ADA Tejas (LCA) News and Discussions

[p2prada]

I am not suggesting to throw Jaguars away, but to divert the money going for re-engining and procuring new towards MK-1 which can do DPS as well as air defence.

The Mk1 does not have the kind of engine power required to do DPS work as well as air defence. You cannot have Delta bombing at sea level. Also, Jaguar already has a higher payload and range than LCA mk1. So, how can it be better? ADA was suggesting decreasing LCA Mk1's payload by 500kgs to give better performance.

No, MK-1 has every bit radical inside when you compare it with half the IAF. It is only third jet with digital FCS in IAF and will bring radical reduction in number of crashes due to Pilot errors. Second, the Radar abroad MK-1 is second only to MKIs. Third, it is the first platform in the IAF to have composite airframe in that percentage. Not to mention how composite airframe because of its strength reduces airframe check time radically and low check time automatically means more availability.

The radar is second to MKI only until 2012, when the first Mirage and Mig-29 upgrades start coming in. Also, digital FCS does not mean DPS capability. Also, Jaguar is an operational aircraft while Mk1 is development aircraft. Perhaps LCA Mk2 and later AMCA will replace Jaguar.

They will not be testing all through. These Mig-21 pilots are sharped teethed old dogs. Besides Mig-21's i am also expecting some Mirage pilots as well as LCA test pilots in first squadron. Needless to mention experience these pilots have will operationalize MK-1 very soon or at least well in time. Biggest advantage here is that entire test flying has been done by IAF(ASTE) and each and every bit of performance parameters is known to IAF. In fact it will take less time for pilots to get fully operationalized over LCA Mk-1 then pilots who will go on M-MRCA. No wonder why MKI pilots are still learning.

Er. If you have been driving a car and then you switch to another car, it's fine. Butif you have been driving a car and then are asked to switch to a truck, its going to make a huge difference. If our top guns end up flying development aircraft for the next 6 years then woe be us. 40 pilots with Mk1 and then another 40 pilots for Mk2, they will not be called for major war operations at all, for the next 6 years. Then they will need another 3 to 4 years to learn all the nuances of the aircraft before they contribute to any war efforts. So, 10 years gone. MKI is the same. Not to mention 20 pilots required for MRCA as well. So, by 2015 we will have lost nearly 50 to 60 pilots in development tests.

F-414 INS6 is coming out of EDE program and is said to have much lower SPC, in addition to more life, low maintainance than earlier F-414 400 model.

The point is it has a higher SFC than F-404. The point is IAF said F-404 is not enough.

I did not said we need to change the undercarriage location. All i had said, if LCA is expected to become M-MRCA then instead of moving the landing gear and undercarriage to wing roots LCA can get a conformal tank there. And yes conformal tanks affects aerodynamics but are used anyway as a trade off for more range. F-16s uses it so does F-15s, both compromises on aerodynamics but trade off is worth full. For LCA all that will be required is detailed wind tunnel study which will clear what shape it should get and where it should be fixed.

The F-16s and F-15s getting conformals are not going to perform air superiority missions. They are for delivering strike packages. IAF will never accept a conformal fuel tanks any day of the week.

By the way when SAAB planned to move undercarriage to wind roots they had prepared themselves for same trade off. But when DEMO flew they discovered that instead of adding to drag this change is helping the aerodynamics.

Changing the landing gear is completely different from Confromal fuel tanks. There is a 100% chance of affecting aerodynamics negatively.

You can deny everything, right? Anyway i am typing his words "In the demonstrator we are showing the main capabilities of Gripen NG. Those capabilities can also go in as updates or modifications of Gripen C/D, which is really important for our existing customer base". Now which part is hazy or unclear? Is he not clearly saying, features of NG can also go into C/D as modifications and updates.

The NG is an entirely new platform. It has 10 hardpoints compared to 7 hardpoints on the Gripen C/D. Then NG will have greater than 40% fuel load. Gripen NG will have an entirely new engine which will use that fuel to power more avionics. NG will have a larger fuselage so it can carry more avionics. LCA Mk1 or Gripen C/D cannot hope to compete with the NG. He wasn't clear with what can go on the Gripen C/D. They could add a less capable AESA radar and perhaps the IRST with new communication electronics. There is nothing to indicate the Gripen C/D will have 40% extra fuel and 3 extra hardpoints. Converting Gripen C/D to Gripen NG is Impossible.

Also, Gripen C/D already has more electronics and also a higher fuel load compared to LCA Mk1.

In all those first six years it was experienced pilots who flew MKIs. It is only when operation use and role of MKI got defined and documented that the new rookies got their hands wet. By the way MKI second seat is not just a WSO sitting space but a full cockpit with full controls. They fly and brush up their skills. It is only recently --can still be a rumour-- that AFA started dedicated course for WSOs.

It is a requirement for the WSO to be capable of piloting the MKI. He has full pilot controls. But when there is an air battle going on the younger guy in front will be the one flying the plane.

IAF is still learning to fly MKI and same will be the case in any imported platform and M-MRCAs are no different. When you don't develop a jet, you start learning when you start inducting. But when you develop, you know about it bit by bit even before it is inducted. Same will be the case in LCA. ASTE pilots have all the experience required and they will the initial instructors.

Do you know how many pilots we are going to lose in all that. Nearly 60 pilots in the next 5 years. This is the first time for any Air force. And you also want to add Jaguars to the mix. We are upgrading 60 jaguars to Darin 3. Do you want all 60 pilots to fly development aircraft?

Sorry for that. But what you are saying has already been replied by me in previous posts. LCA MK-1 with 150KM range radar and four BVRAAMs will be quite capable interceptor. And since LCA's RCS will be far less than J-10 and F-16 the advantage will multiply.

Our MRCA ASR for radar is 120km for a 3m2 RCS. Anybody will be laughing their azzez off if you suggest a low cost fighter has a radar that actually matches the performance of the MRCA fighters. I checked the LCA radar parameters. The 150km is actually the "maximum range." It means the LCA will only detect a 5m2 target in ranges of 70 to 90km which is the most realistic figure.

Yes i said about number advantage which will be case in most scenario during conflict with Pakistan. And i also said (counting on what you posted regarding F-16s radar and Aim-120C) that LCA will blow any F-16 even in 1 to 1 engagement. Then you said PLAAF 100 J-10 formation. And i said that can't be handled by LCA alone as it was never built for that kind of requirement. I added, neither can same number of MKIs or even M-MRCAs.

You are underestimating the enemies capabilities with superior aircraft and overestimating our own capability with an inferior platform. If you really think we have to engage the enemies older fighters with a larger number of newer fighters then there is something seriously wrong. That's why IAF has asked for LCA Mk2, to even the odds.

I clear it up again. If LCA (counting on what you said regarding F-16s Radar and Aim-120C) can blow F-16 BLOCK 52 out of sky in any 1 to 1 engagement then it will surely do same with J-10 which still flies with SD-10 and some Chinese MMR.

Huh! When did I say LCA can blow up the F-16 let alone Block 52?

ZHUK peak power is 6 KW, 1.5 is just the average and it is not written that 120KM is at average power. It is quite natural to assume that maximum range is calculated at peak power. By the way LCA EL/M 2032's maximum power is 3 KVA = 2.4 KW something which is far less than that of ZHUK ME.

3KVA is actually 600W at pf of 20% or 1.2KW at 40%. It's not 2.4KW.

You know Gripen C/D flies with same engine and all of its avionics are operational. So why can't LCA MK-1 have them operational? By the way F-404 F2J3 was meant to be for testing not 3KN more powerful F-404 IN20 model.

Gripen can actually fill IAF's ASR from 1985. It surpasses ASR in flight regime. Also, they delivered in 1996 which was 14 years from their start date.

I only said there will be net decrease in power requirements compared to Mk-1 with same avionics and electronics suit. And all that microwave communication instruments you said are coming in Mk-2 which will have sufficiently powerful engine more than capable of supplying adequate power for electronics and avionics. Atleast we can be sure that whatever IAF has asked in MK-2 will not be two fold to what has gone into NG. And if F-414 supplies adequate power for those instruments to work, i can fairly assume that F-414 INS6 (which is most power version so far) would supply that much.

You cannot give a modern futuristic air force an aircraft with technologies from 1985 in 2010.

Nope! As per ASR 1985, LCA was expected to have customized avionics architecture not open architecture which is present in MK-1.

It's not really difficult. Jaguar is getting the same upgrade. You change the internal bus to 1553B and you have open architecture.

LCA's $40 million tag is of a fighter with carbon composite airframe, fly by wire FCS and SAR capable MMR, not for a fighter with just all aluminium airframe with mechanical controls and only air to air interception radar.

So, deliver a fighter capable of doing all that and not just look good on paper.

Like i said, it is at least a possibility. In fact it being said that Klimov is developing +90 KN variant of RD-93. And if this engine can go in JF-17 so it can be in LCA. By the way RD-93 is just an option in worst case. By 2016 we may have JV Kaveri ready and by 2022-25 its fully indigenous version. Ok, back to point. Unlike all these possibilities M-MRCA doesn't have any. If fact even if we develop our own 100KN engine, we may never be able to fix it on any of the M-MRCA without OEM's help. So point remains, LCA being indigenous design is more dependable than any of these imported stuff.

LCA needs to be a success for it to be dependable. We have taken 20 years to develop an aircraft that will be equal to the 1996 Gripen A only in 2012.

Which section of DARIN III avionics makes Jaguar superior to MK-1?

Everything. Other than airframe advantage, it will have more capable A2G capability including the same or similar avionics compared to Mk1. It will also have AMRAAMs and WVR missiles. Raytheon is bidding for sale of Mission computers AMRAAM and Aim-9x. Let's not forget a radar that is similar to LCA Mk1s.

No additional capability comes for free but when required it worth the spending. We could have bought more Jaguars for attack and more Mig-29U/UBs for escort but for some reason IAF sent RFP for Mig-35 and Rafale or only for multi role fighter jets.

When you enter the 21st century you need capable aircraft. This in no way means the IAF will replace Jaguars with Mk1. The Jaguars will still have a lot of life in them until AMCA is ready. We built them after 1979 anyway. So, they have a similar life time as Mirage-2000.

So did i said throw Jaguars right away? No! Anyway that was only capability comparison. What is required and which one is best suited for IAF requirements can only be decided by IAF. All i am saying that re-engining old and buying new Jaguars is not a good option because they will have useful life left in them when they will be retired.

That's a sacrifice any air force will always make for reliability.

You know EJ 200 at 90KN was said to be suitable engine for LCA MK-2 and present F-404 IN is at 85 KN. That means LCA is can only be underpowered by 5 KN. Even with it, LCA has better speed and better range than Jaguar in A2G role. And yes LCA was meant to be point air defence aircraft but today it is guided A2G munition capable L-MRCA, very capable of handling any role which Jaguar can.

No. Jaguar has better range and payload capacity along with airframe advantage at sea level. LCA is only good at high altitudes.

What is the meaning of "state of the art" technology?... A LCA using fly by wire controls, carbon composite airframe, full glass cockpit, LDP pod, EW suit is every bit state of the art.

The Mirage-2000 had those in 1985.

Still to this date, 90% of the world is still using generation of jets whose technology is no better than LCA.

They will be retiring those aircraft while we will be inducting those aircraft. LCA's specs was good enough for 90s and 2000s. Even if ADA had delivered by 2006 with kaveri, it would have made sense.

And there are only few like EF and Rafale whose technology is better but there is also one F-22 whose technology is generation ahead of them. Does it means that these jets(EF, Rafale etc) which in beast case can only be inducted by 2015 are obsolete even before they got ticket to IAF?

The only aircraft LCA beats in all parameters will be JF-17.

Anyway how much compromise IAF would make in M-MRCA can be told only when these jets will get inducted. History tells they will be making.

We will be inducting 5th gen technology when the MRCA comes. If IAF makes compromises on state of the art, its fine. But why should IAF make compromises on technology that is being retired by other air forces. Heck, when we induct the MRCA fighters our aircraft will be more advanced than the ones the OEM user countries use. It will be like how MKI was better than anything Russia had.

2014 is a date because of engine delivery and ADA can't do much to that. AESA is going to take time, even experienced player like EuroRadar's CAPTOR is not getting operation even by 2013. Then there are rest of stuffs in making and they will take time. But nevertheless LCA MK-2 in 2016 will be every bit comparable to M-MRCAs technologically.

We will be using Israel's already existing AESA radar on the LCA Mk2, atleast initially. Also, AESA is not required until 2016 for IOC or 2015 for tests. If we manage that by 2015, then we are almost there. If LCA Mk2 is a new airframe, then we are just one step behind our counterparts(and that's in delivery). IAF has been asking for that and ADA still shoves the 80s LCA on to them.

I am not deviating here. That was a response to Philip Rajkumar's requirements list in MK-2 which you had quoted. I only said that since he retired, a lot has changed in LCA. LCA failing to attain supersonic speed at 2008 sea trials and passing 2010 was just an example. And like i said before IAF never used word like MK-2 back in 2008. They only said, "LCA with present engine is not acceptable" and this statement must have had that failed test as reason for speaking so.

I hardly think one sea level test failure would mean IAF will ask for engine change. you are giving IAF too much credit. There will be a whole host of reasons for engine change and that includes avionics.

When F-16s were inducted it was not what it was required to be. Yet induction went on counting on promised future improvements.

The F-16 was state of the art. No other airforce had an equivalent at the time.

And as far as said improvements are concerned then what wrong if it is coming earlier than others. In fact IAF wants LCA to reach to full potential in two steps unlike other which followed three-four. Since it is indigenous design IAF has this luxury. What's wrong in it?

ADA has to deliver a LCA Mk2 or F-16 Block 60 equivalent in 2016. It's called reinventing the wheel. IAF can choose Block 60 3 years quicker than LCA Mk2 even gets IOC. But IAF is willing to wait for Mk2. You cannot even compared MK2 to Mk1, atleast on paper. So, why Mk1?

Delay doesn't means that the timelines were no official. And unlike what Mr Nadkarni said, LAC in 2015 will be a 4.5 ++ generation jet not just 4th generation about which he is referring to. The LCA he had talked about already achieved IOC 10 days back.

LCA in 2012 will be a 4th gen fighter, not a 4.5++. It won't even be a 4.5gen. LCA Mk1 doe snot have any room for upgrades. It will always remain 4th gen. 2012 is a lot closer to 2015 than 2006. LCA Mk2 will not be 4.5th gen until 2016, and that's after FOC of Mk2. So, he is perfectly right. Heck IAF predicted LCA will not be a success until after 2015. And they were right.

Engines failed and they blamed DRDO for it. Funny indeed!

Engines failed then they will blame OEM. Engines have been failing since 1998. Only fixed in 2008.

But he did not said 'Arjun' is being forced into Army, did he? And point exactly was that neither LCA nor Arjun is being forced into Army. It is their performance and operational requirement which is forcing services to buy them in more numbers than planned. Even Gen(retd) Deepak Kapoor had to change his stand(a stand which was completely opposite to past) and praise Arjun,

Still I see 1600 T-90s being inducted and only 370 Arjuns. That's a token number for a MBT.

That was not a simple irregularity. In fact Jawans were denied required nuterious meals by long margin. Like i earlier said, i will not re-mention things. But will quote a name Lt Gen H S Panag. It's upto you to research and see how Gen Deepak Kapoor and Lt Gen H S Panag are related to each other. Posting a link by the way.

The article does not talk of misappropriation of funds. It only says the General used wrong procedures for acquiring tents. There is nothing to indicate the General sold those tents for his personal profit.

Indian forces are very demanding when it comes to indigenous products. Sometimes these demands comes as a challenge which acts as motivational force. And I don't see anything wrong in it as long as intention is to bring best out of existing not to kill the project. IAF pushed scientists and is getting a better version Akash system. Their push eventually did good for IAF, DRDO and nation as whole. Asking for better out of existing can't be a reason for criticism.

Better out of existing is fine. But it has come with even greater prices. ADA's false promises backlogged LCA's procurement policy for nearly 30 years. Had there been a war we would have been in a lot of trouble. We were just lucky PAF was in an even bigger hole than IAF.

 

[black eagle]

LCA 3D

 

[neo29]

How Tejas finally took off

India's first light combat aircraft is the effort of 40 laboratories, 25 academic institutions and 300 companies.There is a good chance Bachubhai Patel's contribution to the security of the Indian skies will never be recorded. A pity, considering his role in India's first light combat aircraft, the Tejas, which recently got its initial clearance.

The late Gujarati businessman, who ran a small outfit in Nashik that made automobile components, designed and developed a mission-critical micro-switch for the MiG fighter aircraft, used by the Indian Air Force at that time. Till then, such micro-switches, which help engage and disengage the joystick from the autopilot, were bought from Russia, and the supply was undependable. Patel's switch was robust and capable of withstanding 10 million cycles of operation. Kota Harinarayana, the man behind the Tejas, met Patel in 1981, four years before the Tejas was conceived. He mentioned the need to produce these switches indigenously to the businessman. Patel asked for three months to make a prototype. What he made impressed Harinarayana. "When he brought us a sample of two switches, we found those to be of excellent quality. Patel had even bettered the switches the Russians were using."

In 1985, the defence ministry decided to build a light combat aircraft to replace the ageing MiGs. A sum of Rs 500 crore was set aside for it. (The final bill is Rs 3,248 crore.) The project was given to the Aeronautical Development Agency, an arm of the Defence Research & Development Organisation, and Harinarayana, then 43, was put in charge. What perhaps made him take up the challenge was the micro-switch Patel had shown him. Over the next 25 years, Harinarayana worked with 40 laboratories, 25 academic institutes and 300 companies to give shape to the Tejas. On January 11 this year, it got initial operational clearance, and is now certain to be inducted into the Indian Air Force in two years. Apart from the engine, almost 80 per cent of the aircraft's components have been designed and manufactured indigenously.

When Harinarayana started out in 1985, there simply wasn't enough aeronautical talent in DRDO. True, state-owned Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) had built a fighter aircraft called the Marut in 1961 but it was designed by a German team (it remained in service till 1990). Harinarayana, the first Indian to get a PhD in aircraft design, had to argue his case for a course in aeronautical engineering before IIT Bombay, his alma mater, saying "if MIT can, why not IIT?" He managed to rope in his research guides at IIT Bombay, GS Patel and TG Pai, to work on the project.

HAL had a design team of 200 to 300. HAL Chairman Air Marshal Malcolm Shirley Dundas Wollen agreed to send a few of his design engineers to ADA. Another 40 to 50 people joined from organisations like National Aeronautics Laboratories and DRDO. Eighty to 100 people were recruited afresh. In a year, ADA had a team of about 400 engineers and scientists. It also reached out to other institutes like the IITs and Jadhavpur University. "If we found a professor capable of doing something for us, we would catch him and give him work," says Harinarayana.

Now the team was in place but another problem cropped up — it did not have the right computer for designing. So Rajiv Gandhi, then prime minister, stepped in. During his visit to the United States soon after, he convinced President Ronald Reagan to give the IBM 390 computer for the design work of the Tejas. ADA bought CATIA (computer-aided three-dimensional interactive application), the computer-aided design software developed by Dassault, in the early '90s. Since the Tejas was meant to be a light aircraft, the designers had to use carbon composite materials which were still being developed. ADA then developed the software for designing and analysing composite materials, which it later marketed extensively — Airbus was a customer, buying it for the A380 and other aircraft. Infosys eventually took charge of marketing it.

The next step was to identify companies that could produce the components. Furth India, a small Nagpur company, produced the steel. Another small outfit in Kanpur made rubber seals used to close the fuel tank. Gradually, ADA developed all the electrical components that were earlier imported and helped local companies manufacture them. To make the production commercially viable, the rights to the intellectual property were handed over to the companies. "We brought in an ecosystem in the country where the industry felt confident it could make a high-quality product. Laboratories became confident they could solve complex avionics problems. Academic institutions felt they could contribute significantly," says Harinarayana. ADA knew the project was a humongous task for a small team. To avoid delays, the project was divided into 1,200 packages, each handed over to one person who would be responsible for its execution. The person responsible had to get his work done by any means — he could partner industry, academia or research labs. For example, instead of importing the multi-functional display for the cockpit, ADA approached Bharat Electronics to manufacture it. Though BEL was interested, it did not have adequate knowledge about the liquid crystal display (LCD) used in the product. So ADA asked the Raman Research Institute, one of the pioneers in liquid crystals, to help out. The Tejas thus became a cementing force between industry and research institutes.

In 1993, ADA felt the aircraft may fly by 1999. But when the project was in the last lap, India conducted another nuclear test in 1998 which invited the ire and severe sanctions from the West. General Electric, which had agreed to supply the engine, developed cold feet. Lockheed Martin, involved in the development of a "fly by wire" flight control system, too pulled back. ADA was then forced to regroup its team of scientists and engineers to develop the entire software and hardware all over again. It was only the recent thaw in Indo-US relations that made General Electric supply the engines for the Tejas. After that, it was smooth sailing for the aircraft.

The Tejas will cost Rs 180 to Rs 200 crore apiece, though the trainer variant could cost up to Rs 220 crore. The Indian Air Force has placed orders for 40 aircraft and is likely to buy another 100. The success of the Tejas has encouraged the government to start work on a civilian aircraft and a regional transport aircraft. A new body, National Civil Aircraft Programme, has been formed under Madhavan Nair, the former chairman of Indian Space Research Organisation. That's the real spinoff.

http://idrw.org/?p=2437

 

[Rahul Singh]

The Mk1 does not have the kind of engine power required to do DPS work as well as air defence. You cannot have Delta bombing at sea level. Also, Jaguar already has a higher payload and range than LCA mk1. So, how can it be better? ADA was suggesting decreasing LCA Mk1's payload by 500kgs to give better performance.

Jaguar don't have higher payload and range, it's payload and range is very much similar to LCA MK-1. And thrust for DPS! Hell! Jaguars, even with two engines don't have even 70% of the thrust of single engined MK-1.

Deltas are very much capable of sea skimming and bombing at sea level was never a problem for delta.

ADA asked to decrease the payload by 500Kg only to reach to SRT target something which is of no significance in DPS.

The radar is second to MKI only until 2012, when the first Mirage and Mig-29 upgrades start coming in. Also, digital FCS does not mean DPS capability. Also, Jaguar is an operational aircraft while Mk1 is development aircraft. Perhaps LCA Mk2 and later AMCA will replace Jaguar.

No, Mig-29's and Mirage 2000's radar doesn't beats LCA's. They can best be comparable while Mirage's having only slightly better. That's all, nothing else. By the way unlike these upgraded jets LCA is already in and unlike mentioned which will have to be re-certified.

Er. If you have been driving a car and then you switch to another car, it's fine. Butif you have been driving a car and then are asked to switch to a truck, its going to make a huge difference. If our top guns end up flying development aircraft for the next 6 years then woe be us. 40 pilots with Mk1 and then another 40 pilots for Mk2, they will not be called for major war operations at all, for the next 6 years. Then they will need another 3 to 4 years to learn all the nuances of the aircraft before they contribute to any war efforts. So, 10 years gone. MKI is the same. Not to mention 20 pilots required for MRCA as well. So, by 2015 we will have lost nearly 50 to 60 pilots in development tests.

I am not talking cars here. Replacement is very much the compulsion and nobody can't do much with that. And it's to your belief that MK-1 will be developmental platform for six years and if posted Top guns will be wasted. Its been eight years to MKI induction and jet has jet completed its ASR target. Does it means that all these years 60-80 pilots of IAF were of no use? MK-1 has some specific roles to fulfill and pilots will train for that. When its upgraded version will get ready these pilots (already understanding nature of jet) will adapt themselves for additional features just like Mig-29U pilots will have to when their jets will get converted to Mig-29M2.

The point is it has a higher SFC than F-404. The point is IAF said F-404 is not enough.

But only at some specific thrust. And like i said earlier design optimization in Mk-1 is already going to create some room which will be used for storing additional fuel.

The F-16s and F-15s getting conformals are not going to perform air superiority missions. They are for delivering strike packages. IAF will never accept a conformal fuel tanks any day of the week.

Changing the landing gear is completely different from Confromal fuel tanks. There is a 100% chance of affecting aerodynamics negatively.

Yes but like it is mentioned these are conformal tanks and are something which can be removed and can be attached depending on mission requirement. By the way some reasons IAF is interested in F-16 Block 70 -- the jets with conformal tanks-- and i don't think they have made it specific in RFP that they don'y want want conformal tanks.

The NG is an entirely new platform. It has 10 hardpoints compared to 7 hardpoints on the Gripen C/D. Then NG will have greater than 40% fuel load. Gripen NG will have an entirely new engine which will use that fuel to power more avionics. NG will have a larger fuselage so it can carry more avionics. LCA Mk1 or Gripen C/D cannot hope to compete with the NG. He wasn't clear with what can go on the Gripen C/D. They could add a less capable AESA radar and perhaps the IRST with new communication electronics. There is nothing to indicate the Gripen C/D will have 40% extra fuel and 3 extra hardpoints. Converting Gripen C/D to Gripen NG is Impossible.

NG is not entirely a new platform airframe wise. Even if it is, who cares if same modification can be done in C/D. And when a SAAB official with high status says "......all these changes can go into C/D as modification and updates" i don't see any reason left to debate "if it can or it can't".

Also, Gripen C/D already has more electronics and also a higher fuel load compared to LCA Mk1.

Still all its electronics are fully operation. And interestingly Mk-1 is having little less but same engine so natural to assume that everything is operational.

It is a requirement for the WSO to be capable of piloting the MKI. He has full pilot controls. But when there is an air battle going on the younger guy in front will be the one flying the plane.

The point was, pilots have not forgotten dog fighting skills and since they are still flying then certainly not. And AFA is starting WSO course. Expecting these Mig-21 pilots now MKI WSO getting posted to MKIs and operationalizing it asap. Nothing surprising in MKI ace CO get posted to LCA.

Do you know how many pilots we are going to lose in all that. Nearly 60 pilots in the next 5 years. This is the first time for any Air force. And you also want to add Jaguars to the mix. We are upgrading 60 jaguars to Darin 3. Do you want all 60 pilots to fly development aircraft?

Lose! for you. Transition to new type is a controlled process and carried out in a manner that operational capability remains intact, even multiples but not decrease. Had your 'LOSE' assertional been anywhere close to truth no Air force in world would have been inducting any new jet.

Our MRCA ASR for radar is 120km for a 3m2 RCS. Anybody will be laughing their azzez off if you suggest a low cost fighter has a radar that actually matches the performance of the MRCA fighters. I checked the LCA radar parameters. The 150km is actually the "maximum range." It means the LCA will only detect a 5m2 target in ranges of 70 to 90km which is the most realistic figure.

This is called prejudice. There is no where written that a low cost fighter whose price is not fixed can't have a much capable MMR. In fact LCA MMR is better than what post up-gradation Mig-29s will be getting.

You are underestimating the enemies capabilities with superior aircraft and overestimating our own capability with an inferior platform. If you really think we have to engage the enemies older fighters with a larger number of newer fighters then there is something seriously wrong. That's why IAF has asked for LCA Mk2, to even the odds.

LCA MK-1 is inferior to you. As far as IAF is concerned they are inducting more and that means they see it perfectly capable of doing what they what it to do. And again that number factor is for ideal condition. Everywhere in the world no matter how capable your jet is, you always try to engage enemy at your advantage and this advantaged includes includes 'number advantage'.

Huh! When did I say LCA can blow up the F-16 let alone Block 52?

You did said R-77 is more capable than AIM-120C and Mig-29's radar with 120KM is also to F-16 Block 52's. Similarly LCA MK-1 with equivalent or better radar and same R-77 is also equally capable even more because of its smaller RCS.

3KVA is actually 600W at pf of 20% or 1.2KW at 40%. It's not 2.4KW.

That doesn't undermines the fact that LCA's MMR has a range of 150KM against 5m2 in contrast to upgraded Mig-29's ZHUK ME whose max head on range in 120KN against 5m2.

Gripen can actually fill IAF's ASR from 1985. It surpasses ASR in flight regime. Also, they delivered in 1996 which was 14 years from their start date.

Gripen is better and may be overkill but with it we would not have been able to create an aerospace industry boosting to manufacture M-MRCAs. In contrast with MK-1 we did created that industry and also fulfilled need.

You cannot give a modern futuristic air force an aircraft with technologies from 1985 in 2010.

As long as IAF buys who cares?

It's not really difficult. Jaguar is getting the same upgrade. You change the internal bus to 1553B and you have open architecture.

But the reply was in answer to "LCA MK-1 is as per 1985 ASR" and i don't believe in deviating way far.

So, deliver a fighter capable of doing all that and not just look good on paper.

You believe that but not IAF. IAF instead says MK-1 is very advanced replacement of Mig-21s and they are buying. Enough for me.

LCA needs to be a success for it to be dependable. We have taken 20 years to develop an aircraft that will be equal to the 1996 Gripen A only in 2012.

As long as it fulfills certain requirements of IAF i don't care.

Everything. Other than airframe advantage, it will have more capable A2G capability including the same or similar avionics compared to Mk1. It will also have AMRAAMs and WVR missiles. Raytheon is bidding for sale of Mission computers AMRAAM and Aim-9x. Let's not forget a radar that is similar to LCA Mk1s.

HaHa! First let Jaguar get as much thrust as MK-1 and then we will discuss rest. By the way it's ASRAM a WVRAAM not AMRAM which is being proposed as replacement to matra WVRAAM.

When you enter the 21st century you need capable aircraft. This in no way means the IAF will replace Jaguars with Mk1. The Jaguars will still have a lot of life in them until AMCA is ready. We built them after 1979 anyway. So, they have a similar life time as Mirage-2000.

Let the time tell. All i am seeing is re-engining plan getting delayed and IAF ordering second squadron of Mk-1.

That's a sacrifice any air force will always make for reliability.

Reliability is a trade off for new capability but only to certain extent. There is a time tested procedure for new induction and replacement. And IAF will not be doing it for first time.

No. Jaguar has better range and payload capacity along with airframe advantage at sea level. LCA is only good at high altitudes.

No it doesn't have any advantage other than so-called reliability. And DELTA is equally good at low altitudes, all they lack relatively good dog fighting capability at low altitude which a jet like LCA makes up by unstable design.

The Mirage-2000 had those in 1985.

But it didn't fulfilled IAF ASR neither did it helped in creating any indigenous capability. A capability which helped IAF in upgrading Jagaurs and Mig-27s to handling entire construction of fighter as complex as MKI with substantial amount of indigenous content.

They will be retiring those aircraft while we will be inducting those aircraft. LCA's specs was good enough for 90s and 2000s. Even if ADA had delivered by 2006 with kaveri, it would have made sense.

As far as i know PAF is inducting JF-17 (a jet which is far inferior to LCA) and PLAAF is inducting J-10 a jet which is technologically not a inch ahead of LCA. As long as IAF maintains superiority over enemy with LCA who cares.

The only aircraft LCA beats in all parameters will be JF-17.

And this aircraft makes almost half the PAF. PAF is not inducting it just for shake of having it they are buying it for war. And there LCA Mk-1 will counter it. Enough reasons to buy more LCA Mk-1s.

We will be inducting 5th gen technology when the MRCA comes. If IAF makes compromises on state of the art, its fine. But why should IAF make compromises on technology that is being retired by other air forces. Heck, when we induct the MRCA fighters our aircraft will be more advanced than the ones the OEM user countries use. It will be like how MKI was better than anything Russia had.

MK-1 even today is every bit state of the art that is why IAF is inducting. IAF doesn't need to buy considering imaginary threat, all they need is to tackle is strength of its enemy and MK-1 adequately helps in building that capablity.

Counting on your logic, by time we will be inducting 5th generation fighter those M-MRCAs will be no more be state of the art. In fact very comparable aircrafts to these European M-MRCA will be signing off from many airforces.

We will be using Israel's already existing AESA radar on the LCA Mk2, atleast initially. Also, AESA is not required until 2016 for IOC or 2015 for tests. If we manage that by 2015, then we are almost there. If LCA Mk2 is a new airframe, then we are just one step behind our counterparts(and that's in delivery). IAF has been asking for that and ADA still shoves the 80s LCA on to them.

All said, what is planned. Cheers for that.

I hardly think one sea level test failure would mean IAF will ask for engine change. you are giving IAF too much credit. There will be a whole host of reasons for engine change and that includes avionics.

Failing to attain supersonic speed by a supersonic fighter is a bloody big thing. And speaks negatively on acceleration, payload, range, climb rate etc. Enough reasons to ask for new high thrust engine. But when same jet with same engine crosses supersonic speed a lot of positive signs emerges on said parameters.

The F-16 was state of the art. No other airforce had an equivalent at the time.

Yet it did not stood upto wildly claimed "Guaranteed Performance" tag.

ADA has to deliver a LCA Mk2 or F-16 Block 60 equivalent in 2016. It's called reinventing the wheel. IAF can choose Block 60 3 years quicker than LCA Mk2 even gets IOC. But IAF is willing to wait for Mk2. You cannot even compared MK2 to Mk1, atleast on paper. So, why Mk1?

It is also called building up indigenous capability. And yes, IAF can buy them tomorrow as they have bought M-MRCA.

LCA in 2012 will be a 4th gen fighter, not a 4.5++. It won't even be a 4.5gen. LCA Mk1 doe snot have any room for upgrades. It will always remain 4th gen. 2012 is a lot closer to 2015 than 2006. LCA Mk2 will not be 4.5th gen until 2016, and that's after FOC of Mk2. So, he is perfectly right. Heck IAF predicted LCA will not be a success until after 2015. And they were right.

I did't said LCA in 2012 will be 4.5++ generation fighter. And 'upgarding' also means replacing old, heavier with new, more efficient yet light weight replacements. In fact except AESA almost every thing will get light weighted replacement and can also be smaller in size to their predecessors.

Still I see 1600 T-90s being inducted and only 370 Arjuns. That's a token number for a MBT.

From 124 it got raised to 248. Only god knows what's in the future.

The article does not talk of misappropriation of funds. It only says the General used wrong procedures for acquiring tents. There is nothing to indicate the General sold those tents for his personal profit.

You didn't researched, right? I can't help much when you choose not to do. I am not interested in off topic post and i don't like to bring repeated mention to black side. Despite i am posting another hint.

Better out of existing is fine. But it has come with even greater prices. ADA's false promises backlogged LCA's procurement policy for nearly 30 years. Had there been a war we would have been in a lot of trouble. We were just lucky PAF was in an even bigger hole than IAF.

Only ADA? Huh! IAF trying to buy all important, all required so state of the art the M-MRCA for last 5 years and only thing that they know today is "at least 5 more years". Shifting the blame and watching the game. Unlike LCA which helped India in becoming any kind of significant aeronautical player the M-MRCAs are not going to help to anything beyond fastening the screw and tightening the bolt. What more, it is ADA because of which we are capable today of boasting about absorbing M-MRCA TOT by 100% .

 

[Godless-Kafir]

How does the unit cost of Tejas compare with other Aircraft in its segment? Can anyone post a comparison of prices? The 200crore per aircraft sounds a bit too high for an Indian Aircraft?

 

[p2prada]

Jaguar don't have higher payload and range, it's payload and range is very much similar to LCA MK-1. And thrust for DPS! Hell! Jaguars, even with two engines don't have even 70% of the thrust of single engined MK-1.

You are talking about the Adours. The new Honeywell engines will give a combined power of ~90KN. It's enough for DPS along with self protection capability using AMRAAMs and Sidewinders. LCAs role calls for more power. LCA isn't meant for DPS at all. The new engines also allow for improved performance in low and medium altitudes. LCA is primarily meant for high altitude warfare.

Deltas are very much capable of sea skimming and bombing at sea level was never a problem for delta.

Deltas don't do well in low altitudes. It is a well recognized problems of the delta. It's the very reason why other deltas have Canards or LERX.

ADA asked to decrease the payload by 500Kg only to reach to SRT target something which is of no significance in DPS.

That affects munitions carrying capability. Let's not forget LCAs primary directive is point defence. It is not meant to handle DPS. It can probably surpass Mig-27, but not Jaguar.

No, Mig-29's and Mirage 2000's radar doesn't beats LCA's. They can best be comparable while Mirage's having only slightly better. That's all, nothing else. By the way unlike these upgraded jets LCA is already in and unlike mentioned which will have to be re-certified.

Ok. I will give you the benefit of the doubt for now with Mig-29. A-11 will shed more light on MMR. But M-2000, I don't think so.

I am not talking cars here. Replacement is very much the compulsion and nobody can't do much with that. And it's to your belief that MK-1 will be developmental platform for six years and if posted Top guns will be wasted. Its been eight years to MKI induction and jet has jet completed its ASR target. Does it means that all these years 60-80 pilots of IAF were of no use? MK-1 has some specific roles to fulfill and pilots will train for that. When its upgraded version will get ready these pilots (already understanding nature of jet) will adapt themselves for additional features just like Mig-29U pilots will have to when their jets will get converted to Mig-29M2.

Giving up pilots for development aircraft is fine. But we will be rushing this for 3 new platforms in a period of 5 years. This has never happened in the world with tech driven aircraft. There was always a gestation period between new platforms. Mig-29 to Mig-29 does not even compute. They are the same platforms.

But only at some specific thrust. And like i said earlier design optimization in Mk-1 is already going to create some room which will be used for storing additional fuel.

That's too much packing for the tiniest internal space in any new combat aircraft.

Yes but like it is mentioned these are conformal tanks and are something which can be removed and can be attached depending on mission requirement. By the way some reasons IAF is interested in F-16 Block 70 -- the jets with conformal tanks-- and i don't think they have made it specific in RFP that they don'y want want conformal tanks.

The LCA can handle a dog fight for 5 minutes only, at the current specs or 30 minutes of flight time at 10000 metres. Adding a more powerful engine without more fuel at combat load would mean sacrificing time.

NG is not entirely a new platform airframe wise. Even if it is, who cares if same modification can be done in C/D. And when a SAAB official with high status says "......all these changes can go into C/D as modification and updates" i don't see any reason left to debate "if it can or it can't".

NG is a whole new platform. The Gripen C/D may have new digital cockpits with touch screen, IRST, helmeted mounted display and perhaps an AESA-lite. It's not going to have the F-414, 40% increased fuel, increased payload(7tons from previous 4 tons) and increased weapons stations(10 from 7). It's pretty much a whole new aircraft. Like Super Hornet or Mig-35.

Still all its electronics are fully operation. And interestingly Mk-1 is having little less but same engine so natural to assume that everything is operational.

Design optimization will be the key. Just because they did it does not mean we can too. The Gripen C/D has more fuel load compared to LCA. Even if we do it, the technology is still from the 80s. Both Gripen and LCA have similar avionics.

The point was, pilots have not forgotten dog fighting skills and since they are still flying then certainly not. And AFA is starting WSO course. Expecting these Mig-21 pilots now MKI WSO getting posted to MKIs and operationalizing it asap. Nothing surprising in MKI ace CO get posted to LCA.

Basic fighting maneuvers will be the same. But it's the advanced combat maneuvers that have to be perfected and its different on each platform. For eg: F-16 will utilize superior turn rate while Mirage-2000 will use diving techniques. There are hundreds of techniques to be perfected. Also, Jaguars are a whole different game. They are difficult to fly. And the pilots we have are really good. So, good in fact that inducting Mk1 as replacement would be insane.

Lose! for you. Transition to new type is a controlled process and carried out in a manner that operational capability remains intact, even multiples but not decrease. Had your 'LOSE' assertional been anywhere close to truth no Air force in world would have been inducting any new jet.

Ok. Tell me which air force in the world has inducted or will be inducting 3 different platforms within 5 years and testing all of them at squadron level?

This is called prejudice. There is no where written that a low cost fighter whose price is not fixed can't have a much capable MMR. In fact LCA MMR is better than what post up-gradation Mig-29s will be getting.

We don't know that. We don't have any information about the resolution of the LCA radar nor about its antijam capability. The 120km for Mig-29 is very close to real life information. If an aircraft like Mig-29k is pitted against the LCA, there is no way the LCA will be able to fight off the Mig-29s jammer as well as be able to consistently track it nor can it break the Mig-29s track information as easily. So, there is a difference between specs and real life applications.

If the Mig-29 tracks and launches BVR at LCA and if LCA does the same. The probability of Mig-29's jammer breaking LCA tracking freq is higher because of the ability of the Mig-29 to spit out more power. This is nearly nullified once they merge, but the specs do not consider EW environment.

The MKI is said to have a large RCS. But pit a LCA against it, there is no way the LCA will be able to detect or track the MKI even at 100kms because of the MKIs HUGE jamming capability. I am not saying LCA is meant to fight off the MKI. But trying to compare a single engined aircraft's capabilities against twin engines is really difficult without knowing anything except range.

LCA MK-1 is inferior to you. As far as IAF is concerned they are inducting more and that means they see it perfectly capable of doing what they what it to do. And again that number factor is for ideal condition. Everywhere in the world no matter how capable your jet is, you always try to engage enemy at your advantage and this advantaged includes includes 'number advantage'.

40 jets isn't a numbers advantage. Anyway I see a lot of hidden arm twisting. Look at the figure of development costs and number of aircraft bought. Phase 1 costed $450Million while the first set of 20 aircraft costed $450Million. IOC to FOC will cost the same so another $500Million for the next 20 aircraft. FOC to production is obviously not happening unless there's more arm twisting. The ACM should have been happy on the day of IOC.

You did said R-77 is more capable than AIM-120C and Mig-29's radar with 120KM is also to F-16 Block 52's. Similarly LCA MK-1 with equivalent or better radar and same R-77 is also equally capable even more because of its smaller RCS.

The F-16 delivers more power. If it comes to merge, the LCA will have to fly like Gripen in order to stand up to the F-16 Block 52. Not happening. Gripen is not called the most agile fighter for nothing.

Gripen is better and may be overkill but with it we would not have been able to create an aerospace industry boosting to manufacture M-MRCAs. In contrast with MK-1 we did created that industry and also fulfilled need.

I am not down playing our industry. I want our industry to succeed. But it should not come at the cost of our air force and force level. Nearly 30 years without an aircraft purchase is damning. Anybody could tell you that. We were simply lucky that nothing happened.

HaHa! First let Jaguar get as much thrust as MK-1 and then we will discuss rest. By the way it's ASRAM a WVRAAM not AMRAM which is being proposed as replacement to matra WVRAAM.

90KN is enough for jaguar's mission profile. Also, the Raytheon MCU has already been contracted. Weapons contract is yet to be signed. So, we will soon know what.

No it doesn't have any advantage other than so-called reliability. And DELTA is equally good at low altitudes, all they lack relatively good dog fighting capability at low altitude which a jet like LCA makes up by unstable design.

Bombing required diving. It's a lot tougher at low altitudes for Delta. Without Canards or LERX it gets even tougher.

But it didn't fulfilled IAF ASR neither did it helped in creating any indigenous capability. A capability which helped IAF in upgrading Jagaurs and Mig-27s to handling entire construction of fighter as complex as MKI with substantial amount of indigenous content.

Mirage-2000 helped win a war. That's more than enough. It has helped in what it was meant to do. Fight. As for indigenous capability. You are still stuck at that. We still don't have proven indigenous capability even now, even after 20 years of LCA.

As far as i know PAF is inducting JF-17 (a jet which is far inferior to LCA) and PLAAF is inducting J-10 a jet which is technologically not a inch ahead of LCA. As long as IAF maintains superiority over enemy with LCA who cares.

Ironic isn't it. LCA needs other foreign aircraft to maintain superiority. Heck, replace with Gripen and it will not need any help at all against anything PLAAF or PAF throws at it. Surprisingly Gripen is a similar class of aircraft.

And this aircraft makes almost half the PAF. PAF is not inducting it just for shake of having it they are buying it for war. And there LCA Mk-1 will counter it. Enough reasons to buy more LCA Mk-1s.

Counter substandard aircraft with more substandard aircraft.

Counting on your logic, by time we will be inducting 5th generation fighter those M-MRCAs will be no more be state of the art. In fact very comparable aircrafts to these European M-MRCA will be signing off from many airforces.

Yes. But we are faaar away from getting any kind of 5th gen aircraft so soon. The closest date for 5th gen is Russia in 2020 and then our AMCA in 2025.

All said, what is planned. Cheers for that.

The last I heard, ADA is still finding it difficult to maintain schedule.

Failing to attain supersonic speed by a supersonic fighter is a bloody big thing. And speaks negatively on acceleration, payload, range, climb rate etc. Enough reasons to ask for new high thrust engine. But when same jet with same engine crosses supersonic speed a lot of positive signs emerges on said parameters.

You don't get the point. If the engine used was Kaveri then a failure would be a big thing. But we were testing on a proven engine from GE. It means we fu*ked with the airframe which just needed to be fixed. This is called a teething problem. There was no problem with the engine to necessitate an engine change.

Yet it did not stood upto wildly claimed "Guaranteed Performance" tag.

What are you basing all of this on? The F-16 is a proven platform. On what basis are you ridiculing it. The F-16s done really well in all the wars it has fought in.

http://www.google.co.in/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=Total+number+of+F-16+crashes
The F-16 continues to be the safest single-engine fighter and safest multirole fighter in USAF history," said June Shrewsbury, vice president, F-16 Programs, at Lockheed Martin Aeronautics.

It is also called building up indigenous capability. And yes, IAF can buy them tomorrow as they have bought M-MRCA.

Huh! So, it HAS to come at cost of operational capability. Nice.

I did't said LCA in 2012 will be 4.5++ generation fighter. And 'upgarding' also means replacing old, heavier with new, more efficient yet light weight replacements. In fact except AESA almost every thing will get light weighted replacement and can also be smaller in size to their predecessors.

So what if they are smaller? It does not mean increased capability.

From 124 it got raised to 248. Only god knows what's in the future.

Early retirement. That's all. Lt General Bharadwaj said Arjun inductions will not be more than 250. Heck it has a old dinosaur gun and does not even have the ability to fire Lahat.

Even the 50 ton Arjun Mk2 will see only 124 tanks. The same time, the initial requirement of T-90 was ~350+~350+1000. That's a tank deal.

You didn't researched, right? I can't help much when you choose not to do. I am not interested in off topic post and i don't like to bring repeated mention to black side. Despite i am posting another hint.

Even that does not accuse Gen Deepak Kapoor of stealing. It only says there were discrepancies in procurement regarding tents. Rather it accuses some Maj and Lt Gens in scams completely unrelated to Arjun.

Only ADA? Huh! IAF trying to buy all important, all required so state of the art the M-MRCA for last 5 years and only thing that they know today is "at least 5 more years". Shifting the blame and watching the game. Unlike LCA which helped India in becoming any kind of significant aeronautical player the M-MRCAs are not going to help to anything beyond fastening the screw and tightening the bolt. What more, it is ADA because of which we are capable today of boasting about absorbing M-MRCA TOT by 100% .

India is not an aeronautical player. One plane project that is still not completed does not make you a player. IAF only buys planes, Indian or Foreign. For now the foreign planes are better than anything Indian.

Also ADA has nothing to do with India's capabilities to absorb MMRCA. All credit goes to HAL for having built over 600 aircraft to achieve the capability. HAL started off with HF-24 Marut and Mig-21. Then moved on to Jaguar and then MKI. If you have forgotten it is HAL which is Sukhoi's partner in FGFA not ADA. They kept building foreign aircraft to the point they are now building a complex fighter like MKI from scratch including the AL-31FP turbofans. That's no joke. So, they are the ones who should get the credit.

 

[p2prada]

How does the unit cost of Tejas compare with other Aircraft in its segment? Can anyone post a comparison of prices? The 200crore per aircraft sounds a bit too high for an Indian Aircraft?

Second most expensive. Right behind Gripen C/D. Gripen was $30Million only 2 years ago though. So, you could say they pretty much cost the same as LCA's development program is still not complete and price escalation is always a possibility.

 

[Neil]

Why does the Indian Air Force need Light Combat Aircraft?

The much awaited Light combat aircraft (LCA) Tejas, being developed by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL), has received its initial operational clearance certificate and has been inducted into the Indian Air Force(IAF). The Indian navy, too, is expected to purchase few of these aircrafts. The LCA will be an important entity in the Indian Air Force and will enhance the Indian Defence aviation capabilities. As we already know that the Indian Air Force is the fourth largest air force in the world .It currently has a strength of 1,322 aircrafts, including 680 combat aircrafts and 305 helicopters, and operates a total of 34 squadrons.

Most of the IAF's 797 fighter jets are of Soviet/Russian origin. These include the Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21, Mikoyan MiG-27, Mikoyan MiG-29 as well as the Sukhoi Su-30MKI. Moreover there are the Anglo-French SEPECAT Jaguar and French Mirage 2000 aircraft.

The principal and most obvious goal of LCA Tejas was the development of a suitable replacement aircraft for India's aging MiG-21 fighters. The MiG-21 has been the mainstay of the Indian Air Force since the 1970s. The "Long Term Re-Equipment Plan 1981"³ noted that the MiG-21s would be approaching the end of their service lives by the mid-1990s, and that by 1995 the IAF would lack 40% of the aircraft needed to fill its projected force structure requirements. The IAF had initially planned to replace the MiG-21 fleet with HAL Tejas (LCA) aircraft by 2006 , however there was a delay and finally we see the LCA inducted into the IAF.

The LCA programme's other main objective was to serve as the vehicle for an across-the-board advancement of India's domestic aerospace industry. The value of the aerospace "self-reliance" initiative is not simply the production of an aircraft, but also the building of a local industry capable of creating state-of-the-art products with commercial spin-offs for a global market. The LCA program was intended in part to further expand and advance India's indigenous aerospace capabilities.


This induction of LCA Tejas into the IAF can give us some joy , however the IAF and navy both intend to carry out some more tests and only time will tell if LCA Tejas will actually fulfil the role it was built for – to replace the aging MiGs. A reality check reveals some serious facts about LCA Tejas . For instance, the LCA has been in the making for 27 long years. The initial budget was Rs 560 crore , and it has spirally increased to over Rs 15,000 crore. Also 40% of the components required for the LCA are imported, including the most important engine. The Indian engine, named Kaveri, was a failure and hence General Electric F414 was used.

Ironically, even as India is trying to make the LCA Tejas a state-of-the-art fighter aircraft, few would have missed the fact that just a few days ago, China unveiled its futuristic stealth aircraft the J-20. India's defence production is still in its infancy and a major shift is required if India has to make its defence equipment comparable to the best in the world.


http://www.defenceaviation.com/2011...aign=Feed:+DefenceAviation+(Defence+Aviation)

 

[ppgj]

@p2prada

from your post # 1134

Gripen C/D has PS-05/A with only 120Km rage. Oh, i forgot Gripen NG an AESA fighter which flew in 2008 but yet to receive IOC.

But the NG IOC will be much more comprehensive than the LCA IOC.

how gripen NG IOC is "more comprehensive" than an LCA?? what are the parameters for such a statement?? is the Gripen NG god sent DEFYING laws of physics?? or man made?? can you explain what you mean by ""more comprehensive""??

.............

from your post # 1158

Except MKI's Bars no fighter in IAF has better radar than LCA MMR presently.

LCA will not be seeing the enemy anyway. So, makes no difference. Mirage-2000 and Mig-29Smt will both have superior radars by then.

hillarious. how can LCA not be seeing an enemy?? does it not have radar?? what do you know about the specs for LCA MMR?? go ahead and share.

btw have you given a thought about RCS of LCA?? do you know what it means for a BVR COMBAT?? it means the enemy will not be able to see LCA early!! IOW the LCA has the chance to get more closer to the enemy without the fear of being detected and fire it's BVR missile!! a huge advantage.

.............

from your post # 1327

Above all they had a research base for everything. The Draken was a good aircraft and the Gripen is good. but The Delta canards have their own flaws when it comes to turn reversal. Try reading the Prototype crash of the Gripen in 1993 which makes you understand why delta canards if not designed for airflow turbulence can lead to autorotation. If you see Rafale and EF they have a totally different kind of Canard placement rather than the conventional one like the J 10 or the Gripen. The Rafale has a blended canard and the EF has a canted canard.

Our discussion has nothing to do with Canards. There are flaws to every aircraft design but we cannot stick to just that. Even with a "flawed" delta canards design, the Gripen still flies better than LCA.

which gripen?? NG is a paper plane like LCA mark 2. they only have a prototype. if you compare LCA mark 1 to Gripen C/D - which would be correct, then what is your data point on which you declare Gripen flies better than LCA?? can you present your analysis by comparing specs and data??

..............

from your post # 1335

Full TOT! Don't say you don't know what it means by Indian definition. Anyway ToT doesn't allows you to produce unauthorized numbers and OEM always makes sure it can't happen.

However, we some how managed to fix LGBs on Mirage-2000 and bring them down effectively in Kargil in less than one month. Best part, Mirage-2000's new configuration was not even in the drawing board before the war started.

This is an overrated excuse. During war OEM is out to prove its hardware. They will give all the help possible.

and then you go on to say -

from your post #1396

France stopped us from modifying the Mirages to drop LGB while kargil war was on. They stopped the spare supplies too.

It was for a very tiny period. France never stopped us modifying the aircraft because the aircraft was eventually modified. Stopping spares supplies for 4 weeks isn't a big deal.

are you serious?? do you know how long the kargill war endured?? check what you said in post # 1335 - ".....Kargil in less than one month". if a foreign OEM can screw you for 4 weeks - which is pretty much how long kargill war endured - it is the end of the story!!!

in a war even a week's supply going haywire can be catastrohic.

and then you go on to say this -

from your post # 1415

Mirage-2000Hs very much had 'ATLIS' laser designation pod and Matra 1000Lb LGBs before Kargil. Only thing IAF did was managing things together. They even had Pavaway II kits which they fixed on existing 1000LB bombs. Even Israel is said to have great hand in that.

Israel did everything.

contradicting your own observation in post # 1335. why so much confusion??

here is how it happened -

The Mirage 2000 were supplied with Thomson-CSF Laser Designator Pod, known as 'ATLIS' which was capable of delivery of Matra 1000 kg LGBs, which were purpose built for destruction of reinforced targets. These weapons were highly capable but were very expensive. It was decided to augment their capability by adding the 1000 lb bomb coupled with Paveway II laser-guided bomb kit. The IAF had ordered a number of these, but they had been supplied with an incorrect part. Because of the nuclear test performed by India, they were on the embargo list and were unable to get the correct parts sent as replacements. Consequently IAF technicians had to remanufacture this part in order to make the Paveway serviceable for use on the Mirage.

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/History/Kargil/PCamp.html

...............

from your post # 1503

Originally Posted by Rahul Singh

I am not suggesting to throw Jaguars away, but to divert the money going for re-engining and procuring new towards MK-1 which can do DPS as well as air defence.

The Mk1 does not have the kind of engine power required to do DPS work as well as air defence. You cannot have Delta bombing at sea level. Also, Jaguar already has a higher payload and range than LCA mk1. So, how can it be better? ADA was suggesting decreasing LCA Mk1's payload by 500kgs to give better performance.

and then you go on to say in the next part of your reply

No, MK-1 has every bit radical inside when you compare it with half the IAF. It is only third jet with digital FCS in IAF and will bring radical reduction in number of crashes due to Pilot errors. Second, the Radar abroad MK-1 is second only to MKIs. Third, it is the first platform in the IAF to have composite airframe in that percentage. Not to mention how composite airframe because of its strength reduces airframe check time radically and low check time automatically means more availability.

The radar is second to MKI only until 2012, when the first Mirage and Mig-29 upgrades start coming in. Also, digital FCS does not mean DPS capability. Also, Jaguar is an operational aircraft while Mk1 is development aircraft. Perhaps LCA Mk2 and later AMCA will replace Jaguar.

check the highlighted part. in the first part you say LCA can't replace Jaguar due to it's delta design and then say in the next part LCA mark 2 perhaps will!!! is LCA mark 2 not a delta platform??

 

[p2prada]

@p2prada

from your post # 1134
how gripen NG IOC is "more comprehensive" than an LCA?? what are the parameters for such a statement?? is the Gripen NG god sent DEFYING laws of physics?? or man made?? can you explain what you mean by ""more comprehensive""??

Huh! Gripen already surpasses LCA in flight regime. Gripen NG will obviously surpass even LCA by a huge margin.

hillarious. how can LCA not be seeing an enemy?? does it not have radar?? what do you know about the specs for LCA MMR?? go ahead and share.

Electronic Warfare mate. If the enemy has a big Jammer attached to them, then you gotta take that into consideration before trying to figure out the actual RCS of the enemy aircraft against your own. Once they merge the aircraft's radar will deliver more power to beat the jammer, but at longer ranges the jammer mostly wins.

btw have you given a thought about RCS of LCA?? do you know what it means for a BVR COMBAT?? it means the enemy will not be able to see LCA early!! IOW the LCA has the chance to get more closer to the enemy without the fear of being detected and fire it's BVR missile!! a huge advantage.

Even if you consider RCS of LCA to be 1m2 the fact that once you add weapons on to it will push it past 5m2 RCS. So, no comparison there. As long as the weapons and stations are not hidden RCS is meaningless considering radar technology has improved.

The only aircraft that is known to have beaten the Raptor's sensors and come behind it in a shooting position in a real life drill was the EA-18G Growler. All because of EW. So RCS does not matter as much as EW does.

which gripen?? NG is a paper plane like LCA mark 2. they only have a prototype. if you compare LCA mark 1 to Gripen C/D - which would be correct, then what is your data point on which you declare Gripen flies better than LCA?? can you present your analysis by comparing specs and data??

According to your post, LCA will have an AoA of 35degrees. Gripen already does 50degrees. It already does Mach 2 and also can carry more than LCA at combat load without affecting performance as badly as the LCA. LCA is stated to possibly match Mirage-2000 after FOC. Gripen C/D already outmatches Mirage-2000 in every parameter except speed. Gripen, owing to its delta wing and less engine power is just behind the F-16 in turn rates. The Gripen NG is supposed to do much more.

are you serious?? do you know how long the kargill war endured?? check what you said in post # 1335 - ".....Kargil in less than one month". if a foreign OEM can screw you for 4 weeks - which is pretty much how long kargill war endured - it is the end of the story!!!

Isn't it possible IAF orders spares before hand to counter any eventuality? Do you really think IAF orders spares only a week before a war starts? Don't you realize spares orders are given constantly throughout a year and that IAF can indeed fight a longer war than Kargil without spares supplies?

Also this is no longer applicable considering spares will be manufactured in India itself. If we choose any non-American aircraft or Gripen(because of F414) we can actually supply spares to the OEMs in the long run including engine spares.

in a war even a week's supply going haywire can be catastrohic.

Right. *shakes head*

contradicting your own observation in post # 1335. why so much confusion??

here is how it happened -

Firstly you have to understand that we dropped only 9 LGBs with one on Jaguar. Secondly the effect of LGBs in Kargil was more symbolic and a morale booster than provide any real value to the war.
Thirdly, IAF may have remanufactured some part on French supplied LGBs(100 were supplied), I will give you the benefit of the doubt.

Lastly and Most Importantly, none of the French supplied LGBs were used in the war. Only Israeli supplied LGBs were used(100 were supplied). So, your point of contention is a FAIL.

check the highlighted part. in the first part you say LCA can't replace Jaguar due to it's delta design and then say in the next part LCA mark 2 perhaps will!!! is LCA mark 2 not a delta platform??

One you made the mistake of believing LCA Mk1 = LCA Mk2. Also, you consider LCA Mk2 to be a direct replacement for Jaguars. I just gave it as an option or a possibility. IAF and ADA considered only making the AMCA as a direct replacement to the Jaguars. So, if anything goes wrong with the Jaguar during the re-engine program, the LCA Mk2 can be used to fill the void until AMCA comes. "Perhaps" you missed reading the word "Perhaps" in the sentence I used.

http://www.google.co.in/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=Perhaps
per·haps/pərˈ(h)aps/Adverb
1. Used to express uncertainty or possibility:

The I said "later" for inductions. Later means 100% possibility of something happening, only later in time.
later on - happening at a time subsequent to a reference time

So read the sentence again and trying to discern it for yourself.

Second you made the mistake of considering AMCA as a Delta wing because reports consider it to be more Trapezoidal than Delta like F-35. So, I don't have to explain this because AMCA will not be a Delta. That I can give a guarantee. ADA formally announced AMCA will be a strike aircraft until IAF intervened. So, you can expect AMCA to be more devoted to strike like the F-35.

Therefore, Jaguars cannot be replaced by LCA mk1. Which was the original point of contention to Rahul's posts.

 

[ppgj]

Huh! Gripen already surpasses LCA in flight regime. Gripen NG will obviously surpass even LCA by a huge margin.

this sort of a wishy-washy answer was expected from you. i asked you specifically - because you asserted - what you mean by "more comprehensive"?? what would be part of the Gripen C IOC and Gripen NG IOC that won't be part of the LCA IOC?? any specific thing??

and since you keep batting for gripen NG inspite of it being a tech demo, and when even IOC has not been accorded to it - which means it is still a "in development aircraft" and since you have a problem with an "in development aircraft" that they can not be inducted for "waste of manpower" to validate them - a point, you hold against LCA, how do you expect it to be inducted by any force?? you want to skip both IOC and FOC and declare it "combat ready"??

Electronic Warfare mate. If the enemy has a big Jammer attached to them, then you gotta take that into consideration before trying to figure out the actual RCS of the enemy aircraft against your own. Once they merge the aircraft's radar will deliver more power to beat the jammer, but at longer ranges the jammer mostly wins.

well first of all all this comes into the picture when it is detected. and what you said above works both ways. my question was wrt to your assertion that "LCA will not see the enemy anyway".

and you are assuming and basing it on too many imponderables and underplaying the RCS advantage of the LCA.

1. you take it for granted LCA's EW/SPJ is not good enough against the adversaries they are likely to face.

2. what about ECM??

3. size of the LCA, the amount of composites and the RAM coat it has - meaning it has head start when it comes to RCS in a battle before being detected.

4. AWACS supported environment and supplied vectors via datalink - with radar switched off.

Even if you consider RCS of LCA to be 1m2 the fact that once you add weapons on to it will push it past 5m2 RCS. So, no comparison there. As long as the weapons and stations are not hidden RCS is meaningless considering radar technology has improved.

no body knows what would be the RCS of any aircraft.

but logically or common sensically speaking, LCA due to it's composites (transparent to incoming emissions), RAM (abosrber of incoming emissions) and size is LO though not VLO (in terms of internal weapon bays) in terms of design. hence low RCS based on facts known gives it an advantage particularly in BVR regime.

now sticking weapons to pylons will definitely increases RCS. no doubt. but the same applies to the adversaries with even bigger RCSs. so the advantage of it's RCS is still retained in combat.

The only aircraft that is known to have beaten the Raptor's sensors and come behind it in a shooting position in a real life drill was the EA-18G Growler. All because of EW. So RCS does not matter as much as EW does.

that was one off incident and i myself posted it in reply to somebody in a different thread. besides these are all simulations not something actually happened. or are you saying EA 18G will beat F 22 always??

According to your post, LCA will have an AoA of 35degrees. Gripen already does 50degrees. It already does Mach 2 and also can carry more than LCA at combat load without affecting performance as badly as the LCA. LCA is stated to possibly match Mirage-2000 after FOC.

it was B Harry's article which i posted which says LCA will have 35d AOA - which is possible in the days to come possibly with manual over ride of FBW control. however can it sustain that for long is the question. anyway it would be tested in the days to come as the envelope is opened up more and more.

Gripen surpassing 50d AOA is "unbeleivable" to say the least. some fanboy stuff i guess. no aircraft can sustain beyond 20-28d. even less IMO before they stall. in STR it is even worse for a delta - besides loss of fuel and range. all these high AOA figures are either momentary and for aero shows. even though the canard on Gripen can give it better pitch maneurability, how will it stop the stalling of the wings in an AOA maneure??

and -

..................Gripen C............LCA mark 1

WEIGHT(E)....6800kg..............6500kg

A/B THRUST...80.5KN..............85KN.

FUEL(I)........2400KG..............2486KG.

meaning Gripen C has lesser T/W ratio affecting it's accelaration, climb rate etc.. IOW less agile. and less internal fuel means less range.

so tell me how can it carry more payload than LCA mark 1 and can have higher range on internal fuel??

in short how can Gripen C/D can be better than LCA mark 1 at present??

Gripen C/D already outmatches Mirage-2000 in every parameter except speed. Gripen, owing to its delta wing and less engine power is just behind the F-16 in turn rates. The Gripen NG is supposed to do much more.

Gripen c/d surpassing Mirage 2000 in evey parameter?? you sure??

though on paper i agree Gripen NG would better Mirage 2000.

Isn't it possible IAF orders spares before hand to counter any eventuality? Do you really think IAF orders spares only a week before a war starts? Don't you realize spares orders are given constantly throughout a year and that IAF can indeed fight a longer war than Kargil without spares supplies?

you missed a broader point of "how a foreign OEM can screw us" besides the contradictions in your posts which was my point.

however no forces stack spares/ammunition which would take care of damages, attrition due to war for months because the volume is unknown. precisely why a foreign OEM needs to stand shoulder to shoulder and respect the contract. in the case of kargill it was not a full blown war. we fought in our own territory. if the war had been full blown and leading to many many months will you still hold on to the defence of the foreign OEM like you did in your posts??

how much forces generally stack up spares/ammo as "war reserve" is something Ray Sir or Kunal sir can answer.

Also this is no longer applicable considering spares will be manufactured in India itself. If we choose any non-American aircraft or Gripen(because of F414) we can actually supply spares to the OEMs in the long run including engine spares.

this is an unknown and besides the point. the point was somebody screwed us in kargill and you were justifying it saying it is "no big deal".

*shakes head*

same.

Firstly you have to understand that we dropped only 9 LGBs with one on Jaguar. Secondly the effect of LGBs in Kargil was more symbolic and a morale booster than provide any real value to the war.
Thirdly, IAF may have remanufactured some part on French supplied LGBs(100 were supplied), I will give you the benefit of the doubt.

Lastly and Most Importantly, none of the French supplied LGBs were used in the war. Only Israeli supplied LGBs were used(100 were supplied). So, your point of contention is a FAIL.

my point of contention is fail?? i gave that link to clarify on your various contradictions in your posts. first you said we did the modifications, then you said Israel did it and also you said OEM - in this case french, will support in case of a war because they are there to prove their hardware - which they did not.

coming to your 1st part above, IMO the time we had during those times was short. hence the number of Mirages they could have modified to carry the PGMs must have been meagre besides as per the link i gave you - the cost involved.

i disagree that strikes were symbolic in nature. they softened up the hills so the army could enter and retake the hills.

One you made the mistake of believing LCA Mk1 = LCA Mk2. Also, you consider LCA Mk2 to be a direct replacement for Jaguars. I just gave it as an option or a possibility.

LCA mark 1 = LCA mark 2?? when did i say it?? it is common sense mark 2 will have a greater thrust which alone will make it better than mark 1. as to the Jaguar replacement, Rahul is answering it.

as to the highlighted portion, my question to you was simple. when you are so sure that LCA mark 1 - being a delta, cannot replace Jaguar, how come even a possibilty can exist for you wrt LCA mark 2 which is also a delta??

IAF and ADA considered only making the AMCA as a direct replacement to the Jaguars. So, if anything goes wrong with the Jaguar during the re-engine program, the LCA Mk2 can be used to fill the void until AMCA comes. "Perhaps" you missed reading the word "Perhaps" in the sentence I used.

or 'perhaps' you missed reading it in my post?? this is my exact reply -

check the highlighted part. in the first part you say LCA can't replace Jaguar due to it's delta design and then say in the next part LCA mark 2 perhaps will!!! is LCA mark 2 not a delta platform??

clear??

http://www.google.co.in/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=Perhaps
per·haps/pərˈ(h)aps/Adverb
1. Used to express uncertainty or possibility:

The I said "later" for inductions. Later means 100% possibility of something happening, only later in time.
later on - happening at a time subsequent to a reference time

So read the sentence again and trying to discern it for yourself.

"perhaps" you need to read my post again!!!

Second you made the mistake of considering AMCA as a Delta wing because reports consider it to be more Trapezoidal than Delta like F-35. So, I don't have to explain this because AMCA will not be a Delta. That I can give a guarantee. ADA formally announced AMCA will be a strike aircraft until IAF intervened. So, you can expect AMCA to be more devoted to strike like the F-35.

hello..i have not even brought AMCA into the discussion.

Therefore, Jaguars cannot be replaced by LCA mk1. Which was the original point of contention to Rahul's posts.

rahul will answer that.

 

[p2prada]

this sort of a wishy-washy answer was expected from you. i asked you specifically - because you asserted - what you mean by "more comprehensive"?? what would be part of the Gripen C IOC and Gripen NG IOC that won't be part of the LCA IOC?? any specific thing??

If you are looking at specific things, first the Gripen IOC will happen much before LCA Mk2 IOC. Second, the LCA Mk2 is still on the drawing board while NG has a tech demo which is already flying. Third, the Gripen C/D is among the most advanced 4th gen platforms in the world while LCA Mk1 is still in IOC stage, which Gripen had in 1996. So, that has given Gripen 14 years to mature. Gripen A had already surpassed ASR during IOC as well as FOC.

Four, the Demo has already claimed supercruise capability. However modest it may be it shows that the airframe is already ahead of most competition including LCA. This will further improve once NG starts flying.

Lastly, the Saab website claims a lifecycle cost of Gripen C/D that is lower than the nearest competition in the present or future upcoming projects. Considering Sweden is a high income country, its ability to match it's poorer cousin, the LCA in costs is astounding.

By the time LCA Mk2 gets IOC, the Gripen NG will already be flying towards FOC and potential foreign orders. It will have AESA, IRST and most other 5th gen technologies present along with its superior airframe advantages.

and since you keep batting for gripen NG inspite of it being a tech demo, and when even IOC has not been accorded to it - which means it is still a "in development aircraft" and since you have a problem with an "in development aircraft" that they can not be inducted for "waste of manpower" to validate them - a point, you hold against LCA, how do you expect it to be inducted by any force?? you want to skip both IOC and FOC and declare it "combat ready"??

You are very confidently asserting LCA Mk2 will keep to its schedule. If Gripen NG has taken 4 years and still not achieved IOC, you are very very optimistic about LCA Mk2 doing the same in a lesser time.

What if ADA does not get the LCA Mk2 flying even in 2016? What if LCA Mk2 FOC is only 2020?

And when did I say Gripen NG is combat ready today?

There is a difference between development aircraft and state of the art development aircraft. Gripen is state of the art. It had surpassed LCA capabilities and M-2000s capabilities back in 1996 even though specs look the same.

well first of all all this comes into the picture when it is detected. and what you said above works both ways. my question was wrt to your assertion that "LCA will not see the enemy anyway".

You are giving way too much credit to LCA. You have to understand that PAF's networking is already superior to the IAF. They already have a working IACCS system while ours will only be ready after 2012. Don't think of PAF being push overs when it comes to countering small planes like LCA. This includes Gripen too.

and you are assuming and basing it on too many imponderables and underplaying the RCS advantage of the LCA.

There is no RCS advantage to LCA. There is no RCS advantage to Rafale as well as EF-2000 either even though they claim RCS of 0.1m2. Once they carry external weapons, there is no such thing called RCS advantage. Do you even realize how many corner reflectors are formed with externals?

The only way to stay invisible is to use jammers. The Rafale, EF as well as Mig-29 can spit out more power. Also considering the Mig-29s radar power is immense, LCA's jammers will not play a very big role against Mig-29. The same with MKI.

1. you take it for granted LCA's EW/SPJ is not good enough against the adversaries they are likely to face.

It's good in some quarters. But if the enemy walks in with a bigger jammer then LCA will need help in targeting.

2. what about ECM??

ECM is the fancy name of jammers.

3. size of the LCA, the amount of composites and the RAM coat it has - meaning it has head start when it comes to RCS in a battle before being detected.

Only if LCA goes in hot with cannons. As of today only F-22 has RCS advantage.

4. AWACS supported environment and supplied vectors via datalink - with radar switched off.

A Mig-29Smt with AWACS support is even deadly. Faster speed and higher altitude = more kinetic energy for missile = lesser time for enemy to out maneuver.

Since we are only talking about LCAs radar against Mig-29s in real life we cannot bring AWACS into the picture.

The Israelis claim detection ranges of 450km for Phalcon. But real life ranges in dense environments is only between 300 to 350kms. The same is true for most radars.

no body knows what would be the RCS of any aircraft.

The pilots and technicians know RCS values once an air battle is initiated. Nobody in the civilian domain know that info very well.

but logically or common sensically speaking, LCA due to it's composites (transparent to incoming emissions), RAM (abosrber of incoming emissions) and size is LO though not VLO (in terms of internal weapon bays) in terms of design. hence low RCS based on facts known gives it an advantage particularly in BVR regime.

Haha! Go tell ADA their 1980s designed plane is LO. Even they will laugh their azzes off. Heck even Gripen is not LO. Only Rafale and EF-2000 can claim "slightly" LO and that too with clean load.

now sticking weapons to pylons will definitely increases RCS. no doubt. but the same applies to the adversaries with even bigger RCSs. so the advantage of it's RCS is still retained in combat.

Fight a MKI with a LCA with the EW system turned OFF. You will not be able to detect the MKI even if its carrying 3 drop tanks and 16 LGBs. Even if the MKI comes 20 kms close to the LCA the LCA will not be able to fire its BVR at it. ECM, aka, jammer is a very convenient device. More important than the RCS reduction measures.

The composites are mainly for decreased weight, decreased hassles in maintenance and ease in construction.

that was one off incident and i myself posted it in reply to somebody in a different thread. besides these are all simulations not something actually happened. or are you saying EA 18G will beat F 22 always??

No. This was an actual dog fight and the EA-18G actually managed an Aim-120D shot. It did happen for real.

Check the decal on the Growler below the cockpit glass you will see a lone F-22 there. It was a Kill. Even if it's a one of incident it happened because of Growler's superior ECM capabilities compared to Raptor.

it was B Harry's article which i posted which says LCA will have 35d AOA - which is possible in the days to come possibly with manual over ride of FBW control. however can it sustain that for long is the question. anyway it would be tested in the days to come as the envelope is opened up more and more.

Ok. This should take 2 years to achieve. I am just saying the Gripen is still better.

Gripen surpassing 50d AOA is "unbeleivable" to say the least. some fanboy stuff i guess. no aircraft can sustain beyond 20-28d. even less IMO before they stall. in STR it is even worse for a delta - besides loss of fuel and range. all these high AOA figures are either momentary and for aero shows. even though the canard on Gripen can give it better pitch maneurability, how will it stop the stalling of the wings in an AOA maneure??

Nope. Gripen's AOA is not fan boy stuff. The last I heard it came from a pilot. Also, the other aircraft than handle high AoA is SH at 45deg to 60deg, F-22 at 60deg(without TVC). Rafale is said to be 100deg without FCS limitation and 32deg with FCS limitation. EF-2000 is similar at 100deg and FCS limitation of 33 deg. EF-2000 handles the highest turn rates of any non TVC fighter. Some speculate it is 28deg/second sustained. Rafale will also increase once they get their new M-3 engines.

Gripen's AoA reached 100deg during tests without limiters. But due to airframe restrictions and lack of engine power it has been limited to 50degs during combat maneuvers. But due to a smaller body it allows smaller turn radius at greater corner speeds.

Do you even realize why I am saying the LCA mk1 is a dead duck? It's specifications don't even graze the surface of fighters that are flying today.

and -

..................Gripen C............LCA mark 1

WEIGHT(E)....6800kg..............6500kg

A/B THRUST...80.5KN..............85KN.

FUEL(I)........2400KG..............2486KG.

meaning Gripen C has lesser T/W ratio affecting it's accelaration, climb rate etc.. IOW less agile. and less internal fuel means less range.

Airframe restrictions on LCA don't allow it to perform at par with Gripen. Specifications aren't everything. Also, LCA's specs you posted are only on paper. Real life specs are much lower even after FOC. For eg: The LCA is already overweight by 1.5 tons due to bad undercarriage. This has been reduced by EADS but there is still more work to be done. Even after LCA Mk1 achieves FOC, the specs of contemporary fighters is much greater.

in short how can Gripen C/D can be better than LCA mark 1 at present??

All to do with Saab engineering.

Gripen c/d surpassing Mirage 2000 in evey parameter?? you sure??

Pretty much all parameters have been surpassed except speed.

you missed a broader point of "how a foreign OEM can screw us" besides the contradictions in your posts which was my point.

however no forces stack spares/ammunition which would take care of damages, attrition due to war for months because the volume is unknown. precisely why a foreign OEM needs to stand shoulder to shoulder and respect the contract. in the case of kargill it was not a full blown war. we fought in our own territory. if the war had been full blown and leading to many many months will you still hold on to the defence of the foreign OEM like you did in your posts??

The foreign OEMs did not screw us over. After 60 years of dealing with them, IAF has the sense to keep spares that last atleast 1 to 2 years on an average. The shelf life of most components is 8 years without usage. We can fight a much longer war than Kargil and still make up for spares. You give too much credit to IAF in some parameters and too little credit in some others. Spares really start affecting after 5 years of no deliveries.

Also, till date we have never fought a war that has lasted many many months after 1948. Any future war will not last more than a month if there is an invasion involved.

this is an unknown and besides the point. the point was somebody screwed us in kargill and you were justifying it saying it is "no big deal".

Nobody screwed us anywhere. Dassault was even willing to provide more Mirages after Kargil war. They were aggressively pushing for lifting of sanctions. Israel was already selling us weapons(LGBs) and upgrades on Bisons even though we were still sanctioned from nuke tests. It's only your delusion that the whole world is out to get us.

We had enough spares to last the winter and still more.

my point of contention is fail?? i gave that link to clarify on your various contradictions in your posts. first you said we did the modifications, then you said Israel did it and also you said OEM - in this case french, will support in case of a war because they are there to prove their hardware - which they did not.

Ok. They did not. Mirage-2000 never flew in Kargil and we never received any LGBs from Israel.

I never claimed we did modifications, you claimed we did with your Matra LGB link which was never used during the war. Second, the sanctions never affected the Mirage-2000 even till 2002, when American sanctions were still not lifted and we were preparing to go to war against Pakistan. Shelf life of spares is not 10 days. It is 6 to 8 years. We have plenty of spares even today.

Also Israel did everything when it came to rigging up M-2000 for Kargil. Heck they were the ones who provided the Litening pods and they were the ones who integrated it on the M2000 in 2 weeks. Before that M2000 was supposed to carry the ALTIS and matra supplied LGBs which did not work out.

coming to your 1st part above, IMO the time we had during those times was short. hence the number of Mirages they could have modified to carry the PGMs must have been meagre besides as per the link i gave you - the cost involved.

You are just arguing for the sake of arguing. Even if we had plenty of time we would still have used dumb bombs in Kargil. Heck during every sortie the M2000 carried only 1 LGB. We did not have the experience nor did we sacrifice on the reliability of dumb bombs. LGBs are useless if the enemy smokes up the area or there is a natural fog cover. LGBs wouldn't have contributed much to the war without bigger targets like tank factories and supply depots.

i disagree that strikes were symbolic in nature. they softened up the hills so the army could enter and retake the hills.

Ok. 9 LGBs softened up the hills. Heck that's like 4500Kg of bombs used at 9 targets. Sure that helped soften targets.

I repeat, the LGBs used were more symbolic than provide any real tactical advantage. Unless of course over 50 tons of Dumb bombs probably missed all targets. *shakes head*

Any LGB attack was followed by a 5 or 6 times more dumb bombs deliveries from each plane.

as to the highlighted portion, my question to you was simple. when you are so sure that LCA mark 1 - being a delta, cannot replace Jaguar, how come even a possibilty can exist for you wrt LCA mark 2 which is also a delta??

If the LCA Mk2 has a bigger wing, LERX, bigger range, higher payload and more engine power, then it can partly handle Jaguar's role. Also I said it was a possibility since even these are not enough to replace Jaguar. That's why the words "perhaps" was used.

Being a delta the Rafale and Gripen handle bombing missions due to the presence of canards. These help reduce drag by creating lift enhancing vortices. LCA Mk2 will have LERX which would generate even better vortices and give it a better low altitude handling. Of course the Jaguars low altitude handling would be even better for its role. If the LCA Mk2 does not have LERX then it will not fill the same role as Jaguar. That would mean IAF only wants LCA for point defence and perhaps interception.

or 'perhaps' you missed reading it in my post?? this is my exact reply -

And I hope I have answered all your posts to your heart's content.

 

[ppgj]

If you are looking at specific things, first the Gripen IOC will happen much before LCA Mk2 IOC. Second, the LCA Mk2 is still on the drawing board while NG has a tech demo which is already flying.

well first of all, irrespective when Gripen NG achieves it's IOC is immaterial for LCA mark 1. as i have said in the past LCA mark 1 should be compared to Gripen C. infact NG is one of the contenders in MMRCA for a reason!! if LCA Mark 2 is supposed to be similar to NG that will have to wait till officially it is confirmed.

your beleief in NG aside, it runs contrary to your own point - "in development aircraft", which was what i was trying to point out. besides it is time consuming to declare it "combat ready" post IOC/FOC and if IAF thinks it is acceptable for them inspite of it not meeting the ASR (which they have done in the past with many foreign aircrafts) then so be it.

Third, the Gripen C/D is among the most advanced 4th gen platforms in the world while LCA Mk1 is still in IOC stage, which Gripen had in 1996. So, that has given Gripen 14 years to mature. Gripen A had already surpassed ASR during IOC as well as FOC.

Gripen C was conceived early, designed and developed early. hence it is no big deal if they are combat ready earlier than LCA mark 1.

Four, the Demo has already claimed supercruise capability. However modest it may be it shows that the airframe is already ahead of most competition including LCA. This will further improve once NG starts flying.

supercruise with what load?? and for how long?? and what altitude??

as i said earlier NG has nothing to do with LCA mark 1 at present. it is an MMRCA bird competing in the trial.

Lastly, the Saab website claims a lifecycle cost of Gripen C/D that is lower than the nearest competition in the present or future upcoming projects. Considering Sweden is a high income country, its ability to match it's poorer cousin, the LCA in costs is astounding.

you have a habit of going to any extent to defend foreign birds as if they are god sent and defy physics. quit your colonial hangover. every manufacturer claims something or the other. it is only post induction and creation of infra that the true costs are known.

besides what do you know about LCA life cycle cost to compare it for?? unless you have figures which would be only available later how can you get in there??

By the time LCA Mk2 gets IOC, the Gripen NG will already be flying towards FOC and potential foreign orders. It will have AESA, IRST and most other 5th gen technologies present along with its superior airframe advantages.

and how does it matter for LCA Mark 1??

You are very confidently asserting LCA Mk2 will keep to its schedule. If Gripen NG has taken 4 years and still not achieved IOC, you are very very optimistic about LCA Mk2 doing the same in a lesser time.

do you have reading problems?? where did i even compare LCA mark 1 to the NG?? go read again.

What if ADA does not get the LCA Mk2 flying even in 2016? What if LCA Mk2 FOC is only 2020?

which is all hypothetical at this stage. so why don't you wait. speculating unnecessarily does not help.

And when did I say Gripen NG is combat ready today?

you did not say but the way you have been propping up NG in this thread makes one wonder about it.

There is a difference between development aircraft and state of the art development aircraft. Gripen is state of the art. It had surpassed LCA capabilities and M-2000s capabilities back in 1996 even though specs look the same.

define for me what do you mean by "state of the art aircraft".

instead of harping on Gripen C crossed all parameters of Mirage 2000, present some fact based analysis.

i gave the specs of LCA mark 1 versus Gripen C. Gripen C seems worse on key parameters.

You are giving way too much credit to LCA. You have to understand that PAF's networking is already superior to the IAF. They already have a working IACCS system while ours will only be ready after 2012. Don't think of PAF being push overs when it comes to countering small planes like LCA. This includes Gripen too.

where can i read about PAF networking?? any link??

There is no RCS advantage to LCA. There is no RCS advantage to Rafale as well as EF-2000 either even though they claim RCS of 0.1m2. Once they carry external weapons, there is no such thing called RCS advantage. Do you even realize how many corner reflectors are formed with externals?

doesn't it apply both ways?? or does it apply only to the LCA??

LCA having a headstart wrt RCS is it's USP irrespective of what you say and this is based on known facts which i explained in my previous post.

The only way to stay invisible is to use jammers. The Rafale, EF as well as Mig-29 can spit out more power. Also considering the Mig-29s radar power is immense, LCA's jammers will not play a very big role against Mig-29. The same with MKI.

you are assuming that a bigger bird with higher thrust engine 'allows' for a bigger jammer. the higher power on the bigger birds also have to carry a heavier bird and higher payload and bigger internal fuel!!!

why people think Rafale is underpowered for full load?? even IIRC people on the forums think the present engine on the SU 30MKIs can't power IRBIS PESA radar evident when you look at SU 35 which carries 117S - a higher thrust engine than AL 31FP on the SU 30MKI!!!

big does not mean advantage rather it's advatage is limited to higher payload and range.

It's good in some quarters. But if the enemy walks in with a bigger jammer then LCA will need help in targeting.

"if" is the point. it is not easy to optimise and distribute power to all the components. applies to most aircrfats which is why even EA 18G growler carries minimal payload while the electronics get most of the power.

ECM is the fancy name of jammers.

accepted.

Only if LCA goes in hot with cannons.

???

As of today only F-22 has RCS advantage.

agreed.

A Mig-29Smt with AWACS support is even deadly. Faster speed and higher altitude = more kinetic energy for missile = lesser time for enemy to out maneuver.

Since we are only talking about LCAs radar against Mig-29s in real life we cannot bring AWACS into the picture.

in BVR LCA will have the advantage. in WVR not only LCA, most birds will have difficulties with Mig 29SMTs. besides TACTICS will dictate no delta similar to LCA will get into WVR fight with Mig 29SMTs. if they get a first BVR shot they will escape.

The Israelis claim detection ranges of 450km for Phalcon. But real life ranges in dense environments is only between 300 to 350kms. The same is true for most radars.

some would say it is even higher than 450km which is being underplayed. who knows??

The pilots and technicians know RCS values once an air battle is initiated. Nobody in the civilian domain know that info very well.

would agree and i guess they would agree too wrt RCS of LCA.

Haha! Go tell ADA their 1980s designed plane is LO. Even they will laugh their azzes off. Heck even Gripen is not LO. Only Rafale and EF-2000 can claim "slightly" LO and that too with clean load.

why would i tell ADA?? it is common sense. besides i am not talking of any RCS figures.

Gripen has mostly a metal body while LCA uses composites upto 45% which make up the airframe which explains your point. if you disbeleive who care's.

Among the most significant breakthrough is the use of advance carbon composites for upto 45% of the LCA air frame, including wings, materials fin and fuselage. This percentage of composites is one of the highest as compared to other contemporary aircraft of its class. Apart from making it much lighter, there are less joints or rivets making the aeroplane more reliable. Fatigue strength LCA studies on computer models optimise performance. National Aerospace Laboratory (NAL) has played a lead role. Materials include Aluminium-Lithium alloys, Titanium alloy and Carbon composites. Composites for wing (skin, spars and ribs), fuselage (doors and skins), elevons, fin, rudder, airbrakes and landing gear doors

http://lca-tejas.org/history.html

Fight a MKI with a LCA with the EW system turned OFF. You will not be able to detect the MKI even if its carrying 3 drop tanks and 16 LGBs. Even if the MKI comes 20 kms close to the LCA the LCA will not be able to fire its BVR at it. ECM, aka, jammer is a very convenient device. More important than the RCS reduction measures.

you know what Mr. p2prada. in this thread you started off saying LCA is not comparable to any aircraft except JF 17 and then you have compared it everything under the sun including F-22!! seems like you are in flux!!

first of all why would an LCA fight with SU 30MKI or even Mig 29SMT?? besides if it was fighting it would use its strengths - a tactic any aircraft uses. why will it switch off it's EW?? radar switch possible - in an AWACS supported environment. besides you are assuming SU 30MKI engine allows a bigger jammer which is not the case. it still carries the same ELTA 8222 SPJ/Tarang mark 2 RWR. you are forgetting that the higher engine power is required to support the higher basic weight, higher internal fuel and the higher payload SU 30MKI carries - a point i made earlier.

besides an LCA will only face off in BVR and not WVR - "if" the case arises wrt chinese SU 30MKKs - in a defensive role.

The composites are mainly for decreased weight, decreased hassles in maintenance and ease in construction.

the composites not only bring down the weight but are a great factor wrt RCS. it is an accepted fact that carbon products are good absorbers of radar emissions. use google.

No. This was an actual dog fight and the EA-18G actually managed an Aim-120D shot. It did happen for real.

Check the decal on the Growler below the cockpit glass you will see a lone F-22 there. It was a Kill. Even if it's a one of incident it happened because of Growler's superior ECM capabilities compared to Raptor.

here is the link and the detail -

Alas, after that bombshell, the conversation quickly dried up. I did learn the EA-18G kill was courtesy of a well-timed AIM-120 AMRAAM shot. And I learned the simulated combat exercise took place at Nellis AFB. How the EA-18G escort jammer got the shot, and whether its jamming system played a role in the incident were not questions the pilot was prepared to answer.

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2009/02/growler-power-ea-18g-boasts-f-.html

ok. i accept that but only gingerly because there is still a question mark if you look at the highlighted part.

Ok. This should take 2 years to achieve. I am just saying the Gripen is still better.

obviously. the gripen is an in service fighter. whether Gripen C exceeds LCA mark 1 at FOC?? unlikely looking at the specs.

Nope. Gripen's AOA is not fan boy stuff. The last I heard it came from a pilot. Also, the other aircraft than handle high AoA is SH at 45deg to 60deg, F-22 at 60deg(without TVC). Rafale is said to be 100deg without FCS limitation and 32deg with FCS limitation. EF-2000 is similar at 100deg and FCS limitation of 33 deg. EF-2000 handles the highest turn rates of any non TVC fighter. Some speculate it is 28deg/second sustained. Rafale will also increase once they get their new M-3 engines.

Gripen's AoA reached 100deg during tests without limiters. But due to airframe restrictions and lack of engine power it has been limited to 50degs during combat maneuvers. But due to a smaller body it allows smaller turn radius at greater corner speeds.

well first of all provide me the link of the pilot who says it. besides even if true, do you think it can be sustained?? i have been asking this in all my posts which you have been ducking.

do you know the drag factor and loss of fuel in an AOA maneure?? a momentary maneure at aero shows do not amount to anything. as Satish said in one of his posts which i agree with - even Rafale flies at 20+d odd AOA sustained. there is a reason for it particularly for a delta design!!!

Do you even realize why I am saying the LCA mk1 is a dead duck? It's specifications don't even graze the surface of fighters that are flying today.

why are you comparing LCA to rafale, F-22, EF?? different aircrafts, different roles, different tactics.

Airframe restrictions on LCA don't allow it to perform at par with Gripen. Specifications aren't everything. Also, LCA's specs you posted are only on paper. Real life specs are much lower even after FOC. For eg: The LCA is already overweight by 1.5 tons due to bad undercarriage. This has been reduced by EADS but there is still more work to be done. Even after LCA Mk1 achieves FOC, the specs of contemporary fighters is much greater.

which airframe restriction?? what do you know about LCA specs at FOC?? LCA is overweight by 1 tonne which is being shaved off progressively.

rest you beleive whatever you want to.

All to do with Saab engineering.

as if they dropped from heaven. you smell from colonial hangover.

Pretty much all parameters have been surpassed except speed.

and no data!!! all rhetoric.

The foreign OEMs did not screw us over. After 60 years of dealing with them, IAF has the sense to keep spares that last atleast 1 to 2 years on an average. The shelf life of most components is 8 years without usage. We can fight a much longer war than Kargil and still make up for spares. You give too much credit to IAF in some parameters and too little credit in some others. Spares really start affecting after 5 years of no deliveries.

Also, till date we have never fought a war that has lasted many many months after 1948. Any future war will not last more than a month if there is an invasion involved.

as i said in my earlier post "war reserves" (which IMO runs at most for 1 or 2 months at most) is something either Ray sir or Kunal sir can explain.

just because 'we have not fought for months in the past' is not something you take it to the next war because the 'progress is unknown'. one prepares for the worst.

Nobody screwed us anywhere. Dassault was even willing to provide more Mirages after Kargil war. They were aggressively pushing for lifting of sanctions. Israel was already selling us weapons(LGBs) and upgrades on Bisons even though we were still sanctioned from nuke tests. It's only your delusion that the whole world is out to get us.

We had enough spares to last the winter and still more.

as to your first line, if the french did not screw us why did you say - 4 weeks non supply is not a 'big deal??'

Dassault willing to provide mirages post war is moot. you need support during wartime and in which the israelis helped out.

Ok. They did not. Mirage-2000 never flew in Kargil and we never received any LGBs from Israel.

hello?? taking off in a tangent?? twising and turning for what sir??

I never claimed we did modifications, you claimed we did with your Matra LGB link which was never used during the war. Second, the sanctions never affected the Mirage-2000 even till 2002, when American sanctions were still not lifted and we were preparing to go to war against Pakistan. Shelf life of spares is not 10 days. It is 6 to 8 years. We have plenty of spares even today.

as to your claims go back and check the posts.

my intention of providing the link was only to clear the confusion of you and 'not to prove' whether or not Israeli or french LGBs were used!!

unclear still??

Also Israel did everything when it came to rigging up M-2000 for Kargil. Heck they were the ones who provided the Litening pods and they were the ones who integrated it on the M2000 in 2 weeks. Before that M2000 was supposed to carry the ALTIS and matra supplied LGBs which did not work out.

are you saying Mirage 2000s were rigged with the Israeli LITENING pods?? why would they do when the ATLIS pod was already there on the Mirages??

my own understanding is (fwiw) only the paveway kits were modified to fire with the ATLIS pod. i guess even jaguar fired the lone PGM painted by another Mirage 2000 with it's ATLIS pod.

You are just arguing for the sake of arguing. Even if we had plenty of time we would still have used dumb bombs in Kargil. Heck during every sortie the M2000 carried only 1 LGB. We did not have the experience nor did we sacrifice on the reliability of dumb bombs. LGBs are useless if the enemy smokes up the area or there is a natural fog cover. LGBs wouldn't have contributed much to the war without bigger targets like tank factories and supply depots.

Ok. 9 LGBs softened up the hills. Heck that's like 4500Kg of bombs used at 9 targets. Sure that helped soften targets.

I repeat, the LGBs used were more symbolic than provide any real tactical advantage. Unless of course over 50 tons of Dumb bombs probably missed all targets. *shakes head*

Any LGB attack was followed by a 5 or 6 times more dumb bombs deliveries from each plane.

i never said anything about the dumb bombs anywhere. i do agree that more dumb bombs were used because it was cost effective and Mirages in a diving role only helped them to be delivered closer to accuracy.

If the LCA Mk2 has a bigger wing, LERX, bigger range, higher payload and more engine power, then it can partly handle Jaguar's role. Also I said it was a possibility since even these are not enough to replace Jaguar. That's why the words "perhaps" was used.

fair enough.

what would be LCA mark 2 is speculatory at this stage. some say it is just an upgraded engine version of LCA mark 1. some say wider wings, landing gear shifted to the wing roots, larger fuselage etc.. it is better to wait for an official confirmation.

Being a delta the Rafale and Gripen handle bombing missions due to the presence of canards. These help reduce drag by creating lift enhancing vortices.

LCA was too studied for canards. the designers concluded that it was not necessary. i answered this point to satish in one of the posts.

besides canards also increase drag and have RCS ramifications. it's a trade off.

LCA Mk2 will have LERX which would generate even better vortices and give it a better low altitude handling. Of course the Jaguars low altitude handling would be even better for its role. If the LCA Mk2 does not have LERX then it will not fill the same role as Jaguar. That would mean IAF only wants LCA for point defence and perhaps interception.

let's wait and see what LCA mark 2 is before we jump to conclude.

And I hope I have answered all your posts to your heart's content.

does not seem so.

 

[p2prada]

well first of all, irrespective when Gripen NG achieves it's IOC is immaterial for LCA mark 1. as i have said in the past LCA mark 1 should be compared to Gripen C. infact NG is one of the contenders in MMRCA for a reason!! if LCA Mark 2 is supposed to be similar to NG that will have to wait till officially it is confirmed.

Nope. No matter what I still believe the Gripen NG will surpass the LCA development program by a long shot. Even if we use the same avionics, the Swedes have much more experience in integration. Integration is a very difficult process. It's like how the Chinese still claim they are better than Russia or France. For some reason we see their comments with disdain and ridicule, but for some reason we believe our projects are better than experienced manufacturers like Saab. There is a limit to hypocrisy.

your beleief in NG aside, it runs contrary to your own point - "in development aircraft", which was what i was trying to point out. besides it is time consuming to declare it "combat ready" post IOC/FOC and if IAF thinks it is acceptable for them inspite of it not meeting the ASR (which they have done in the past with many foreign aircrafts) then so be it.

If you go back you will see multiple posts where I say if we are inducting state of the art equipment then I don't see any reason why IAF should not make compromises. But if we are making an aircraft that is being phased out by other countries and IAF still needs to make compromises on obsolete frames, then I have a problem.

IAF says they are fine with LCA only to the media. But ACM looked like he was stung by a bee the whole time. The purchases of 2 squadrons of LCA Mk1 and the program costs of LCA Mk1 are similar. They were easily arm twisted into buying the LCA. Heck it is impossible to believe IAF is phasing out 200 Mig-21s by 2018 and still give orders for only 40 Mk1 frames. But their initial orders for LCA Mk2 was 83. We also have a retired ACM suggesting Mk2 will be a different aircraft.

Gripen C was conceived early, designed and developed early. hence it is no big deal if they are combat ready earlier than LCA mark 1.

Gripen contract for design was signed in 1983. They achieved FOC by 1996. That's 13 years.

supercruise with what load?? and for how long?? and what altitude??

Now you are nitpicking. Can you even imagine LCA achieving supercruise lets alone trying to put Gripen down.

as i said earlier NG has nothing to do with LCA mark 1 at present. it is an MMRCA bird competing in the trial.

I have quite a lot of things to say about LMRCA and MMRCA concept in relation to the IAF.. But some other time.

you have a habit of going to any extent to defend foreign birds as if they are god sent and defy physics. quit your colonial hangover. every manufacturer claims something or the other. it is only post induction and creation of infra that the true costs are known.

They are all better than LCA.

you did not say but the way you have been propping up NG in this thread makes one wonder about it.

You very first question was about how NG compares to LCA program since I was "asserting" because I said it would be more "Comprehensive." And when I answer you suddenly say this. Hilarious.

define for me what do you mean by "state of the art aircraft".

An aircraft that would whoop its competitors within the same class and same technology level quite decisively or even it its evenly matched in some or all parameters.

instead of harping on Gripen C crossed all parameters of Mirage 2000, present some fact based analysis.

Go to keypub or WAB or f-16.net. You will see people who discuss these things. Join, open a new thread or post your questions in existing threads. You will get to know a loooot of things.

i gave the specs of LCA mark 1 versus Gripen C. Gripen C seems worse on key parameters.

Then Cheers. We beat one of the most experienced plane designers with our very first try. *shakes head*
Let the Chinese know we are ahead of them. Woohoo. Oh! Tell them they su*k though. Like I said there is a limit to hypocrisy.

where can i read about PAF networking?? any link??

They are already using Link 16 as their operational datalink since early 2000s. They are working on sticking them onto all assets. They probably already have their datalinks linking the Swedish AWACS and their F-16s. They finished their own IACCS program in 2003 or 2004. I don't have links though. You will have to look at your own.

Sure. After we get ours working we will be a generation ahead in technology. They are only working on NATO type networking with their ODLs based on Link 16.

doesn't it apply both ways?? or does it apply only to the LCA??

Of course it applies both ways. For eg during Cope India 2004, the Mig-21 Bison was praised for its ability to take pot shots at F-15s and run away with their awesome speed. While the Su-30MKK equipped with Israeli ECM jammed the F-15s radars for long range detection. The Migs would come in fast and invisible using their own jammers and fire BVRs at the Teens.

What happened was while MKK and F-15 could not fire their BVRs at each other. The superior numbers gave the advantage to the Mig-21 to fire their BVRs at 18km distances. After the Mig fires it would score a kill or miss the shot and then run away. The F-15 was not in a position to chase the Bisons.

LCA can be used in the same way and I bet it will be used in the same way. It is only a point defence aircraft with a secondary strike role. But on one on one, the F-15 would eat the LCA or Mig-21 Bison for breakfast in both BVR as well as WVR combat.

Similarly while the Mig-29s keep superior adversary buys like FC-20 or F-16Blk52 the LCA can play the role of the Bisons. But all this needs superior numbers which may not be achievable in case we have a 2 front war. But if we get an aircraft like Gripen C/D or if the LCA matches Gripen's performance then we have an aircraft that can actively get into a merge with the FC-20 or F-16Blk52 and still have high chances of winning.

With current specs of LCA, it is just a Mig-21 Bison with composite airframe and new radar, but su*ky speed to get away. If something goes wrong the chances of a Bison reaching home is greater than the LCA reaching home. This is one of the primary reasons why the Chinese still prefer the J-7 compared to JF-17.

LCA having a headstart wrt RCS is it's USP irrespective of what you say and this is based on known facts which i explained in my previous post.

RCS advantage(misnomer) for LCA would exist only if the PAF do not use AWACS and GCI.

you are assuming that a bigger bird with higher thrust engine 'allows' for a bigger jammer. the higher power on the bigger birds also have to carry a heavier bird and higher payload and bigger internal fuel!!!

Power used by jammers is directly related to how much power an engine can devote to the avionics. Bigger aircraft have 2 engines and can deliver massive amounts of power to the jammer as well as radar.

Also if an aircraft is rigged with a strike loadout, then there is a low chance it will carry a jammer or AMRAAMs. It is going to have escort which will provide the jamming signals as well as protect its heavier counterpart. An air to air loadout will require less power to fly compared to the strike loadout. Eg: A bunch of Super Hornets with a strike package followed by 1 or 2 Growlers for EW and another bunch with their own jammers for escort.

why people think Rafale is underpowered for full load?? even IIRC people on the forums think the present engine on the SU 30MKIs can't power IRBIS PESA radar evident when you look at SU 35 which carries 117S - a higher thrust engine than AL 31FP on the SU 30MKI!!!

I never said the Rafale is underpowered. It just has lesser power than EF-2000. With similar power, the Rafale can also start claiming supercruise. The present engine on MKI cannot handle the Irbis radar. An extra ton of thrust will go a long way in powering the Irbis. 20KW is too much. Also, the MKI is a Delta wing aircraft and has canards equipped for strike missions. It already carries stuff that is rigged for strike and recce, like the EL/M 2060 pods.

The same way the Chinese Su-30Mkk's cannot handle the Bars radar. Their engine delivers only 13.5 tons theoretical, our engines pump out a little over 14 tons and the Su-35 BM is nearly 15 tons. Only BM can power the Irbis, perhaps Su-34 as well.

big does not mean advantage rather it's advatage is limited to higher payload and range.

Cheers. Big has less to do with payload and range and more to do with airframe and engine power. The PAKFA is smaller than regular Flankers and they already claim a range greater than Flankers. The Rafale with its smaller airframe already claims a payload of 9.5 tons.

"if" is the point. it is not easy to optimise and distribute power to all the components. applies to most aircrfats which is why even EA 18G growler carries minimal payload while the electronics get most of the power.

EA-18G's primary mission is to carry 5 or 6 jammer pods on its external hardpoints for Electronic attack. So, it is obvious it cannot carry anything more except for 2 Aim-120s and 2 Aim-9Xs. If it carries a full strike loadout, then it won't be called a Growler. Logic man logic. The Super Hornet has plenty of power.

???

Meaning LCA goes in to a merge with a clean load and only cannons ON. That's the only way for LCA to use it's RCS advantage. Clean Load.

in BVR LCA will have the advantage. in WVR not only LCA, most birds will have difficulties with Mig 29SMTs. besides TACTICS will dictate no delta similar to LCA will get into WVR fight with Mig 29SMTs. if they get a first BVR shot they will escape.

I am not being particular only about Mig-29smt. I am talking about radar and jammers, smaller aircraft against bigger aircraft. Even F-16 Blk 52 spits out more power for its ECM.

would agree and i guess they would agree too wrt RCS of LCA.

I read a pilot said the LCA's radar can detect and track smaller aircraft like Surya Kirans from a distance of 100km over Bangalore. Give the Surya Kirans a jammer and the detection range will significantly decrease. So no matter how impressive it sounds, real life is completely different from specs.

why would i tell ADA?? it is common sense. besides i am not talking of any RCS figures.

That reply only suggested aircraft with externals are not LO. I guess only PAKFA qualifies LO(perhaps a bit more) while F-22 is VLO.

Gripen has mostly a metal body while LCA uses composites upto 45% which make up the airframe which explains your point. if you disbeleive who care's.

But they still achieved more out of an all metal airframe.

you know what Mr. p2prada. in this thread you started off saying LCA is not comparable to any aircraft except JF 17 and then you have compared it everything under the sun including F-22!! seems like you are in flux!!

I did. And all the numbers suggested the LCA does not even compare to those aircraft even specwise. The fact is LCA is just a low cost bird meant for replacement of Mig-21s quickly until we can develop superior aircraft. Now we are so gung ho about LCA that we are quick to say LCA is awesome for its role while IAF has moved on.

first of all why would an LCA fight with SU 30MKI or even Mig 29SMT?? besides if it was fighting it would use its strengths - a tactic any aircraft uses. why will it switch off it's EW?? radar switch possible - in an AWACS supported environment. besides you are assuming SU 30MKI engine allows a bigger jammer which is not the case. it still carries the same ELTA 8222 SPJ/Tarang mark 2 RWR. you are forgetting that the higher engine power is required to support the higher basic weight, higher internal fuel and the higher payload SU 30MKI carries - a point i made earlier.

LCA does not carry the EL/M 8222. That's a high powered jammer only meant for MKI and Israeli F-15. Even their F-16s carry a lower powered jammer. We are replacing the Israeli jammers with even more powerful Russian jammers pretty soon. This may be extended to the entire fleet of MKIs.

Anyway if LCA is not meant to fight MKIs and Smt's then it is mean to fight Chinese Flankers and Pakistani Falcons. So, same difference.

With regards to turning off ECM, I only gave it as an example for the importance of EW.

besides an LCA will only face off in BVR and not WVR - "if" the case arises wrt chinese SU 30MKKs - in a defensive role.

That's the problem. We are not in a superior numbers position to use MKIs and LCAs together. Also when MKIs are headed for long range DPS LCA will be of no use alone. We need aircraft that can hold their own against any enemy aircraft. Mk2 is the key to fulfill that requirement. LCA Mk1 is only a Bison plus. It unfortunately does not add to IAF's punch. Only inducting 40 aircraft is a key indicator of that; originally IAF was keen on having 7 squadrons of Mk1. Wonder why that changed. They changed their requirement to 5 squadrons of Mk2 instead.

the composites not only bring down the weight but are a great factor wrt RCS. it is an accepted fact that carbon products are good absorbers of radar emissions. use google.

Ooooo! Awesome. *shakes head*

ok. i accept that but only gingerly because there is still a question mark if you look at the highlighted part.

Hehe! Isn't it obvious. The EW capability of the Growler is the only way for it to fight, even against F-22.

You don't need a PhD to understand that. It scored an AMRAAM shot which hit the mark, that's never happened. Even the Mirage-2000 that got behind the F-22 recently was a gun kill.

obviously. the gripen is an in service fighter. whether Gripen C exceeds LCA mark 1 at FOC?? unlikely looking at the specs.

Cheers.

well first of all provide me the link of the pilot who says it. besides even if true, do you think it can be sustained?? i have been asking this in all my posts which you have been ducking.

Don't have any links. A lot of my info comes from talking, reading, watching and learning. Get started on some established forums. Hope we can get some for our forum here. It would be a good learning experience.

do you know the drag factor and loss of fuel in an AOA maneure?? a momentary maneure at aero shows do not amount to anything. as Satish said in one of his posts which i agree with - even Rafale flies at 20+d odd AOA sustained. there is a reason for it particularly for a delta design!!!

Pilots have always used non FBW maneuvers many times during combat. Satish also said in one particular thread that Super Hornet achieved a kill at 13G maneuver during a war.

why are you comparing LCA to rafale, F-22, EF?? different aircrafts, different roles, different tactics.

No. Replace the words "different" with "Superior."

which airframe restriction?? what do you know about LCA specs at FOC?? LCA is overweight by 1 tonne which is being shaved off progressively.

You are quite hung up on specs without looking at the fact that LCA is only a modest Mirage-2000. Gripen surpassed Mirage-2000 itself.

as if they dropped from heaven. you smell from colonial hangover.

Of course. Haha! Colonial hangover. How about getting over your ego and think logically. How can an industry that is 30 to 40 years behind the west suddenly make an aircraft that equals or surpasses the same western technology with very little money and piss poor management. Do you really think we are the ones who dropped from heaven?

and no data!!! all rhetoric.

I did provide data. You just don't believe it. Rejecting the truth does not make it false.

as i said in my earlier post "war reserves" (which IMO runs at most for 1 or 2 months at most) is something either Ray sir or Kunal sir can explain.

Funny how we stopped getting Soviet Mig-21 spares in 1989 and our first major crashes happened only after 1993. For some reason the Mig-21s had spares for at least 2 to 3 years.

just because 'we have not fought for months in the past' is not something you take it to the next war because the 'progress is unknown'. one prepares for the worst.

Even if we have the spares, we do not have an economic capacity for a long drawn war. If it's not spares, then it's fuel else it's weapons, else it's political will, else it's funds. Spares aren't the only issue. Even LCA uses foreign weapons and foreign engines. There is no such thing as fully indigenous equipment in India. Our entire military is open to sanctions. We cannot achieve what you are talking about at least until 2030. We have a functioning relation with foreign OEMs which is not going to die any time soon. We also have decent contingency plans for short term spares supply.

as to your first line, if the french did not screw us why did you say - 4 weeks non supply is not a 'big deal??'

Dassault willing to provide mirages post war is moot. you need support during wartime and in which the israelis helped out.

We did not suffer any problems.

hello?? taking off in a tangent?? twising and turning for what sir??

It's called sarcasm. *shakes head*

as to your claims go back and check the posts.

my intention of providing the link was only to clear the confusion of you and 'not to prove' whether or not Israeli or french LGBs were used!!

LOL. Then what did you want to prove? IAF's attempts at reverse engineering parts were modest even at Ojhar. Only DRDO or HAL can attempt reverse engineering. What IAF did was the old scotch tape and spit routine.

are you saying Mirage 2000s were rigged with the Israeli LITENING pods?? why would they do when the ATLIS pod was already there on the Mirages??

Huh! It's because Israeli PGM's were not equipped to fire out of Altis. Google is your best friend here.

my own understanding is (fwiw) only the paveway kits were modified to fire with the ATLIS pod. i guess even jaguar fired the lone PGM painted by another Mirage 2000 with it's ATLIS pod.

All litening, M-2000 as well as Jaguar. Altis was not used for the war. However, Mirage-2000 will be upgraded with Damocles. It used Altis 2 after the war.

i never said anything about the dumb bombs anywhere. i do agree that more dumb bombs were used because it was cost effective and Mirages in a diving role only helped them to be delivered closer to accuracy.

I brought it in just to say 9 PGMs do not change the course of the war unless of course you killed the entire PA leadership with one bomb. The targets were small supply depots and bunkers. Not a big turnaround compared to the effectiveness of dumb bombs used. The LGBs were very symbolic though.

what would be LCA mark 2 is speculatory at this stage. some say it is just an upgraded engine version of LCA mark 1. some say wider wings, landing gear shifted to the wing roots, larger fuselage etc.. it is better to wait for an official confirmation.

Landing gear shifted to wing roots is on Gripen Demo. Of course we do not know what will be the airframe changes on Mk2, but it has to be significant in order to increase range. This isn't the Jaguar where drop tanks will fill the role. If the Mk2 is to be a superior replacement to the Mig-21Bison then ALL of its air to air capabilities has to be with increased fuel load. Heck the Russians increased Flanker's fuel load by 50% just to fit the 117S on the Su-35BM and of course with increased mission performance.

LCA was too studied for canards. the designers concluded that it was not necessary. i answered this point to satish in one of the posts.

If possible we have to find out the reason for this. It could be either requirements for interception or inability to fullfill design parameters. Considering the naval prototype uses LERX, we have to believe there is something new in the LCA Mk2 because IAF has already withdrawn from the original 7 squadrons.

The Mk2 design started some time in 2009-10. We can be sure the design process will end any time before May because AMCA design will start from May+.

besides canards also increase drag and have RCS ramifications. it's a trade off.

Canards do not increase drag, just the opposite. They create vortices that help Delta in bleeding less energy during climbs and turns.

does not seem so.

Sure. But I am not surprised.

PS: Sorry people for some spelling and grammar errors. Had to type all of this in a hurry.

 

[p2prada]

Ok. I have been looking at some info behind the noise at ACM Naik's speech. It turns out I am wrong in some aspects.

It turns out LCA is worse than I anticipated. I am not making friends with this post, of course.

Anyway this was his speech at the function;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKTG5aST6bQ
Follow from 0:40 seconds.

He says, "Tejas taking wing is actually a dream come true for all of us."
It is a perfectly innocent statement and there is a certain glow about it.

Next comes the hard hitter.

The very next second he says, "We've been dreaming about it since the last 25 to 30 years."
If you note the tone of this statement, he's clearly sarcastic. He does not even give a gap between the first statement and the second.

His third statement wasn't any less assuring considering he stresses quite well on the year "1985" and nodding his head as he says it. Wow. He is clearly pissed off.

Of course that's not all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1TGnRA1z5Y&feature=related

Another video in an interview after the speech, check 1:15.

Turns out LCA is not yet a fourth gen fighter, which we all already know. But what we did not realize is that even after FoC is achieved LCA Mk1 will still not be a 4th gen fighter.

But we are still not finished here. He explains about LCA Mk2 too. Turns out his reference of Mig-21++ was actually for LCA Mk2 rather than LCA Mk1.

LCA to be an advanced version of MiG 21: IAF chief

Bangalore: IAF Chief Air Chief Marshal P V Naik on Monday said the indigenously manufactured Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) would be an advanced version of the MiG 21 fighters, which have been the mainstay of the force and are on their way to be phased out in the near future.

"Considering the technologies involved, it (LCA Mk II) will be a MiG 21 + + aircraft and it will render yeoman service to the IAF," he said when asked about his assessment of the aircraft.

The IAF chief was talking to reporters on the sidelines of a function to grant Initial Operational Clearance (IOC) to the LCA here.

The Russian-origin MiG 21s started being inducted into the IAF in the 1960s and despite their old technology, continue to be in operation till date and are expected to be phased out by the IAF in the near future.

The DRDO is developing a more capable version of the LCA called the Mk II, which is expected to be ready by the end of December 2014.

Asked if the present version of the aircraft could be called a fourth generation aircraft, as DRDO was claiming it to be, the IAF chief said with future developments, it could become one but was not so at the moment.

Explaining the parameters on which he called the LCA Mk II as MiG 21 + + aircraft, he said, "This means first in endurance, second in performance, third in load carrying, fourth is the number of weapons it can deliver. Fifth is the weight with which it can navigate with and the vintage of the aircraft or avionics and sixth is radar."

Asked to compare the aircraft with its contemporaries, Naik said it would be just short of Swedish Gripen NG single engine aircraft.

On the role to be played by the LCAs in the IAF, he said an air force requires high, medium and low end aircraft to perform its tasks and the indigenous fighter would be used to fill in the gaps at the "medium and low" level.

IAF has placed orders for 40 LCAs in IOC mode and is expected to procure another 160 LCA Mk II later in the decade.

So, it turns out the LCA Mk1 will be way short of ASR. No wonder the ACM is clearly pissed off.

 

[p2prada]

Oh! I forgot to mention the ACM has said on record that LCA Mk2 will have a new engine, new avionics and also airframe changes.

If some body has a full video of the speech and also of the interview, please do post here. Thanks.

EDIT: Been looking and found this too;

http://www.flightglobal.com/article...india-india-unveils-plans-for-lca-mark-2.html

"The LCA Mark 2 will have a bigger and more powerful engine, the fuselage will be changed, it will have bigger wings, and the aircraft will be more aerodynamic," says Hindustan Aeronautics chairman Ashok Baweja,

Pretty big deal if it's coming from a service chief and HAL chairman that LCA Mk2 will have design changes.

 

[smartindian]

Ok. I have been looking at some info behind the noise at ACM Naik's speech. It turns out I am wrong in some aspects.

It turns out LCA is worse than I anticipated. I am not making friends with this post, of course.

Anyway this was his speech at the function;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKTG5aST6bQ
Follow from 0:40 seconds.

He says, "Tejas taking wing is actually a dream come true for all of us."
It is a perfectly innocent statement and there is a certain glow about it.

Next comes the hard hitter.

The very next second he says, "We've been dreaming about it since the last 25 to 30 years."
If you note the tone of this statement, he's clearly sarcastic. He does not even give a gap between the first statement and the second.

His third statement wasn't any less assuring considering he stresses quite well on the year "1985" and nodding his head as he says it. Wow. He is clearly pissed off.

Of course that's not all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1TGnRA1z5Y&feature=related

Another video in an interview after the speech, check 1:15.

Turns out LCA is not yet a fourth gen fighter, which we all already know. But what we did not realize is that even after FoC is achieved LCA Mk1 will still not be a 4th gen fighter.

But we are still not finished here. He explains about LCA Mk2 too. Turns out his reference of Mig-21++ was actually for LCA Mk2 rather than LCA Mk1.



So, it turns out the LCA Mk1 will be way short of ASR. No wonder the ACM is clearly pissed off.

let t be first gen plane , if it kills some pakistani plane it as done it job, you are look at glass is half empty , we are look looking glass is half full. it a start for country like India.

 

[gogbot]

I can no longer even comprehend , what it is your telling me the LCA can do p2p.
It was low end for a low end role.
It already has ASR exemptions due to the Engine. We all know it can't turn as fast or carry as much as result.

then it was not even 4th gen
Then it was just mig-21++

You p2p keep telling me , you would prefer a mig-21

now where are we at this point , what exactly is it that the LCA does that you can say its even worse than you thought.
What your going to question it ability to even fly ?

 

[p2prada]

let t be first gen plane , if it kills some pakistani plane it as done it job, you are look at glass is half empty , we are look looking glass is half full. it a start for country like India.

The Glass is broken mate. It is neither half empty nor half full. When we induct something, there are only 2 reasons. One, we either try to match the adversaries capability like how PAF is inducting JF-17 to give them BVR capability, while we have had that capability over many years. The second would be to create new capability like inducting AWACS or a platform that is superior to existing platforms(MKI, MRCA, FGFA, AMCA etc)

We have a sanctioned strength of 39.5 squadrons of aircraft which amounts to 700+ aircraft. Now let's look at the numbers we are planning to achieve before the Mig-21Bison is phased out in 2018.

270 MKIs

126+64 MMRCA(Looking at our current speed of induction we are obviously going for the extra 64)

So, that's already 270+126 = 396 aircraft

Then we will have 51 Mirage-2000-5 and 69 Mig-29Smt. That would push our numbers to 516 aircraft.

Also we will have 130 Jaguars with more than 60 upgraded with Darin III in service which brings the numbers to 646 aircraft. Then we have 40 LCA Mk1 which are pretty useless compared to what we are already inducting including the Jags. Let's not forget our trainers like Hawk and IJT.

Add to that we will soon start induction of FGFA or even PAKFA( initially). So, we have replaced our old numbers with new capability. Now tell me why is the IAF going for obsolete aircraft. Just 40 is enough to prove it is just another token induction because the procurement funds matches the development costs. Instead of having DRDO pay for it, we have IAF paying for it.

War has no place for ego and optimism. We have to be humble and pessimistic. That's when we win. Military planners always plan for the worst. They always believe the glass is half empty which means they always believe that whatever they have is not enough to win a war and that they need more and more, both in equipment and training.

A soldier needs to be optimistic over his survival. A General needs to be pessimistic and pushy.

Our dear pal's(sarcasm) amazing optimism pushed him to defeat against Soviet Russia in 1945. The Soviets were amazingly pessimistic at their chances of winning WW2.

The last I heard, the Pakistan Army was awesomely optimistic at their chances in Kashmir during 1965. Ever wonder what happened to their prized SSG?

I can no longer even comprehend , what it is your telling me the LCA can do p2p.
It was low end for a low end role.
It already has ASR exemptions due to the Engine. We all know it can't turn as fast or carry as much as result.

then it was not even 4th gen
Then it was just mig-21++

You p2p keep telling me , you would prefer a mig-21

now where are we at this point , what exactly is it that the LCA does that you can say its even worse than you thought.
What your going to question it ability to even fly ?

That time is over. The low specifications of the LCA were required in 1996 at the time when Bison wasn't even thought of. Had we built and inducted the LCA in 1996 with a build time of 10 years, we would have had 150-200 LCAs flying now and ready for retirement between 2020 and 2030 with a MLU happening sometime now. An airframe of 25 years with current specs would have been an awesome replacement for the old Mig-21s in 1996.

Now do you realistically think IAF will accept a 80s design and fly it till 2050? IMPOSSIBLE. Like I said, Ego will not help anybody win wars. LCA was a great achievement, let's just keep it at Schools, Colleges, Roads and Museums and instead focus on AMCA and FGFA.

It was a low end aircraft for a low end role in 1996. Now, its just a museum piece. IAF no longer requires a low end aircraft. The IAF's comments on Low end, Medium end and High end aircraft is just to shut the media up to prevent criticism for their disinterest of LCA.

 

[chex3009]

War has no place for ego and optimism. We have to be humble and pessimistic. That's when we win. Military planners always plan for the worst. They always believe the glass is half empty which means they always believe that whatever they have is not enough to win a war and that they need more and more, both in equipment and training.

Agreed 100%, even though i am a gr8 Tejas supporter, we need to move on and focus on AMCA and FGFA.

I have been reading your arguments for quite some time now and finally i agreed with all your points after this post.