Imported Single Engine Fighter Jet Contest

[no smoking]

ore expensive since they have to keep an production line open for your declining demand.

Chinese Mig 21 copy is based on Mig 21 F-13, a type which India did not operate in numbers. I guess very few first aircraft inducted were f-13 type in late 60's but for India, Mig 21 saga really started from type 77(FL), Type 88(M), Bis to Bison. Which varied a lot from old F-13 type. Not to mention would have varied a lot from Chinese copy of of F-13. India primarily sought spares from ex Warsaw pact countries or ex Soviet republics after disintegration of Soviet Union. If my memory serves right Czechoslovakia later Czech/Poland was the main source of second hand spares from Cannibalized Migs. It did till, India started producing those parts inhouse.[/QUOTE]
In the interview, the chinese engine recalled that he told the india side that he should use the J7II patrs for India Mig21, but the gentalman insists they are smae.

And as I know Chinese got almost lots tech material, sometimes even fighter itself of every variant of m21 by smuggling before 1990. After 1989, Russian herslef was willing to sell everything about Mig21.

 

[no smoking]

You may find this interesting ..

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/threads/kaveri-for-infamous-mig-21-fleet.64835/page-6

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

Sorry i failed to grab your point?

 

[Kshithij]

Chinese Mig 21 copy is based on Mig 21 F-13, a type which India did not operate in numbers. I guess very few first aircraft inducted were f-13 type in late 60's but for India, Mig 21 saga really started from type 77(FL), Type 88(M), Bis to Bison. Which varied a lot from old F-13 type. Not to mention would have varied a lot from Chinese copy of of F-13. India primarily sought spares from ex Warsaw pact countries or ex Soviet republics after disintegration of Soviet Union. If my memory serves right Czechoslovakia later Czech/Poland was the main source of second hand spares from Cannibalized Migs. It did till, India started producing those parts inhouse.

In the interview, the chinese engine recalled that he told the india side that he should use the J7II patrs for India Mig21, but the gentalman insists they are smae.

And as I know Chinese got almost lots tech material, sometimes even fighter itself of every variant of m21 by smuggling before 1990. After 1989, Russian herslef was willing to sell everything about Mig21.[/QUOTE]

The era of MiG 21 is now over. It has become obsolete for many reasons:
1) It doesn't have decent maneuverability
2) It doesn't have enough space to place AESA radar due to weird shape of cone
3) It doesn't have enough payload
4) Its airframe is non-stealthy and there is nothing that can be done

India will be retiring MiG 21 by 2022. It is pragmatic to buy minor parts which are not made in India from any available source for the time being. Why buy expensive parts for a plane that has lost its relevance and is about to be retired? China anyways has no plan of retiring J7 and hence will manufacture parts for long term maintenenace. I also don't see any other country using MiG21 and hence, China remains to be the only option for parts. It is quite pragmatic

 

[AnantS]

In the interview, the chinese engine recalled that he told the india side that he should use the J7II patrs for India Mig21, but the gentalman insists they are smae.

And as I know Chinese got almost lots tech material, sometimes even fighter itself of every variant of m21 by smuggling before 1990. After 1989, Russian herslef was willing to sell everything about Mig21.

oh please , chinese engineer saying about Indian specific models would be same as Indian engineers commenting about J20 capabilities and internals. Both carry no value, are merely based on educated guesses which may or may not be right...

 

[no smoking]

oh please , chinese engineer saying about Indian specific models would be same as Indian engineers commenting about J20 capabilities and internals. Both carry no value, are merely based on educated guesses which may or may not be right...

Sorry, an error in my typing: he told the india side that he should NOT use the J7II patrs for India Mig21, but the gentalman insists they are smae.

 

[Sancho]

The side weapons can be Astra BVR.

You are forgetting that every hardpoint has it's weight limit and since not even a single BVR missile got integrated on the external station so far, it should be clear that Astra + SPJ or Python V is not possible either.

Ok, WVR may be required in addition to BVR. But, he was unnecessarily stating that there is no place to hold BVR.

As explained, I was talking about LCA in strike config =>

As you can see, all stations apart of the centerline are occupied, which means "in this role", you can't add BVR missiles to increase it's self defence capability.

Jag in similar strike config=>

(2 × WVR missiles above the wings missing).

The strike capability of LCA therfore is not too bad already, but it's self defence capability is highly limited, because of the lack of hardpoints and integrated jammers.

 

[TPFscopes]

I think, he said that such configuration is feasible,

If you read the chart then you can notice, Air-superiority role has :

2 x BVR
2 x WVR
2 x drop tanks
1 x air2ground munition ( Which is missing here at mock up )

Here is a mock up of Tejas at AERO INDIA ..

One does not carry 2 LGB for battlefield support, if I am right. We would replace that with probably 4 BVR in rack of 2 each instead of LGB.

This configuration is meant for air superiority..
This is what I said many times that there are various munition requirements for various type of missions.
Weapon configuration always planned according to the mission type.

 

[Kshithij]

This configuration is meant for air superiority..
This is what I said many times that there are various munition requirements for various type of missions.
Weapon configuration always planned according to the mission type.

Yes, we always use 2 BVR/WVR in strike roles, not lament that there are only 2 HardPoint for BVR/WVR. In air superiority, we use 4-6 BVR/WVR. So, it depends.

Lamenting that there is hardpoint for BVR when WVR is used is incorrect.

 

[Kshithij]

You are forgetting that every hardpoint has it's weight limit and since not even a single BVR missile got integrated on the external station so far, it should be clear that Astra + SPJ or Python V is not possible either.



As explained, I was talking about LCA in strike config =>

As you can see, all stations apart of the centerline are occupied, which means "in this role", you can't add BVR missiles to increase it's self defence capability.

Jag in similar strike config=>

(2 × WVR missiles above the wings missing).

The strike capability of LCA therfore is not too bad already, but it's self defence capability is highly limited, because of the lack of hardpoints and integrated jammers.

I was saying that in strike role, we can use BVR instead of WVR.

I was just saying that replacing R73 with Astra was possible.

The weight difference is mere 50kg. The rack weight need not change much either as the difference is minimal. I am not sure though.

 

[TPFscopes]

Planned mission configs =>

Already shared by @Kunal Biswas but stil vijyes is unable to understand the same

Yes, we always use 2 BVR/WVR in strike roles, not lament that there are only 2 HardPoint for BVR/WVR. In air superiority, we use 4-6 BVR/WVR. So, it depends.

Lamenting that there is hardpoint for BVR when WVR is used is incorrect.

weapon configuration should be potent , economic and very much suitable for mission. No one can't use BVR mission in close combats ( specially within 10kms).
before raising you question you need to understand the need of weapons configs.. Forces don't weapons just for show offs..

@Kunal Biswas This is why I said BrahMos-NG is neither operationally nor technically feasible.. If somebody force Developers to carry it than they can strengthen the mk1 & mk1a pylon but it will not help LCA to make it operationally feasible.

 

[Kshithij]

Already shared by @Kunal Biswas but stil vijyes is unable to understand the same


weapon configuration should be potent , economic and very much suitable for mission. No one can't use BVR mission in close combats ( specially within 10kms).
before raising you question you need to understand the need of weapons configs.. Forces don't weapons just for show offs..

The picture uses R73 everywhere. I am just saying that R73 CAN be replaced with Astra if needed by IAF.

@Sancho was saying that the hardpoint at the edge of the wings can't accommodate BVR missile even if IAF wanted to do so due to hardpoint weight restrictions (astra is heavier than R73). He was saying IAF will be COMPELLED to use WVR even if they prefer BVR due to inability to place BVR on the last 2 HardPoint.

I agree with the requirements based missile selection. I was speaking of CAPABILITY of the hardpoint on the edge if the wings.

The question in discussion here is -
Can Astra be carried by Tejas aircraft at the end of the hardpoint located at the end of the wings, for any role whatsoever?

I am saying yes while Sancho says no. The strike role equipment picture above doesn't give an answer as it doesn't state anything about Astra. The picture of hardpoint capabilities posted by you other day while stating that the weight limit is 158kg for the hard points in discussion doesn't speak of weight of holder

 

[TPFscopes]

The picture uses R73 everywhere. I am just saying that R73 CAN be replaced with Astra if needed by IAF.

The pic was released by assuming R-73 as standard WVR missile.

@Sancho was saying that the hardpoint at the edge of the wings can't accommodate BVR missile even if IAF wanted to do so due to hardpoint weight restrictions (astra is heavier than R73). He was saying IAF will be COMPELLED to use WVR even if they prefer BVR due to inability to place BVR on the last 2 HardPoint.

If IAF demand to have BVR on outer pylons than it is possible to configure them for BVR (only for Derby not Astra) but it is not & never demanded. bcoz if you check any mission profile WVR will be on priority. For a solo mission, no fighter is allowed for its mission without minimum air combat munitions

I agree with the requirements based missile selection. I was speaking of CAPABILITY of the hardpoint on the edge if the wings.

Outer board hard-point is allowed for 150Kgs that is nearly 45Kg pylon + WVR.

The question in discussion here is -
Can Astra be carried by Tejas aircraft at the end of the hardpoint located at the end of the wings, for any role whatsoever?

Without strengthening the wing I can say NO. Astra BVR weighs 150+ kilograms

I am saying yes while Sancho says no. The strike role equipment picture above doesn't give an answer as it doesn't state anything about Astra. The picture of hardpoint capabilities posted by you other day while stating that the weight limit is 158kg for the hard points in discussion doesn't speak of weight of holder

Its easier to understand the pic by replacing R-73 with CCM and R77 with BVRAAMs.
As said its limit is 150Kgs (pylon + missile) but slight difference can be ignored

 

[Kshithij]

The pic was released by assuming R-73 as standard WVR missile.

If IAF demand to have BVR on outer pylons than it is possible to configure them for BVR (only for Derby not Astra) but it is not & never demanded. bcoz if you check any mission profile WVR will be on priority. For a solo mission, no fighter is allowed for its mission without minimum air combat munitions

Outer board hard-point is allowed for 150Kgs that is nearly 45Kg pylon + WVR.

Without strengthening the wing I can say NO. Astra BVR weighs 150+ kilograms

Its easier to understand the pic by replacing R-73 with CCM and R77 with BVRAAMs.
As said its limit is 150Kgs (pylon + missile) but slight difference can be ignored

That solves my doubt. I was not sure if the 150+ kg is inclusive of pylon or not. So, Astra can't be used on those two hardpoint is the take away. This is really sad.

I hope that Tejas MK2 will have theoretical ability to hold any form of BVR, even AIM120 or meteor on those two hardpoints.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

I don`t know Astra can be mounted on outer pylons but it can withstand 150 kgs and below ..

 

[TPFscopes]

I don`t know Astra can be mounted on outer pylons but it can withstand 150 kgs and below ..

Already stated the same...
=>

As said its limit is 150Kgs (pylon + missile) but slight difference can be ignored

That solves my doubt. I was not sure if the 150+ kg is inclusive of pylon or not. So, Astra can't be used on those two hardpoint is the take away. This is really sad.

I can assure you about that. its only upto you to believe else get ready for Aero india 2018 and ask the same with officials

I hope that Tejas MK2 will have theoretical ability to hold any form of BVR, even AIM120 or meteor on those two hardpoints.

Thats what I call overhyped and non-feasible desires.
Reason already elaborated.

 

[Sancho]

Thats what I call overhyped and non-feasible desires.

Which is an ongoing problem for the LCA programme, hype, unrealistic expectations, over ambitious project management and a whole lot of pride. But Tejas was never meant to be more than a light class fighter, nor will pride alone keep the country safe. We need LCA to fulfill it's own requirements, to be a successful programme, just as we need more capable fighter's along side of it.

 

[TPFscopes]

Which is an ongoing problem for the LCA programme, hype, unrealistic expectations, over ambitious project management and a whole lot of pride. But Tejas was never meant to be more than a light class fighter, nor will pride alone keep the country safe. We need LCA to fulfill it's own requirements, to be a successful programme, just as we need more capable fighter's along side of it.

But what can we do when some ambitious journos publish those over-hyped glossy articles which become base for all kind of shit..

 

[Kshithij]

Which is an ongoing problem for the LCA programme, hype, unrealistic expectations, over ambitious project management and a whole lot of pride. But Tejas was never meant to be more than a light class fighter, nor will pride alone keep the country safe. We need LCA to fulfill it's own requirements, to be a successful programme, just as we need more capable fighter's along side of it.

Unrealistic expectations? First define what is realistic? Expecting Tejas MK2 to be equivalent of Gripen E is now unrealistic?

As far as I see, it is extremely incompetent designing to make the last two hardpoints extremely weak with such pathetic load carrying ability. Who in the right mind makes such short sighted design? Just to get a light fighter, one must not make compromises to this extent. I must be grateful that they didn't make a plane with only 2 hardpoints under the wing

Pride doesn't save the nation and neither does derision. Maintain a balance and be reasonable.

What is a more capable fighter? Imported slavery? Why not hand over the government control to foreign countries too? Hope that they will protect the country. That will be far better than importing just a bunch of planes.

According to your definition of realism- Tejas MK2 is a light fighter that does nothing but interceptor role and small time bombing mission. It can't perform anything better and always has to rely on support from better aircrafts, be it for bombing missions, air superiority. But, ADA people are a bunch of extremely useless people who need 25-30 years to make a fighter as simple as this.

 

[Sancho]

But what can we do when some ambitious journos publish those over-hyped glossy articles which become base for all kind of shit..

The media has it's share as the recent fake IAF wants to kill Tejas showed, but we need to look at it more realistically too and not fuelled by pride.
It never was a good idea to make a naval version out of it, it can't compete with MMRCAs and the focus should be on getting MK1A inducted ASAP, not delaying things for the possible integration of not fully developed indigenous systems.

 

[TPFscopes]

The media has it's share as the recent fake IAF wants to kill Tejas showed, but we need to look at it more realistically too and not fuelled by pride.
It never was a good idea to make a naval version out of it, it can't compete with MMRCAs and the focus should be on getting MK1A inducted ASAP, not delaying things for the possible integration of not fully developed indigenous systems.

I'm in favour of NLCA as a tech demonstrator for forthcoming N-AMCA and a good choice (NLCA MK2) for shore based ops.

And as far as baked news are concerned, the motivate our forum folks to think over those over ambitious claims including decorated member.

Here, we can share whatever is technically possible but how can we defend those so called media hype believers.