its 'payload' - but what's the point?? What operational good does that achieve?

Payload is the key aspect - it is determined by how much load the aircraft can carry to its combat radius, perform few escape maneuvers (indulging afterburners etc), deliver the payload and safely come back to the base.

Some useless act of keeping the fuel tank almost bone dry and circling the ATC tower couple times before landing with a 'heavy' load maybe fun to impress some kids!
Or maybe the objective is to bomb the shit out of the ATC tower connected to the airfield from where the fighter took off from???

 

[Advaidhya Tiwari]

In A2A and with the Bison upgrade, it was very capable, since IAF combined it very early with modern BVR tactics.



Wrong, because you need multiple LCAs to carry the same amount of A2A and A2G weapons per mission, compared to a single MKI or MMRCA. Tejas with just 7 hardpoints is not able to carry enough fuel, A2G weapons and a full set of BVR and WVR missiles. So you need some of them in strike config + others in escorts config, to do the same job that a single MKI could do.

If you reduce the loads however, as explained earlier in basic roles, like reconnaissance, the load advantage of the MKI is gone and the per hour cost advantage goes to Tejas again.

In wars one will have to be more bothered about getting struck down. Su30 can technically carry strike loads and still carry BVR missiles. But the problem here is that with such heavy loading, enemy missile will find it easy to hit Su30 because of poor speed and maneuvering due to high load. It is not reasonable to ask the same fighter to do different roles at once. A Su30 which is simultaneously trying to be air superiority or interceptor role and strike plane will end up being neiither. Escort plane is needed for both Su30 and Tejas. You can't simply call them as extras or wastage. The escorts must be armed with BVR and WVR missiles, fly ahead, clear the aerial space and then signal the ones at the back to come to strike

 

[Sancho]

It is not reasonable to ask the same fighter to do different roles at once.

On the contrary, because that gives you more missions with less fighters. An LCA that did a CAS mission, has to return to base, to refuel and rearm, to get ready for an A2A mission.
An MKI in the same scenario, switches from strike to A2A roles, since it already has the required AAMs on board. All it needs, to remain in the air is fuel, which can be provided via IFR. In modern air combat, that's called swing role capability and for a force, that has to prepare for a 2 front war, with limited numbers, maximising the mission rates, is a key to success.

 

[ersakthivel]

See, you already learned something, the rest will take time.



True, not inferior to all accounts, but limited in certain areas!

If Tejas for example would meet the flight performance requirements, it would be a good "light class fighter", that can be a threat to more capable enemy fighters as well. We have seen that with the Mig 21, where tactics countered it's shortfalls, but flight performance and upgraded weapon and EW capabilities made it lethal too.

Sadly flight performance is one of the main shortfalls of Tejas and that's why IAF insisted on HMS and Hobs missiles, to counter the problem, till MK2 can be available.

The limitations by design however, are at internal and external space, which is evident by the fact that Uttam AESA is developed with around 700 TR modules, while all MMRCA AESAs, offer around 1000 up to 1400 TR modules.
Same goes for the the number of weapon stations, where around 7 is a common number for modern "light class" fighters, while MMRCAs offer between 9 and 13.

So "light class" fighters, can be good for air defence roles, with limited AAM loads...
...for CAS, with limited bomb loads...
...for reconnaissance, with enough fuel and limited AAM loads

For anything above, you need more capable fighters medium or heavy class once.That's why no other modern air force uses light class fighters anymore.

It's a lie to argue that IAF Insisted on HMDS Hobs combo just because gehad wS inferior.

IAF asked it because it is a good weapon system to hv.

IAF asked the same for Rafael, which initially didn't sport it.

Does that mean raffle is inferior too?

Strange conceited logic.


IAF asks for additions in every purchase because it feels it upgrades the performance.

French sir for e raffles are serving without HOBS HMDS for a decade.

 

[ersakthivel]

I don't need to LEARN three class of fighters ,"yesterday morning", all of a sudden LOL

 

[ersakthivel]

French air force rafales are serving without HMDS, Hobs

On the contrary, because that gives you more missions with less fighters. An LCA that did a CAS mission, has to return to base, to refuel and rearm, to get ready for an A2A mission.
An MKI in the same scenario, switches from strike to A2A roles, since it already has the required AAMs on board. All it needs, to remain in the air is fuel, which can be provided via IFR. In modern air combat, that's called swing role capability and for a force, that has to prepare for a 2 front war, with limited numbers, maximising the mission rates, is a key to success.

Every air force has a,"DEFINED BUDGET". Different operational niches for each mission type they have.

That defines the fighter numbers, & purchase model.

YOU CANT HAVE ONE RAFALE
IN TWO PLACES, however capable that one rafake is or that one sukhoi is,



So it goes without saying , we can have 2 Teja mk1As for one Su 30MKI or rafale,


if we take into account full life cycle cost as of today(no use referring to 1990s deal price of su 30 MKI)

So one Tejas mk1A doesn't need to return to base for refueling and re arming.


Another tejas will do that, because we can always hv two 4.5th gen light fighters for one medium or heavy 4.5th gen fighter.


And all fighters hv well defined missions prior to take off.

It's not like let's carry 8 tons on su 30 mki (4 ton bombs, 4 ton missile)
fly for 4 hours, drop stuff wherever possible.

So this argument is totally flawed.

Plus tejas has a shorter turn around time , more missions per day spec than any fighter that is presently on offer to us.

Tejas Can fly back on a sortie within 30 minutes of landing.

Pressure refueling has already been demonstrated on naval tejas.


So the whole argument is flawed.

And such argument s need to be shifted to general military avionics thread.

Because this is a SPECIFIC THREAD ON TEJAS.

We don't need to expound on general milaviation with pros & cons of light, heavy , medium fighters.

That's the norms in any reputable forum.

If you go to Gripen thread in any authentic defence aviation forum

& Repeatedly post,
"Su 30 mki has twice the load & range of Gripen, so Irupen purchase makes no sense".
Knowledgeable guys will be amused by the illogical nature of argument.

Because air forces around the world are buying

flankers, Gripen , tejas, f16, f18, all different class of fighters

As per their needs &

the fighter's mission profile compatibility for the niche they want to fill in their Air force.

 

[ersakthivel]

Number of TR modules coupled with power rating of each module, plus ECCM Capability combined defines thepotency of AESA Radar ,

We don't know all these specs for uttam

 

[Advaidhya Tiwari]

Wrong, because you need multiple LCAs to carry the same amount of A2A and A2G weapons per mission, compared to a single MKI or MMRCA. Tejas with just 7 hardpoints is not able to carry enough fuel, A2G weapons and a full set of BVR and WVR missiles. So you need some of them in strike config + others in escorts config, to do the same job that a single MKI could do.

If you reduce the loads however, as explained earlier in basic roles, like reconnaissance, the load advantage of the MKI is gone and the per hour cost advantage goes to Tejas again.

The idea that Su30 will fly with 4 BVR missiles and 5tons of ground bombs, first dump the bombs and then get back to aerial patrolling does not appear reasonable. IFR is a very dangerous thing as the refueling tanker can be easily targeted. IFR is a difficult process and takes lot of synchronisation and few minutes of time. The bulky plane to refuel is a big target for enemy SAM, AAA or fighters. It is best to simply land the fighter, refuel and reload, get back up quickly

In A2A and with the Bison upgrade, it was very capable, since IAF combined it very early with modern BVR tactics

Bison upgrade also was not enough to make MiG21 worthy. It was able to intercept but not maintain air superiority. The payload of MiG21 was also minuscule and hence not fit to carry any strikes. Tejas can carry much higher payloads to do multirole missions

 

[Enquirer]

The idea that Su30 will fly with 4 BVR missiles and 5tons of ground bombs, first dump the bombs and then get back to aerial patrolling does not appear reasonable. IFR is a very dangerous thing as the refueling tanker can be easily targeted. IFR is a difficult process and takes lot of synchronisation and few minutes of time. The bulky plane to refuel is a big target for enemy SAM, AAA or fighters. It is best to simply land the fighter, refuel and reload, get back up quickly

HAHA.
Your take on aerial refueling beyond funny!

 

[Advaidhya Tiwari]

HAHA.
Your take on aerial refueling beyond funny!

IFR is useful to refuel on the way rather than on the enemy land. For example, if India wants to take Tejas from Madhya Pradesh base to Pakistan, then it will need a refueling over Rajasthan before entering Pakistan. But, idea that Su30 will take off from Rajasthan with limited BVR missile and few tons of strike loads, attack few targets in Multan and then do a refueling to start patrolling over Lahore is not reasonable. Why not land the Su30 on a highway or nearby airfield, get refueled and reloaded with full range of BVR missiles before taking off? It is just 30 minute job to land, refuel, reload and take-off.

 

[Advaidhya Tiwari]

HAHA.
Your take on aerial refueling beyond funny!

IFR is useful to refuel on the way rather than on the enemy land. For example, if India wants to take Tejas from Madhya Pradesh base to Pakistan, then it will need a refueling over Rajasthan before entering Pakistan. But, idea that Su30 will take off from Rajasthan with limited BVR missile and few tons of strike loads, attack few targets in Multan and then do a refueling to start patrolling over Lahore is not reasonable. Why not land the Su30 on a highway or nearby airfield, get refueled and reloaded with full range of BVR missiles before taking off? It is just 30 minute job to land, refuel, reload and take-off.

 

[ersakthivel]

The idea that Su30 will fly with 4 BVR missiles and 5tons of ground bombs, first dump the bombs and then get back to aerial patrolling does not appear reasonable. IFR is a very dangerous thing as the refueling tanker can be easily targeted. IFR is a difficult process and takes lot of synchronisation and few minutes of time. The bulky plane to refuel is a big target for enemy SAM, AAA or fighters. It is best to simply land the fighter, refuel and reload, get back up quickly


Bison upgrade also was not enough to make MiG21 worthy. It was able to intercept but not maintain air superiority. The payload of MiG21 was also minuscule and hence not fit to carry any strikes. Tejas can carry much higher payloads to do multirole missions

"The idea that Su30 will fly with 4 BVR missiles and 5tons of ground bombs, first dump the bombs and then get back to aerial patrolling does notappear reasonable. '

It's not just unreasonable ,
Just plain silly.

Air to air missiles during strike role us carried for self protection .

It's not meant for "air patrolling after dumping bombs".

Su 30 MKI is no call taxi & IAF is not OLA Cabs to use a fighter like this.


Su 30 MKI with longer range strikes at a distance.

Tejas mk1A with lower range strikes with in 500 km operating radius, without any need for refuelling.

In mk2 the range may get a bit higher.

All ground strikes in war won't happen 1000km away from indian border.

A substantial percentage of strike missions will be within 500 km range of indian borders.

For that tejas is ideal.

Besides those missions, air patrolling, battle field strikes in support of IA columns, air policing , intercepting in bound enemy fighters,

All are well within the reach of Tejas.

Its low RCS, Coupled with big radar dia size gives it an edge in NVR combat.

There are plans to carry SPJ & an air to air missile in a dual rack pylon.

That will allow optimal use of all the pylons.

If 6 tons of bombs are needed for ground strike, we can always use 2 tejas instead of 1 su 30 mki within 500 km operational radius.

There are certain things teja can do , that even sukhoi can't,

After completing a ground strike mission ,

Tejas can answer the call of stressed IA columns on the front line,

With a pack of ground strike munitions in just 30 minutes tur around time.

How many fighters in IAF can do that. Not many, They all need higher turn around time,

In availability rate, Tejas will rank the at the top in IAF.

Tejas can land &take off with useful loads from high Himalayan airfields, at very low temperatures, not many fighters in IAF can do that.

Still if people think Mig 21 after bison upgrades is in the class of Texas mk1A ,

Well, you yourself can guess the motive.

 

[Enquirer]

IFR is useful to refuel on the way rather than on the enemy land. For example, if India wants to take Tejas from Madhya Pradesh base to Pakistan, then it will need a refueling over Rajasthan before entering Pakistan. But, idea that Su30 will take off from Rajasthan with limited BVR missile and few tons of strike loads, attack few targets in Multan and then do a refueling to start patrolling over Lahore is not reasonable. Why not land the Su30 on a highway or nearby airfield, get refueled and reloaded with full range of BVR missiles before taking off? It is just 30 minute job to land, refuel, reload and take-off.

Nobody ever does aerial refueling over enemy territory unless they've already vanquished the enemy (destroyed air defense and air force) in which case its not enemy territory any more.