ADA Tejas (LCA) News and Discussions

[Parthy]

The LCA Tejas Trainer

The Tejas, India's first Super sonic fighter Aircraft is the smallest, light weight, supersonic, multi-role combat aircraft, and best in its class in the world. This single-engine, compound- delta-wing, tailless aircraft is indigenously designed and developed to meet the diverse needs of the Indian Air Force. It can reach a speed of Mach 1.6. and can operate up to an altitude of 15 Km. TEJAS will serve the Indian Air force for a long time to come. Tejas is an amalgamation of contemporary concepts and technologies such as relaxed static-stability, fly-by-wire control, advanced digital cockpit, integrated digital avionics systems and advanced composite material for the airframe which makes the aircraft very agile with carefree maneuvering capabilities. Glass cockpit and Digital Avionics make TEJAS world class.

The Tejas Trainer is the two seat tandem configuration Air Force Trainer is derived from the fighter version. It has been endeavored to maintain maximum commonality amongst all the variants of Tejas, namely: Air Force Fighter, Air Force Trainer, Navy Trainer and Navy Fighter. Front fuselage of Trainer was modified to accommodate the second cockpit. Both front & rear cockpits of Trainer are configured to replicate the pilot vehicle interface (PVI) as in the fighter version. The trainer version has drooped nose for better cockpit vision and larger canopy to accommodate rear cockpit with 5° additional vision for rear pilot. It has mechanically interconnected control stick, rudder pedal and throttle.

Trainers are powered by GE-F404-IN-20 engine. It had its maiden flight on 26th Nov 2009 and the handling qualities of the aircraft are excellent as per the number of IAF pilots. This aircraft is expected to complete Initial Operational Clearance by end Dec 2011. Indian Air Force has already placed order for 8 trainers.

Tejas two seat aircraft has been designed not only as a "Type Trainer" but also as precision weapon launch platform for air-to-air, air-to-ground air-to-sea missions with effective stores management system (SMS) capable of handling a wide range of weapons and stores. It also can be equipped with variety of sensors like Multi Mode Radar (MMR), Litening Pod and Helmet Mounted Display and Sight (HMDS). Tejas Trainer has very good potential in the world market primarily as a supersonic fighter trainer and also be capable of handling precision weapons and state-of-the-art sensors.


http://frontierindia.net/the-lca-tejas-trainer

 

[Parthy]

'Type Approval' for AMAGB of LCA- Tejas

Combat Vehicles Research and Development Establishment (CVRDE), Avadi, has indigenously designed and developed Aircraft-
Mounted Accessory Gearbox (AMAGB) for Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) – Tejas. AMAGB is a critical Line Replacement Unit for the
LCA and forms an important part of the secondary power system of LCA – Tejas.

AMAGB is a lightweight, compact, high speed, single input, multi-output gearbox with a maximum power transmission capability of 185 kW at a rated speed of 16,810 rpm. AMAGB casings are made of magnesium alloy and the gears are of DIN class 5. The gearbox has its own self-contained lubrication system with one pressure pump, two scavenge pump modules, and in-built oil passages (mini core technology), which ensures safe functioning/operation of the gearbox. AMAGB operates in two modes – starter mode and accessory mode. In the starter mode, it aids in starting the engine through jet fuel starter where as in accessory mode, it drives accessories namely, two hydraulic pumps and an integrated drive generator. These accessories in turn generate hydraulic and electrical power required for the aircraft.

This gearbox has undergone strenuous environmental tests, for high temperature, low temperature, salt fog, sand and dust, and altitude along with structural integrity tests, namely, centrifuge test, shock test, and vibration test. Further, this gearbox has also undergone 1000 h of endurance test.

Till date, AMAGB gearboxes have undergone more than 2200 h of flight-testing with 1465 flights. As a precurser to induction
into the Indian Air Force, 'Type Approval' from Centre for Military Airworthiness and Certification (CEMILAC) is mandatory. CVRDE has successfully obtained this Type Approval for AMAGB from CEMILAC.


http://frontierindia.net/‘type-approval’-for-amagb-of-lca-tejas

 

[Rahul Singh]

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.

"WILL BE GETTING". Well isn't LCA getting as well. But unlike Jaguar it will get 98KN at least with only one engine? And as you said, if LCA MK-1 having 30% more thrust can't operate all its avionics then how will those DARIN III package will be operation on Jaguar's. And if can't be untill it gets new engine the how will these Jaguars pilots will be able to defend themselves. And if they can't what good these updates are?

By the way IAF Jaguars for sure not getting AMRAAMs.

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.

LCA is not just a delta but a jet with CRANKED DELTA which produces more lift.

Canards are mainly put to support a big jet which can't have proportional wing to size. Canards are also used in small jets which opts for small delta wing for high speed advantage.

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.

LCA MK-1 is a multi-role jet and it can handle all what a Jaguar class DPSA can. And like i said, decreasing payload is an option to reach STR and nowhere in the word a jet regularly flies at MTOW.

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.

Lets wait and see.

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.

It was ADAs fault to delay LCA, fine. But are they responsible for M-MRCA delay? If IAF has committed this mistake then they will have to make the way out of it.

By the way Mig-29Us are getting upgraded to Mig-29M2s and Mig-29M2 is a fully multirole version of Mig-29. It takes finite amount of time to convert a pure dog fighter( Pilot) into a multi role pilot. Naturally Mig-29Us pilots will have to re-train and re-qualify.

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

Almost every multirole jet now a days is filled to brim. Even Gripen is packed to cap and undercarriage relocation in NG is a visible hint.

If it is done with electronics jets are packed with more fuel which gives you a H-MRCA, you have less space you pack less fuel and you get M-MRCA, you have even less space and you pack even less fuel you get L-MRCA. ....Role refines the capability and LCA as L-MRCA is just one.

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.

This 30 minute endurance is a rumor. Various LCA prototypes flew for more than 45 minutes without any drop tank. In fact LSP-5 flew for a during the 40-min during first flight and here not to mention that at significantly less internal volume of fuel as nowhere in the world any jet just out of production while still under testing takes-off for first time with full internal load of fuel.

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.

Campaign Director(Gripen NG) Eddy De La Motte did said "ALL THESE CAN GO AS MODIFICATIONS AND UPDATES IN C/D". As long as SAAB program marketing head continues saying so that long i will not disbelieve in the fact that C/D can be upgraded and modified to NG.

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.

Power from engine to electronics largely remains same and since LCA MK-1 is not having certain electronics relative to Gripen C/D, it is quite fair to assume that F-404 IN in LCA MK-1 is supplying enough if not surplus power to its avionics and electronics for making them work at full capacity.

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.

Unlike imported jets whose data can't accessed by IAF ever, in LCA's case IAF know every bit about its parameter and test data even before induction. What more, these new pilots will have LCA test pilots as instructors and many of these combat pilots will be ex Mirage pilots and needless to mention about their experience on DELTA. And like i said earlier doesn't matter when Jaguar pilots will have to start flying multi role platforms, one day the other and regardless of whatever they will have to re-qualify. If IAF cancels Jaguar re-engine bid and starts replacing old Jaguars with MK-1 then IAF will start early and in addition to DPS(Jaguar class) IAF will get more capability.

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?

That's not the option but the compulsion. ADA delayed on its part so did IAF. But capability has to be increased. It's up to IAF to find ways and may be they have started. They are recruiting pilots right from campus and they are buying more AJTs. May be they will take help from prematurely retired pilots. Anyhow something has to done quite similar to like what was done in mid 60s.

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.

LCA is getting same Israeli Jammer and LCA's RCS is far less but will have same missiles be it BVRAAM or WVRAAM. Though i don't compare a M-MRCA with L-MRCA but in a BVR combat LCA MK-1 may have its own advantage as a Mig-29M2 would have.

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.

That will depend on ECCM capability and tactics. However without a doubt MKI and its radar is the force to recon with and best part is that MKI will be complimenting LCA not fighting with it.

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.

That's the order till this date. And by the way when IAF is saying "one gone, one would tomorrow and another day after........" a pack of 40 L-MRCA is nothing less than relief even if it less significant relative to requirement. Every drop of water is reliving when you are thirsty. You can complain and can ask for more but you never say 'no'.

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.

Lets pitch LCA against F-16 Block 52 and see. As far as i am concerned i already replied how LCA MK-1 are going to stop any intruding formation of PAF F-16s. And i also added (counting on your comment on AIM-12C and R-77) that LCA will have edge in BVR.

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.

There are certain natural road blocks and many man made hurdles too. If our industry did not supplied as desired then its also the IAF which did not took required steps. Had this not been true they would have been flying M-MRCAs now. So if LCA crippled the IAF then its IAF's inability to buy M-MRCAs which added more to it. And yes, we are lucky that nothing happened and are equally because today some capability in the form of MK-1 is getting inducted in IAF. At the same time must be thankful to LCA as project which made us so capable that such jets are on offer.

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 won't be 90KN exactly. Honeywell is offering F-125IN at 9,850lbf(max re-heated thrust) which is approximately 44Kn and 2 x 44 = 88KN, 2 KN short. Not to forget that Jaguar is half a tone heavier empty weight wise.

Raytheon for BVR i don't think so.

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

Deltas are said to be good divers and LCA will be same. Anyway now a days nobody dives to pull the trigger and drop unguided munitions, all they do it auto drop using computer aid.

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.

Mirage 2000Hs were not proven when it was bought. And no jet in the world become proven just out of production. Only operation usage proves and exactly what will happen in LCAs case. And yes Mirage 2000H helped win a war and if you want LCA to prove similarly then pray for war.

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.

LCA needs other aircraft to be a part of team and it was always made up as. LCA might be little less than Gripen but it is providing capability what IAF will want from a L-MRCA. Gripen can or can'' would be known only in war. Today all i know, all these decades SAAB made fighters never went in a single war.

Counter substandard aircraft with more substandard aircraft.

Rather it's like "countering enemy's capability in a cost effective way as much as it is possible". No intelligent person uses a SUV for 2 mile ride to office.

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.

We are also inducting 50 single seat 5g fighters and those will be nothing other than PAK-FA. Sukhoi says they will start production by 2015 and i assume 2017 likely for IAF entry. Considering IAF's desperation i assume the number will even rise.

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

Lately i heard they are improving very well and time between planned and actual delivery is getting shorter by every year. No wonder they went ahead with parallel design study for both engines back in 2009.

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.

Neither the engine failed nor it is the Kaveri issue. IAF's latest ASR had already made 90KN a necessity. LCA not reaching supersonic speed at sea level was the last nail. But thanks to ADA's newly acquired experienced and know how they tweaked the LCA and it crossed supersonic barrier with same engine and in same conditions. I am expecting much more to improve by FOC and all these improvements will decrease amount of modifications required in MK-2. With this amount and level of modification sought by P Rakumar's will also decrease. And that was exactly the point.

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.

Because it crashed because of built in deficiency precisely in fly-by-wire FCS. Back in thread Nitesh has posted an article about it.

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

So will not be M-MRCAs, a day after induction.

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

My DAD bought me a LAPTOP weighting +4 kg five years ago and a month back i bought a laptop with larger screen, highly capable with much much advanced features all at 1.6 kgs.......... Upgrading with new systems, sub-systems means increased capability even if it doesn't helps to weight saving. And like the technology is progressing it is highly unlikely to not witness a weight saving even at 5 x capability.

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.

Arjun can't fire LAHAT? Heck, you should have known that Arjun fired LAHAT way back in 2005 or 2006. As for the numbers, 124 was contracted when Arjun earned the praise. Army asked for a well souped up version called MK-2 and we know today that CVRDE has already readied the prototype for trials. Only god know what decision Army will take after trails. Not to mention about usual headache Russians give now then. Lets see if T-90 reaches to that number or not.

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.

My only pointed out at Tainted Image, not said they are corrupt. I only said if the Army top brass is not clean than quite a possibility that Arjun was taken for a ride mischievously. I

I again repeat i only talked about possibility.

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.

So far not so good. If India is not an aeronautical player of anykind, i repeat 'anykind' then we would not have been boasting of absorbing 100 TOT of M-MRCA. Specially wouldn't have been using sentences like "....we will very capable of maintaining M-MRCA on own" and "in some years will export spares to Europe".

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.

Hell! TOT stands for absorbing TOT, doesn't only means screwing and bolting. LCA is ADA's and it the LCA, only the LCA which helped creating a capable aeronautical industry of anykind. It is only because of ADA's LCA that HAL's HJT flew in just four years with substantial indigenous content(most of them developed by ADA) which increased over years because of LCA project. It is the ADA's mission computer which flies with MKI, it is the ADA's(DRDO) RWR which is standard over IAF fighters. It is because of ADA's LCA that HAL half owned FGFA project will get substantial indigenous content.

Without ADA's LCA, HAL would have only dreamed to have such a long and capable chain of vendors something which is dead necessary to manufacture a jet using TOT.

 

[ppgj]

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.

Belief is a beautiful thing!! so stick with yours. it does not make any difference. and i repeat LCA mark 1 has nothing to do with Gripen NG - a tech demo, in MMRCA competition.

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.

heard of DARIN upgrade to the jaguars?? and the MIg 27 ugrade?? who did the integration?? did the OEMs do or the "poor hypocrite indians" do it??

There is a limit to hypocrisy.

you speaking of 'hypocrisy'?? lol.

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.

you forget IAF still has and operates plenty of Mig 21s and Mig 27s?? it must be hurting you right that such "state of the aircraft" have to be retired?? pity you.

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.

whether the ACM was stung by a bee or not does not change the fact that the 40 LCA mark 1s would be inducted for honing the skills of the pilots, setting up the infra while parallely FOC testing is on leading up to LCA mark 2!!!

But their initial orders for LCA Mk2 was 83. We also have a retired ACM suggesting Mk2 will be a different aircraft.

is there any official confirmation of this?? though Livefist reported this and which also says of a reference to ADA, i have not seen any so far. however DRDO says this wrt the GE 414 -

The PNC, headed by DRDO's chief controller for Aerospace Systems, Dr. Prahlada, kept a tight lid on the evaluation process, even though the Indian media put its money on the EJ200. "The current order is for 100 engines and you can't rule out the possibility of a repeat order for another 100 in the future," a source says.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gene...channel=defense&id=news/asd/2010/10/01/05.xml

hence who knows at this stage the final numbers??

even ACM speaks of airframe changes and newer avionics as per the livefist report.

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

the first Gripen A flew in apr 1987. it is obvious that it will operationalise earlier. so what is the point??

besides do you know it has "Triplex, digital fly-by-wire Flight Control System" while LCA has "Quaduplex, digital fly-by-wire Flight Control System"??

i don't even want to repeat how we had develop it from the scratch!!!

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

what nitpicking sir?? my question has 'no relation' to the LCA. it was a simple question to you to explain the NG "super cruise". IMO it is overhyped marketing gimmick people fall for. with mediocre load if you were to get into war - to save some fuel, you will become toast. which is why my question to you since you seem to be fascinated with this "phenomenon" - what load?? how long?? at what altitude?? don't connect it to LCA. give me a simple stand alone answer.

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

take your time.

They are all better than LCA.

sounds like your "chant" nowadays in this forum.

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.

sorry. my question was nothing do with the LCA. it was a question to you on your assertion that "NG IOC" is "more comprehensive".

i have repetedly said LCA mark 1 needs to be compared to Gripen C.

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.

and has that happened?? so what is your basis?? why don't you share instead of parroting it repeatedly??

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.

why would i go there. i gave specs of Gripen C which does not even compare with LCA mark 1?? since you are harping on it why don't you prove it. i would only be happy to be corrected.

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.

and there comes the "hypocrisy". lol.

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.

Link 16 is the future plan for the PAF. it won't be surprising if they field it. every modern aircraft will have a datalink.

my question was wrt PAF net centricity.

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.

do you seriously think both IAF and USAF will use their jammers with full force in an exercise?? at best it would be at a greatly degraded level.

A mig 21 is a small aircraft with great speed. good though it is in an advantageous position and if played tactically to suit it, i don't think it will play out like this in a real situation. however it also speaks negatively of the american 'emphasis' on BVR. in a WVR it is an open game. tactics play a great role.

besides Americans never fight without the support of their AWACS. all these exercises have restrictive ROE and most of the parameters are in the 'known' domain. it is a learning exercise where one knows the other's tactics for updating oneself. do you expect that in a war scenario where the whole thing is in the 'unknown' domain and ever changing by the minute??

i don't really give too much importance to these so called exercises except that i agree - it keeps the forces uptodate. even here this is only partly true wrt americans as they don't bring their best to the exercises anywhere - at best 2nd best.

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.

possible but the real role for LCA will be known when the IAF pilots start putting their hands on it from now on and look at its pros and cons, while refining the tactics as they go along.

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.

well LCA was meant to replace the Mig 21s but have outgrown that. so while it is conceivable to be similar there is more to it than meets the eye.

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.

and what is this "something" that can happen to LCA and not to the Mig 21Bison??

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

irrespective of the AWACS support - RCS has value.

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.

Gripen C while using an engine which does not even match LCA mark 1 (80.5kn vs 85kn) has an EW suite!!

2 engines still have to take care of the things i said - empty weight, payload, internal fuel, pylon weight and the pilot weight. it is all about 'reserve power' if any.

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.

agree.

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.

exactly my point why a bigger aircraft does not mean a bigger jammer. a bunch of SH flying with EA-18G only proves what i am saying.

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.

which is what i have been telling. bigger aircraft is not the answer. ultimately how much 'reserve power' one has - to stick a bigger jammer is the answer!!! this is very tricky. power optimisation is not that easy. small or big aircraft is not the issue.

btw when did the SU 30MKI became a "delta"??

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.

payload is part of the weight!!! higher internal fuel means bigger weight!!!

and you are forgetting PAKFA is a delta with 'huge' wing area and great internal fuel - a factor for weight and also the higher range!! you are just looking at the length and breadth and getting a wrong picture.

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.

you are only parroting what i said. a bigger aircraft with 2 engines does not mean you can use a bigger jammer because you will have to compromise on payload, fuel and hence mission objectives if you don't have the reserve power.

so EA 18G is used separately with meagre payload and with 'emphasis' on electronic attack in SEAD/DEAD role with other super hornets making the kills.

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.

you missed out the part that both "in clean" and "with payload" LCA carries the advantage of lower RCS.

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.

and which is why i said in another reply that LCA mark 1 cannot equal F-16BLOCK 50/52. LCA mark 2 with GE414 will albeit with a lesser payload. however if the LCA mark 2 is supposed to be a different aircraft with bigger wings/higher internal fuel/more hard points/AESA - it will outdo F-16 block 52.

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.

this applies to every aircraft big or small. as i have repetedly said "reserve power" is the key.

btw if what you are saying about the radar is true, it is great.

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.

just because one says LO does not mean you have to compare it to the 5th gen fighters. it's about how much incoming emissions are reflected back. as simple as that. LO/VLO are terms associated with radar reflections. 5th gen aircrafts means internal weapons bay - part stealth.

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

ofcourse it achieves but 'not more' besides i am talking of RCS where it will fall short.

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.

comparing it to F22, SU 30MKI, RAFALE, EF and then saying it does not compare with the 'specs'?? - what can i say?? lol.

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.

LCA will carry the EW internally. you don't waste a hard point. as to how good it will be time will tell.

btw which russian jammers are you talking about here??

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.

sir, even LCA mark 1 has to reach FOC before more can be ordered. the 40 on order will give the IAF an opportunity to hone their skills and evolve tactics before the role is earmarked. parallely it reaches FOC and on to the LCA mark2. in any case even if a huge order is given you are not going to induct enmasse. it is progresively done by retiring the older birds first.

They changed their requirement to 5 squadrons of Mk2 instead.

i have not seen any official confirmation. besides LCA mark 2 is still on paper.

Ooooo! Awesome. *shakes head*

makes no difference.

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.

i accepted that but i also asked will that be how it will be always??

Cheers.

lol.

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.

irrespective of where you get your info, you cannot defy physics!! right??

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.

one off incident. i read on history channel a pilot taking 30-40 g force momentarily (1+ second)

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

your disdain has no bounds. isn't it?? i never compared LCA to rafale, EF and F22. so your comment goes out of the window.

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.

you assert something. when questioned you have made it an art to twist and turn rather than answer the point!!!

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?

your polemics instead of factual analysis does not cut any ice.

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

except for your fictional imagination what data you provided to prove your point??

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.

if you have forgotten - the point was regarding the MIrages, the Kargill and your "no big deal" comment.

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.

We did not suffer any problems.

can you detail me on "war reserves" of IA/IAF?? irrespective of any points, a war is an "unknown" commodity. you never know when will it end. you only know when it began. thinking worst is always wiser.

It's called sarcasm. *shakes head*

again out of the window.

LOL. Then what did you want to prove?

your contradictions.

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

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.

will check out that.

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.

and where did i say only 9 PGMs changed the course?? i only disagree that they were symbolic.

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.

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+.

as i said there are too many things in the air. we need to wait for confirmation.

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

when you pitch up using canards what do you expect?? drag or not??

Sure. But I am not surprised.

neither am i with your reply.

 

[p2prada]

"WILL BE GETTING". Well isn't LCA getting as well a single engine with 98KN at least? And as you said If LCA MK-1 having 30% more thrust can't operate all its avionics then how will those DARIN III package will be operation on Jaguar's. And if not the how will these Jaguars will be able to defend themselves and if they can't what good they?

LCA cannot handle DPS. It is not at all meant for the role. Jaguars low altitude performance will beat the LCA anyday.

LCA is not just a deltas but a delta but CRANKED DELTA. And even without it Mirage 2000s were very good in sea skimming mission profile.

This is a Delta.

Ok. Now tell me which plane on the planet looks EXACTLY like that?

Just giving a fancy name to a wing type does not make the physics false. Su-30MKI is a delta too. But it can handle its bombing missions because of Canards. Even Su-34(dedicated bomber aircraft) uses Canards for reducing drag.

A Delta without Canards is not a particularly good bomber. Even the Mirage 3s with European air forces were equipped with Canards during MLUs.

There is a difference between sea skimming and DPS missions.

Canards are mainly put to support a big jet which can't have very large main wing proportionally and also small jets which opts for small delta wing for high speed advantage.

Even smaller Mirage-3s had Canards. Gripen sports a canard too. Naval LCA uses movable LERX for the same reason.

LCA MK-1 is a multi-role jet and it can handle all what a Jaguar class DPSA can. And like i said that payload decrees is an option to reach STR and nowhere in the word a jet continuously flies at MTOW.

It's called being cute. No. LCA cannot handle DPS simply because it carries better avionics. Airframe restrictions has nothing to do with electronics.

It was ADAs flault to delay LCA fine. But are they responsible for M-MRCA delay. If IAF has committed this mistake then they will have to make the way out of it.

What delay? IAF wanted small single engined aircraft in 2004 and then once GoI allowed a bigger budget they added bigger aircraft to the mix.

By the way Mig-29Us are getting upgraded to Mig-29M2s and Mig-29M is a fully multirole version of Mig-29. It takes finite amount of time to convert a pure dog fighter Pilots into a multi role pilot. Naturally Mig-29Us pilots will have to re-train and re-qualify.

The strike is a secondary component. Anyway it does not take very long for them to train in strike roles. Atleast they are using a platform they already have experience with. It's like giving the F-15C pilots F-15E.

Almost every multirole jet now a days is filled to brim. Even Gripen is packed to cap undercariedge relocation is a visible hint.

But LCA has 0 scope for future enhancements at all.

If it done with electronics jets are packed with more fuel which gives you a H-MRCA, you have less space you pack less fuel and you get M-MRCA, you have even less space and you pack even less fuel you get L-MRCA.

LoL. No longer. L-MRCA are just obsolete aircraft that's being replaced all over the world with better aircraft. Even PLAAF is replacing their J-7s and Q-5s with J-10s. The J-10 is significantly heavier and more capable than the aircraft they are replacing.

Role refines the capability and LCA as L-MRCA is just one.

That role no longer exists.

This 30 minute endurance is a rumor. Various LCA prototypes flew for more than 45 minutes without any drop tank. Not to mention that at significantly less internal volume of fuel because nowhere in the world any jet just out of production while still under testing takes-off with full internal load of fuel.

If you are on a mission then 30 minutes is all you get. Don't forget the test prototype flew with clean loads. Even adding 1 ton in payload decreases loiter time. Even Gripen gives only 30 minutes with the same engine.

Campaign Director(Gripen NG) Eddy De La Motte did said "ALL THESE CAN GO AS MODIFICATIONS AND UPDATES IN C/D". As long as SAAB program marketing head says that i will not disbelieve in the fact that C/D can be upgraded and modified to NG.

Check again. He Never says "All."
Gripen NG upgrades on Gripen C/D is impossible.

The same way Su-30MKI upgrades on Su-27 is impossible.

Power from engine to electronics largely remains same and since LCA MK-1 is not having certain electronics relative to Gripen C/D, it is quite fair to assume that F-404 IN in LCA MK-1 is supplying enough if not surplus power to its avionics and electronics for making them work at full capacity.

You are completely wrong. Integration is very difficult. There will be a big difference between the quality we use and the quality the more experienced players use.

Unlike imported jets whose data can't accessed by IAF ever in LCA know every bit about its parameter and test data even before induction. What more these new pilots will have test pilots as instructors and many of these combat pilots will be ex Mirage pilots and needless to mention about their experience on DELTA. And like i said earlier doesn't matter when the present Jaguar pilots will have to fly multi role platform one day and regardless of whatever they will have to re-qualify. If IAF cancel Jaguar re-engine bid and starts replacing old Jaguars with MK-1 then start will be early and in addition to DPS(Jaguar class) IAF will get more capability.

Are you living in the 1980s? We will get complete access to anything the MRCA provides us with except American. We can change everything we want on the Bars radar too. Absorbing such technology takes time but the Russians have even given us ToT on hot components of their engine.

Jaguars cannot be replaced by LCA Mk1. Air forces progress, not regress. The only future replacement to Jaguar is a MMRCA fighter or AMCA.

That not the option but the compulsion. ADA delayed on its part so IAF. But capability has to be increased. It's up to IAF to find ways and may be they have started. They are recruiting pilots right from campus and they are buying more AJTs. May be they will take help from prematurely retired pilots.

IAF won't take any help from retired pilots. According to IAF rules, retired means retired. This is only exercised in govt PSUs. My grandpa was recalled after retirement to work on the Agni II program as a consultant. IAF will not do the same.

Yes. Capability has to be increased. But LCA is not the way.

Anyhow something has to done quite similar to like what was done in mid 60s.

You are talking about the classical age of fighters. No air force has ever done this with any new aircraft. LCA time line was supposed to be between 1996 and 2000. Not 2010 to 2020.

LCA is getting same Israeli Jammer and LCA's RCS is far less but will have same missiles be it BVRAAM or WVRAAM. Though i don't compare a M-MRCA with L-MRCA but in a BVR combat LCA MK-1 may have own advantage as a Mig-29M2 would have.

The only advantage LCA can have is pilot advantage. If the pilot is good airframe is good while simulating a dog fight, then Mig-29 will have a massive advantage and with higher kills. LCA Mk1 will win only if the Mig-29 pilot is a trainee.

That will depend on ECCM capability and tactics. However without a doubt MKI and its radar is the force to recon with and good is that MKI will be complimenting LCA not fighting with it.

Yeah. But we cannot have the MKI saving the LCA's behind every time. We cannot use Bison class aircraft against F-16, J-10 or J-20.

That's the order till this date. And by the way when IAF is saying "one gone, one tomorrow, another day after........" a pack of 40 L-MRCA is nothing less than relief even if it less significant relative to requirement. Every drop of water is reliving when you are thirsty. You can complain and can for more but you never say 'no'.

IAF will not induct beyond the 7 squadrons already announced and even that's by a long shot. If LCA Mk2 is delayed then forget that even.

If the IAF can never say No, then can you explain why the ACM was being sarcastic on National TV?

Let pitch LCA against F-16 Block 52 and see. As far as i am concerned i already replied how LCA MK-1 are going to stop any intruding formation of PAF F-16s. And also added (counting on your comment on AIM-12C and R-77) that LCA will have edge in BVR.

LCA has an edge only if it fights JF-17. The R-77 is indeed good. But the aircraft firing it should also be good. There are strict rules for BVR combat that have to be followed, altitude, air speed, enemies altitude, air speed etc. If you think you can stop F-16 Blk 52 by only firing a BVR at it then you are completely wrong.

Haven't you ever considered why LM ran back to the drawing board with the F-35 to fit it with a gun. The original design did not have a gun. LM said "let the missiles do the turning." If a 5th gen needs a gun so does LCA. And LCA has to be good at it too, which at present is not and the future is not guaranteed.

There are certain natural road blocks and many man made hurdles too. If our industry did not supplied as desired then its also the IAF which did not took required steps. Had this not been true they would have been flying M-MRCAs now.

If ADA wasn't happily lying about their capabilities, then IAF would have been flying some 150 Mirage-2000 5 years ago.

So if LCA crippled the IAF then its IAF's inability to buy AJTs and M-MRCAs also added to it. And yes, we are lucky that nothing happened but equally because some capability in the form of MK-1 is getting inducted in IAF at extremely difficult time. At the same time must b thankful to LCA as project which made us so capable that such jets are on offer.

MMRCA Jets are on offer because we can throw Dollars at it. Foreign OEMs providing us with aircraft has nothing to do with LCA project. Even they know it sucks and will not be a problem for sometime.

IAF's inability to buy AJTs was GoIs fault at negotiations. IAF wanted good AJTs. GoI wanted cheap AJTs.

No it won't be 90KN exactly . Honeywell is offering F-125IN at 9,850lbf(max re-heated thrust) which is approximately 44Kn and 2 x 44 = 88KN. 2 KN short. Not to forget that Jaguar is half a tone heavier emptu weight wise.

Jaguar will not be getting into turning situations. The missiles will primarily be for self protection. The same reason why Growler will have 2 Aim-120D.

Raytheon for BVR i don't think so.

Huh! Then who? It's their MCU.

Deltas are said to be good divers and LCA will be same. Anyway now a days nobody dives to pickle and drop unguided munitions all they do it auto drop using computer aid.

It is good at diving from high to medium altitudes. It su*ks at medium to low. Ever heard of dive bombing?

All Mirage-2000s used dive bombing during Kargil for dumb munitions deliveries. Even F-15E pilots practice Dive bombing.

Mirage 2000Hs were not proven it was bought. And no jet in the world become proven just out of production. Only operation usage proves and exactly what will happen in LCAs case. And yes Mirage 2000H helped win a war and if you want LCA to prove similarly then pray for war.

The M-2000's capabilities were proven during Gulf war as well as used in Bosnia and Kosovo. The French progressed from Mirage-2000 to Rafale. Here you want IAF to regress from Mirage-2000 and Jaguar to LCA Mk1. LOL.

How about we force IA to buy Vickers 6 ton tank? We can have all services regress together.

You are in a delusion thinking LCA can replace Jaguar simply because the avionics are new on LCA. Without massive airframe modifications it is not possible adn that includes adding canards or LERX.

LCA needs other aircraft to be a part of team it was always made up as. LCA might be little less than Gripen but it is providing capability what IAF will want from a L-MRCA. Gripen can or can't would be known only in war. And all i know all these decades SAAB made fighters never to fought a war and in fact neither Darken, nor Viggen saw combat ever.

Saab made Gripen to fight Soviet invasion. Did you forget Gripen had it's first flight even before SU dissolved?

They never fought a war, so what? Can you name one Indian weapon system that saw war?

Rather it's like "countering enemy's capability in a cost effective way as much as it is possible". No intelligent person uses a SUV for 2 mile ride to office.

The Su-30MKI is cheaper to operate than the EF-2000 or Rafale. At $10000 per flight hour it is even cheaper than the $15000 to $20000 we have to pay for the other 2.
LCAMk1 isn't even worth operating any more. Gripen NG will be less than $5000.

Lately i heard they are improving very well and time between planned and delivery is getting shorter by every year. No wonder they went ahead with parallel design study for both engines back in 2009.

IAF carried out extensive parallel design study for 6 aircraft, all together. It's not a big deal. ADA needs to prove it can keep schedule rather than just say it. Till date it was only talk.

Neither the engine failed nor it is the Kaveri issue. IAF's latest ASR had already made 90KN a necessity. LCA not reaching supersonic speed at sea level was the last nail. But thanks to ADA newly acquired experienced and know how they, they tweaked the LCA and it crossed supersonic barrier with same engine and in same conditions. I am expecting much more to improve by FOC and all these improvements will decrease amount of modifications required in MK-2. With this amount and level of modification sought by P Rakumar's will decrease. And that was exactly the point.

No. New engine is for a new aircraft, Mk2. The current engine can handle LCA specs only becaus it has been used on Gripen.

ACM has confirmed Mk2 will have airframe changes during IOC.

Because it crashed because of built in deficiency precisely in fly-by-wire FCS.

Only a temporary setback. A lot of aircraft have crashed due to engine trouble and other problems. Nothing to indicate why we have to sit and ridicule OEMs that have delivered state of the art aircraft in time.

So will not M-MRCAs a day after induction.

No. MMRCA aircraft are state of the art and will be nearly a generation ahead of anything PAF has.

My DAD bought me a LAPTOP weighting +4 kg five years ago and a month back i bought a laptop with larger screen highly capable much much advanced features all at 1.6 kgs.......... Upgrading with new systems, sub-systems means increased capability even if it doesn't helps to weight saving. And like the technology is progressing it is highly unlikely to not witness a weight saving even at 5 x capability.

So what? Did you dad buy you a laptop that was designed in India. Proven OEMs matter. You obviously bought a laptop that was designed by a foreign OEM.

Even if you developed lighter avionics do you think other OEMs would be sleeping while you play catchup. If they develop lighter avionics then they will upgrade their jets too. MKI is getting a new lighter AESA compared to the heavier Bars.

Arjun can't fire LAHAT? Heck, you should have known that Arjun fired LAHAT way back in 2005 or 2006. As for the numbers, 124 was contracted when Arjun earned the praise. Army asked for well souped up MK-2 and we know today that CVRDE has already readied the prototype for trials. Only god know what decision Army will take after trails. Not mention about usual headache Russians give now then. Lets see if T-90 reaches to that number or not.

The 248 Arjuns we have upgraded cannot fire Lahat. Arjun is a dead saga.

My only pointed out at Tainted image not said they are corrupt. I only said if the Army top brass is not clean than quite a possible that Arjun was taken for a ride mischievously. And i again repeat i only talked about possibility.

Haha! It does not take a genius to figure out Arjun's were late and are still inferior to T-90s.

So far not so good. If India is not an aeronautical player of anykind, i repeat 'anykind' then we whould not have been boasting of absorbing 100 TOT of M-MRCA. Specially wouldn't have been using sentences like "....we will very capable of maintaining M-MRCA on own" and "in some years will export spares to Europe".

It is not India which can absorb technologies. It is only HAL which can absorb foreign technologies. Let's not get confused between the 2. ADA cannot absorb MKI technology on their own. HAl will export, not ADA.

Hell! TOT stands for absorbing TOT, doesn't only means screwing and bolting. LCA is ADA's and it the LCA, only the LCA which helped creating a capable aeronautical industry of anykind. It is only because of ADA's LCA that HAL's HJT flew in just four years with substantial indigenous content(most of them developed by ADA) which increased over years because of LCA project. It is the ADA's mission computer which flies with MKI, it is the ADA's(DRDO) RWR which is standard over IAF fighters. It is because ADA's LCA that HAL half owned FGFA project will get substantial indigenous content.

ADA has helped develop new labs. But they don't need IAF's support. They only need DRDO's and taxpayer support. Do you think Saab is making Gripen NG with their Air forces guaranteed support?

There is no point trying to bring this into the discussion simply because IAF has nothing to do with it. ADA's success has to result in state of the art aircraft. It's all IAF cares about. They give specifications and you deliver. If ADA had competition things would be even faster.

Without ADA's LCA, HAL would have only dreamed to have such a long and capable chain of vendors.

Without ADA, HAL would have had a capable private industry backing them up.
It is because of ADA and DRDO that private industry is non existent. HAL is the only manufacturer so it has no competition. But DRDO monopolized everything related to design work and R&D.

 

[ppgj]

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.

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

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

great. you seem to have made it "mission of your life" to tear down LCA and for some odd reason - which is your wont - have started giving back ups!!! good.

let me present you with a AAJ TAK video where our "learned" reporter speaks going around the LCA at IOC. watch and listen at 2.40-2.45. she speaks of AK-47s!! besides lot of other non sense!! do bear with it.


that is our media reporting on the LCA or defence in general. they can't make head or a tail out of what they report.

and now coming to your point of LCA mark 2 as Mig 21++, please note the reporter 'puts' it in the 'bracket' which can mean anything. ACM never says it!!! here is another report by livefist and see what ACM says -

Shortly after two Tejases roared into the sky for a quick flight display, Naik went on to describe the Tejas as a "MiG-21++" fighter,

does it sound clear??

isn't it more beleivable because it was LCA mark 1 IOC function. i saw the IOC function on TV and nowhere he refers to LCA mark 2 as Mig 21++ and rightly so 'because LCA mark 2 is work in progress'. even the ACM talks of modifications to the airframe in the same livefist report here-

He also indicated that the Tejas Mk-II would not only be powered by the F414 engine, but would incorporate airframe design changes and newer avionics.

http://livefist.blogspot.com/2011/01/iaf-grudgingly-accepts-tejas-ioc-wants.html

now consider this -

1. ACM as per your report never said it. it was "put" by our learned reporter in the (bracket) and how good these reporters are - i gave a sample in the video i gave above.

2. LCA mark 2 is still on the drawing board. ACM himself speaks of the modifications and your own 'flightglobal' link speaks of a different aircraft all together.

3. so what shape LCA mark 2 takes is in the realm of unknown.

now, with this sort of a situation how can ACM can say LCA mark 2 as Mig 21++?? which is atleast 4 years away?? also note this from the same report you posted -

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.

he is referring to the present version namely LCA mark 1 and obviously subject to these developments which he himself said at the function which are - the WAKE PENETRATION, ALL WEATHER CLEARANCE, LIGHTNING TEST as reported by the livefist above. i myself saw the IOC function on TV and livefist is pretty correct in this.

so tell me Mr. p2prada, for a person who says he does not read the media reports and relies only on ex-military chiefs and their analysis - you surprise me with your straight beleiving this report without even a whimper!!!

well done.

beleive what you want to.

 

[p2prada]

Belief is a beautiful thing!! so stick with yours. it does not make any difference. and i repeat LCA mark 1 has nothing to do with Gripen NG - a tech demo, in MMRCA competition.

ACM believes the same too. Wonder if his beliefs are wrong.

heard of DARIN upgrade to the jaguars?? and the MIg 27 ugrade?? who did the integration?? did the OEMs do or the "poor hypocrite indians" do it??

That's nothing. We just added equipment to existing ports. When you buy a new graphics card and attach it to your motherboard, do you call that integration? I am talking about designing and developing the entire architecture of the motherboard and then attaching equipment to it. Huge difference.

you forget IAF still has and operates plenty of Mig 21s and Mig 27s?? it must be hurting you right that such "state of the aircraft" have to be retired?? pity you.

In 2010 IAF claimed a 50% obsolescence in IAF(only MKI, M-2000, Bison, Mig-29 and upgraded Jags being certifiable). By 2015 IAF claims 20% obsolescence, LCA adds to the figures even after the above aircraft are nearly phased out. Only Jaguars and LCAs will be our obsolete aircraft by 2018. Even Jaguars will start being phased out by then.

After 2025, LCA will be our only obsolete aircraft with the other aircraft being FGFA, MKI, MMRCA and AMCA. Early retirement anyone.

Whether the ACM was stung by a bee or not does not change the fact that the 40 LCA mark 1s would be inducted for honing the skills of the pilots, setting up the infra while parallely FOC testing is on leading up to LCA mark 2!!!

Lol. Alright. You believe it's right. I believe it's wrong.

is there any official confirmation of this?? though Livefist reported this and which also says of a reference to ADA, i have not seen any so far. however DRDO says this wrt the GE 414 -

If IAF inducts aircraft, the number of engines imported is usually twice the number. With 230 MKIs it was 920 engines and 600 Honeywell engines for Jags. So 200 F-414s for LCA sounds just about right for 100 Mk2 or 83 in service aircraft and X number of test prototypes.

even ACM speaks of airframe changes and newer avionics as per the livefist report.

That's why the Mk1 production was capped at 40 aircraft. IAF wants 83 Mk2 and even that will reduce as time passes.

the first Gripen A flew in apr 1987. it is obvious that it will operationalise earlier. so what is the point??

According to the plan, LCA was supposed to fly for the first time in 1990, 1996, 1999 and finally 2001. Don't you see what's wrong?

besides do you know it has "Triplex, digital fly-by-wire Flight Control System" while LCA has "Quaduplex, digital fly-by-wire Flight Control System"??

A triplex channel sends 3 signals from source to destination. A Quadruplex channel takes the average voltage of a triplex channel and then sends it along with the other 3 channels.

A Quadruplex channel is also a Triplex channel at the source but ends with 4 channels at the destination just to increase redundancy. The Gripen's FBW would be more advanced in coding and quality even if we have a more pretty sounding FBW system. Let's not forget the amount of modifications it has gone through.

i don't even want to repeat how we had develop it from the scratch!!!

Haha! We did not develop it from scratch. We only integrated it by ourselves. BaE and then LM helped develop it. It means the senior scientists at LM and BaE explain how everything needs to be done and then help design the architecture. Then they gave their equipment to simulate it and then gave us a helping hand in developing it fully. Once done we tested nukes and got kicked out. Only integration work left, we took 3 years and voila.

what nitpicking sir?? my question has 'no relation' to the LCA. it was a simple question to you to explain the NG "super cruise". IMO it is overhyped marketing gimmick people fall for. with mediocre load if you were to get into war - to save some fuel, you will become toast. which is why my question to you since you seem to be fascinated with this "phenomenon" - what load?? how long?? at what altitude?? don't connect it to LCA. give me a simple stand alone answer.

Even if we do half of what they did, it would be awesome. Heck they achieved supercruise with a clean load on a Technology Demonstrator.

i have repetedly said LCA mark 1 needs to be compared to Gripen C.

Better than LCA.

and has that happened?? so what is your basis?? why don't you share instead of parroting it repeatedly??

Huh! Overall specs push the Gripen forward simply because it is indeed better than LCA Mk1.

Link 16 is the future plan for the PAF. it won't be surprising if they field it. every modern aircraft will have a datalink.

my question was wrt PAF net centricity.

You are confused. Link 16(ODL) and net centricity is one and the same. We don't have ODL to finish IACCS. We will get deliveries of an ODL as capable as Link 22 from Israel only a year from now. What we did with fibre optics only recently, PAF did some 4 or 5 years ago.

Their new F-16s are already connected to their AWACS. Their JF-17 will also have Link 16 and their AWACS are already connected to their ground radars using ODL.

As of today even our MKIs need voice commands from our Phalcons because our ODL is still not operational.

do you seriously think both IAF and USAF will use their jammers with full force in an exercise?? at best it would be at a greatly degraded level.

The USAF know everything about El/M 8222 and their own Jammers are ancient. Heck ours is a more advanced version of their legacy Jammers. The jamming environment is too much for LCA to compete in.

A mig 21 is a small aircraft with great speed. good though it is in an advantageous position and if played tactically to suit it, i don't think it will play out like this in a real situation. however it also speaks negatively of the american 'emphasis' on BVR. in a WVR it is an open game. tactics play a great role.

The scenario I posted is one of the many scenarios played out during CI-2004. It was a WVR scenario where the M-2000 and Su-30 were already merged while Bison took pot shots from a range of 15 to 20 km using R-77s.

besides Americans never fight without the support of their AWACS. all these exercises have restrictive ROE and most of the parameters are in the 'known' domain. it is a learning exercise where one knows the other's tactics for updating oneself. do you expect that in a war scenario where the whole thing is in the 'unknown' domain and ever changing by the minute??

AWACS is not guaranteed to be present always. USAF pilots do exercises in difficult conditions even without AWACS support.

i don't really give too much importance to these so called exercises except that i agree - it keeps the forces uptodate. even here this is only partly true wrt americans as they don't bring their best to the exercises anywhere - at best 2nd best.

Their second best was equal or better than our best at the time. We employed the Mkk.

possible but the real role for LCA will be known when the IAF pilots start putting their hands on it from now on and look at its pros and cons, while refining the tactics as they go along.

The LCA is obsolete already. They will only employ existing Bison tactics.

and what is this "something" that can happen to LCA and not to the Mig 21Bison??

If you exceed the time limit of your ability to fight in WVR then you cannot run away. A bigger aircraft can enter and leave a fight at whim. If it can keep the LCA occupied for some time and then merge the LCA will not be able to run away with its speed.

In conditions where the LCA's presence is very important, eg if the LCA is protecting a base. Then the bigger aircraft only has to wait for the LCA to exhaust its fuel supply before engaging it. So, the enemy has a kill as well as bombs the base.

irrespective of the AWACS support - RCS has value.

Cheers. *shakes head*

Gripen C while using an engine which does not even match LCA mark 1 (80.5kn vs 85kn) has an EW suite!!

You are still hung up on specs.

2 engines still have to take care of the things i said - empty weight, payload, internal fuel, pylon weight and the pilot weight. it is all about 'reserve power' if any.

The MKI has enough fuel to last 30 minutes in a dog fight. The LCA has only 5 minutes to make a kill or get away. This was great in 1996. Now it's just a waste of time.

Super Hornet can spit out nearly 80KW for avionics. MKI gives out nearly a 100KW. LCA will be lucky to give out 10KW.

exactly my point why a bigger aircraft does not mean a bigger jammer. a bunch of SH flying with EA-18G only proves what i am saying.

EA-18G is a bigger aircraft. SH and EA-18G are the same except for avionics and payload.

which is what i have been telling. bigger aircraft is not the answer. ultimately how much 'reserve power' one has - to stick a bigger jammer is the answer!!! this is very tricky. power optimisation is not that easy. small or big aircraft is not the issue.

You can't have that on LCA. 85KN is too less. Heck F-35 spits out 191KN which is almost the same as a SH. So, it can spit out more power.

The MKI and F-15, which are bigger aircraft can spit out even more power than SH or F-35. Obvious.

The Mig-29 being a bigger aircraft can also pit out more power than the LCA.

btw when did the SU 30MKI became a "delta"??

Flankers were always a delta. But with bigger tails instead of a single fin.

payload is part of the weight!!! higher internal fuel means bigger weight!!!

No. You are confusing the terms. Payload is different from Loaded weight. Loaded means weight coming from fuel and weapons, let's not forget the weight of the pilot as well. Payload is the amount of load you can carry externally. This is also called the Useful Load.

The useful load on the Rafale is 9.5 tons, Flanker is 8 tons, GripenC/D is 5 tons, Ef-2000 is 6.5 tons, SH is 8 tons and LCA Mk1(IOC) is 2 tons. LCA Mk1(FOC) = unknown but on paper its 4 tons.

and you are forgetting PAKFA is a delta with 'huge' wing area and great internal fuel - a factor for weight and also the higher range!! you are just looking at the length and breadth and getting a wrong picture.

PAKFA is a trapezoidal design similar to F-22. Not a delta.

PAKFA's useful weight is 8 tons and fuel load is 11 tons. At 19 tons, the plane would achieve MTOW. With half the figures it would be called Combat load. Get the terminologies right.

Payload is stuff you carry on the hardpoints.

you are only parroting what i said. a bigger aircraft with 2 engines does not mean you can use a bigger jammer because you will have to compromise on payload, fuel and hence mission objectives if you don't have the reserve power.

Only A2A equipped fighters with jammers will engage the LCA on our territory. So, all what you said is not affected.

so EA 18G is used separately with meagre payload and with 'emphasis' on electronic attack in SEAD/DEAD role with other super hornets making the kills.

You just lose a point and then start nitpicking.

If I am the aggressor I will send out a lot of aircraft which are capable of both A2A as well as A2G. I will make sure my A2A will be the one engaging your LCA. My A2A aircraft are, say, Mig-29smt against your LCA Mk1. My aircraft is bigger and carries a bigger jammer while LCA will only attempt to engage the A2G fighters since shooting them down will end the mission.

My A2G aircraft are not in the engagement zone for obvious reasons while my Migs are fast approaching your LCA. Wonder who wins?

you missed out the part that both "in clean" and "with payload" LCA carries the advantage of lower RCS.

Get the terminologies right. The F-22 is 2 or 3 times bigger than LCA and still has a RCS significantly smaller. The B-2 is massive and I bet even it's RCS is smaller. Stealth has nothing to do with size it is all to do with design. Get that right first.

You are getting OEM noises stuck in your head. Just because LCA is small does not mean LO. Even wooden gliders can be picked up on radar.

and which is why i said in another reply that LCA mark 1 cannot equal F-16BLOCK 50/52. LCA mark 2 with GE414 will albeit with a lesser payload. however if the LCA mark 2 is supposed to be a different aircraft with bigger wings/higher internal fuel/more hard points/AESA - it will outdo F-16 block 52.

That's why LCA Mk2 is a more viable option compared to the obsolete LCA Mk1. This is why I am claiming LCA Mk1's second squadron was forced on them. If given an option I am sure IAF will cancel the Mk1 induction all together.

This Light and Medium difference is not defined any more. It's probably just to shut the media up.

btw if what you are saying about the radar is true, it is great.

Yes. It's true.

just because one says LO does not mean you have to compare it to the 5th gen fighters. it's about how much incoming emissions are reflected back. as simple as that. LO/VLO are terms associated with radar reflections. 5th gen aircrafts means internal weapons bay - part stealth.

That's why the terms LO and VLO are associated with 5th gen aircraft. Did you not notice the way I pulled you down just now.

I gave you specs suggesting smaller aircraft like Surya Kirans with clean loads were picked up by LCA's radar from 100km. You were very happy with that info, claiming "it's Great." So, what makes you think LCA, a bigger aircraft is suddenly LO?

F-15s, MKIs, F-16s and J-10s will be eating aircraft like LCA for breakfast in a mano a mano.

comparing it to F22, SU 30MKI, RAFALE, EF and then saying it does not compare with the 'specs'?? - what can i say?? lol.

It does not compare to any aircraft and that's why it shouldn't be inducted at all.

btw which russian jammers are you talking about here??

Knirti SAP 14. It's the Russian equivalent of the American Al/Q 99E. Also the Knitri SAP-518 jammer. Both are massive and was first displayed attached to the Su-30MKI model at MAKS 2009.

SAP 14 is carried on the centreline while SAP-518 are on wingtips.

sir, even LCA mark 1 has to reach FOC before more can be ordered. the 40 on order will give the IAF an opportunity to hone their skills and evolve tactics before the role is earmarked. parallely it reaches FOC and on to the LCA mark2. in any case even if a huge order is given you are not going to induct enmasse. it is progresively done by retiring the older birds first.

Doubt that's happening. Did you not see our ACM?

The plan was 7 squadrons of Mk1. Later the plan became 2 squadrons of Mk1 and 5 squadrons of Mk2. Numbers have been reduced from 100 to 83. The more the delay the smaller the numbers.

i have not seen any official confirmation. besides LCA mark 2 is still on paper.

It is official. ADA announced it during IOC function. IAF wants 83 and those are the last figures from IAF.

i accepted that but i also asked will that be how it will be always??

It's not always. But I gave it as an example. An aircraft that claimed 140:0 kill ratio just got shot in the azz with a radar lock. It's a HUGE deal, the Growler achieved radar lock on Raptor.

irrespective of where you get your info, you cannot defy physics!! right??

Huh! What's that go to do with the fact that Gripen surpassed Mirage-2000?

one off incident. i read on history channel a pilot taking 30-40 g force momentarily (1+ second)

It's not a one off incident. Pilots always do that for unpredictability. Turning off FBW is done by experienced pilots.

your disdain has no bounds. isn't it?? i never compared LCA to rafale, EF and F22. so your comment goes out of the window.

IAF does not need Mk1 anymore. Even Mk2 could end up getting the short stick in 3 or 4 years. But we don't know that. But we can be sure the Mk1 got the short stick.

you assert something. when questioned you have made it an art to twist and turn rather than answer the point!!!

Nothing to twist. You asked for fact based analysis. Here's an interesting one. Go to A-11 on the first day or the second day and go to Saab. Ask him how would the LCA fare against GripenC/D? Then come back and give me a "link" about what you learned from him. I won't believe you unless you provide a link.

If you go after the business days then its no use.

your polemics instead of factual analysis does not cut any ice.

Ok. Then the only alternative to my statement is we are better than Western OEMs.

if you have forgotten - the point was regarding the MIrages, the Kargill and your "no big deal" comment.

Stopping spares supply for 4 weeks is no big deal. It takes that long for us to get it anyway.

can you detail me on "war reserves" of IA/IAF?? irrespective of any points, a war is an "unknown" commodity. you never know when will it end. you only know when it began. thinking worst is always wiser.

Can you give me detail on war reserves saying IAF aircraft will be badly affected as soon as OEM stops supply within the first week? This was your assertion so back it up.

your contradictions.

My contradiction is LCA is a fail. ACM said on National Television that LCA is a fail. Best of luck.

as i said there are too many things in the air. we need to wait for confirmation.

If we fix a more powerful engine on a small aircraft without changing fuel load, the aircraft will be an even bigger fail than the first model.

when you pitch up using canards what do you expect?? drag or not??

You are short sighted if you believe an airframe enhancing part is useless when it pitches up. Now you will ask me to back this statement up and then you will say I am providing only fictional rhetoric. For the above "brilliant" statement I am ending this discussion simply because you don't know **** about aerodynamics.

Read up a bit more, learn more about terminologies and how each aerodynamic aspect affects the other and then come back. By then you won't be asking such stupid questions.

neither am i with your reply.

You will never be happy with anybody who goes against your view points.

 

[p2prada]

now, with this sort of a situation how can ACM can say LCA mark 2 as Mig 21++?? which is atleast 4 years away?? also note this from the same report you posted -

Did you not see the post where I asked for the full video of the speech as well as the interview?

Anyway in the link I provided, ACM compares LCA Mk2 with Gripen NG saying Gripen will be better.

Do you have the Mig-21++ video as well?

Or anything that puts the actual comment in quote?

Perhaps a video which sees him quoting this
"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."

Let's not forget Mk1 will still not clear ASR and production has been capped to 2 squadrons.

 

[ppgj]

ACM believes the same too. Wonder if his beliefs are wrong.

if ACM was beleiving like you he would not be inducting 2 squadrons of LCA mark 1 which he beleives is a Mig 21++ and which it was to replace.

That's nothing. We just added equipment to existing ports. When you buy a new graphics card and attach it to your motherboard, do you call that

integration? I am talking about designing and developing the entire architecture of the motherboard and then attaching equipment to it. Huge difference.

that is because you are ignorant of how the darin upgrade happened. it was not just adding hardware to the motherboard. it was done on the MIL 1553B databus

- a first on Jaguar anywhere in the world and which was later adopted by others!!

go thro' this from the man who led the DARIN team himself -

It was our recommendation that we would build a system with an open architecture connected by a Mil-Std 1553B Bus with redundancy.

Some eyebrows were raised by our choice of Mil-Std 1553B as the Bus as the protocol was a brand new protocol and no aircraft in the whole world had

attempted to work a system on it.

It needs to be emphasized that the Indian jaguar was the first weapon system in the whole world to adopt the MIL-STD-1553B data bus protocol. It was

also one of the first weapon systems to adopt a truly open architecture where not only the computers and displays but also the sensors and control panels all

communicated with each other through a data bus. One could whip in or out any sensor or display or computer or control panel on the system. As long as

the format of data interchange was maintained there would be no problem.

He asked me whether it was a fact that no aircraft in the world had so far used the MIL-STD-1553B bus. I affirmed. He then asked whether it was true

that the continuation of the Jaguar production line was dependent on the successful timely completion of the integration task. I said yes. He then asked

me whether it was true that no one in India had ever undertaken a task similar to what I had just undertaken. I said probably yes. He then asked me

whether it was true that all the varied vendors we had selected had never worked together before. I said yes. The he asked his last question. You

still want to do this job all by yourself? He said. Yes, I said and we shall do it too. All the best of luck Air Commodore, he said. I thanked him and

closed the meeting. I certainly needed a lot of luck.

As soon as the vendor contracts were signed, the tempo of IIO's work became higher. We concentrated on a few specific segments.

Creation of a mock-up for physical integration
Creation of a static and then a dynamic rig to put the system together.
Creation of an exhaustive flight instrumentation requirement, setting pass / fail targets for component level acceptance, setting pass / fail targets for

system level acceptance.
Making sure that an instrumented air range would be available in good time for the flight trials (which were many months into the future at that time).
Ensuring that system design authority remained firmly in our hands.
Hammering out detailed procedures to ensure that there were no conflicts of legal nature or of safety in structural nature in sharing designing authority

between BAe, HAL and IIO
Creation of an infrastructure that allowed us to monitor the day to day progress on the development of each component reliably.
Organizing a system where the certification / documentation / verification of the INAS related work could be handled through the CRE / CRI reps.
Keeping an eye on the budget
Creation of operations manuals and technical manuals for the system.

http://tkstales.wordpress.com/2010/03/07/the-darin-story/

huge difference!! unlike your worthless comment denigrating any indian effort.

In 2010 IAF claimed a 50% obsolescence in IAF(only MKI, M-2000, Bison, Mig-29 and upgraded Jags being certifiable). By 2015 IAF claims 20%

obsolescence, LCA adds to the figures even after the above aircraft are nearly phased out. Only Jaguars and LCAs will be our obsolete aircraft by 2018. Even

Jaguars will start being phased out by then.

After 2025, LCA will be our only obsolete aircraft with the other aircraft being FGFA, MKI, MMRCA and AMCA. Early retirement anyone.

advise the ACM about it ASAP.

If IAF inducts aircraft, the number of engines imported is usually twice the number. With 230 MKIs it was 920 engines and 600 Honeywell engines for

Jags. So 200 F-414s for LCA sounds just about right for 100 Mk2 or 83 in service aircraft and X number of test prototypes.

hello??

for the Mig 29 (60+) upgrade the contract signed for RD 33 S3 is for 20 off the shelf and 120 HAL licence manufacture!! where is it double or trible that you

are trying to imply??

http://www.domain-b.com/defence/def_prod/20090822_rd-33_series-3_engines_2.html

going by your logic C-17 should be getting 40 or 80 extra engines!!! but do you know it is only 5?? that is how it is. normally 10-15% is the reserve.

That's why the Mk1 production was capped at 40 aircraft. IAF wants 83 Mk2 and even that will reduce as time passes.

nothing confirmed. 123 anyway is not small. equals MMRCA.

According to the plan, LCA was supposed to fly for the first time in 1990, 1996, 1999 and finally 2001. Don't you see what's wrong?

plans can be anything. FSE funding only happened in apr 1993. you can't expect it to fly in 1990/96. 1999 was possible but for the FBW story!!

A triplex channel sends 3 signals from source to destination. A Quadruplex channel takes the average voltage of a triplex channel and then sends it

along with the other 3 channels.

A Quadruplex channel is also a Triplex channel at the source but ends with 4 channels at the destination just to increase redundancy.

correct but the point is as you said "increase redundancy". safety.

The Gripen's FBW would be more advanced in coding and quality even if we have a more pretty sounding FBW system. Let's not forget the amount of

modifications it has gone through.

did you do the coding for the SAAB?? lol. hillarious.

Haha! We did not develop it from scratch. We only integrated it by ourselves. BaE and then LM helped develop it. It means the senior scientists at LM

and BaE explain how everything needs to be done and then help design the architecture. Then they gave their equipment to simulate it and then gave us a

helping hand in developing it fully. Once done we tested nukes and got kicked out. Only integration work left, we took 3 years and voila.

when your modules are confiscated and you are thrown out what else does it mean other than doing it from the top?? and it is obvious ADE guys could do it

because of their experience with BAE but the fact that we now have FBW tech independantly without any interference from the outside is fact of life.

Even if we do half of what they did, it would be awesome. Heck they achieved supercruise with a clean load on a Technology Demonstrator.

whether we do it or not is moot. you did not answer my question wrt super duper NG SUPERCRUISE!!! better answer it instead of moving off in a tangent.

Better than LCA.

i am used to this 'chant' for 16 days now!!! make it your signature on your profile instead of repeating it again. saves both ours time.

Huh! Overall specs push the Gripen forward simply because it is indeed better than LCA Mk1.

again used to this now.

You are confused. Link 16(ODL) and net centricity is one and the same. We don't have ODL to finish IACCS. We will get deliveries of an ODL as capable

as Link 22 from Israel only a year from now. What we did with fibre optics only recently, PAF did some 4 or 5 years ago.

Their new F-16s are already connected to their AWACS. Their JF-17 will also have Link 16 and their AWACS are already connected to their ground radars using

ODL.

everybody knows that. i asked you specifically when did PAF network their assets - both ground and airborne - for their IACCS to be functional??

JF 17 has at present chinese systems on board. they have to be compatible for the link 16 - i don't think they are.

As of today even our MKIs need voice commands from our Phalcons because our ODL is still not operational.

they have datalinks but are crappy. hopefully indian ODLs will take their place.

The USAF know everything about El/M 8222 and their own Jammers are ancient. Heck ours is a more advanced version of their legacy Jammers. The jamming

environment is too much for LCA to compete in.

irrspective of who has the superior jammers, i don't expect them to use them to full potential in an 'exercise' for obvious reasons. the results of cope

india was the case WVR and tactics employed around it.

The scenario I posted is one of the many scenarios played out during CI-2004. It was a WVR scenario where the M-2000 and Su-30 were already merged

while Bison took pot shots from a range of 15 to 20 km using R-77s.

which is why i said it shows badly on the US insistence on BVR. the importance of WVR is still there and tactics have to be evolved around it while the BVR

missiles mature for the future to make BVR combat more significant.

besides IAF had numbers on their side.

AWACS is not guaranteed to be present always. USAF pilots do exercises in difficult conditions even without AWACS support.

just to learn and evolve tactics for the same. this is exactly the reason for the exercises.

Their second best was equal or better than our best at the time. We employed the Mkk.

ofcourse.

The LCA is obsolete already. They will only employ existing Bison tactics.

you should advise the ACM immediately.

If you exceed the time limit of your ability to fight in WVR then you cannot run away. A bigger aircraft can enter and leave a fight at whim. If it

can keep the LCA occupied for some time and then merge the LCA will not be able to run away with its speed.

In conditions where the LCA's presence is very important, eg if the LCA is protecting a base. Then the bigger aircraft only has to wait for the LCA to

exhaust its fuel supply before engaging it. So, the enemy has a kill as well as bombs the base.

same applies to any similar fighter. how does a Mig 21 Bison has an advantage in this considering it has even less loiter time and a crappy engine with high

SFC and a crappy load?? speed alone does not dictate terms.. tactics are!!! every aircraft being a compromise due to their design - tactics are evolved for

the role they play.

You are still hung up on specs.

because i beleive in facts rather than fiction.

The MKI has enough fuel to last 30 minutes in a dog fight. The LCA has only 5 minutes to make a kill or get away. This was great in 1996. Now it's

just a waste of time.

if PAKFA has more time than SU 30MKI. so?? different aircrafts built for different purpose. which is why i say compare to a similar ones. will Gripen C will

have more time?? will Mig 21Bison will have more time??

i think next you will compare LCA to B-2!!

grow up.

Super Hornet can spit out nearly 80KW for avionics. MKI gives out nearly a 100KW. LCA will be lucky to give out 10KW.

how much SH or MKI spit out is moot. i repeat what reserve power they have. besides your figures are wrong.

EA 18G is the very example.

EA-18G is a bigger aircraft. SH and EA-18G are the same except for avionics and payload.

EA 18G is for electronic attack. IOW most of it's power is dedicated for jammers and other sensors. while SH is like any other fighter.

You can't have that on LCA. 85KN is too less. Heck F-35 spits out 191KN which is almost the same as a SH. So, it can spit out more power.

The MKI and F-15, which are bigger aircraft can spit out even more power than SH or F-35. Obvious.

The Mig-29 being a bigger aircraft can also pit out more power than the LCA.

again you are missing the point. small is not the issue. LCA's empty weight is less, it carries less load and less internal fuel unlike the bigger aircrfats

- meaning it does not need the same power as the bigger fighters. the power optimisation is done accordingly.

Flankers were always a delta. But with bigger tails instead of a single fin.

take a good look at it. does it look like a delta to you??

No. You are confusing the terms. Payload is different from Loaded weight. Loaded means weight coming from fuel and weapons, let's not forget the

weight of the pilot as well. Payload is the amount of load you can carry externally. This is also called the Useful Load.

The useful load on the Rafale is 9.5 tons, Flanker is 8 tons, GripenC/D is 5 tons, Ef-2000 is 6.5 tons, SH is 8 tons and LCA Mk1(IOC) is 2 tons. LCA Mk1(FOC)

= unknown but on paper its 4 tons.

your nitpick aside, the larger point was about the engine power supporting an aircraft and the mission.

PAKFA is a trapezoidal design similar to F-22. Not a delta.

PAKFA's useful weight is 8 tons and fuel load is 11 tons. At 19 tons, the plane would achieve MTOW. With half the figures it would be called Combat load. Get

the terminologies right.

Payload is stuff you carry on the hardpoints.

ok my bad on the "trapezoidal".

as to the rest i don't know why are you saying the obvious. my answer was simply wrt your point - PAKFA being smaller than the MKI has a higher range. my

answer was PAKFA has more internal fuel. that's all.

and before i get my 'terminlogies' right tell me what is "useful weight"??

Only A2A equipped fighters with jammers will engage the LCA on our territory. So, all what you said is not affected.

irrespective of the territory, i think that would be the better option.

You just lose a point and then start nitpicking.

If I am the aggressor I will send out a lot of aircraft which are capable of both A2A as well as A2G. I will make sure my A2A will be the one engaging your

LCA. My A2A aircraft are, say, Mig-29smt against your LCA Mk1. My aircraft is bigger and carries a bigger jammer while LCA will only attempt to engage the

A2G fighters since shooting them down will end the mission.

My A2G aircraft are not in the engagement zone for obvious reasons while my Migs are fast approaching your LCA. Wonder who wins?

ok. you are speaking of the jammer advantage.

LCA has MTOW of 13500kg (some feel it is 14500kg now) - 2500kg (internal fuel) - 100kg (pilot weight) - 6500kg (empty weight) gives me a useful load of

4400kg. now i won't be putting that for obvious reasons.

this is what it would be -

R-77s - 4x175kg = 700kg and R-73 - 2x105 = 210. total = 910kg!!

that would be the A2A config for the LCA mark 1 if it takes on Mig 29 or any other fighter. so just as the Mig 29, LCA too would have the reserve power for

the jammer!!! meaning equal advantage. however LCA because of it's delta design would not get into WVR. it would engage only in the BVR regime as per the

tactic.only in WVR Mig-29s will get the advantage which is why LCA will not get in to that.

TACTICS.

however i agree LCA mark 1 needs a higher thrust engine.

Get the terminologies right. The F-22 is 2 or 3 times bigger than LCA and still has a RCS significantly smaller. The B-2 is massive and I bet even

it's RCS is smaller. Stealth has nothing to do with size it is all to do with design. Get that right first.

tell me if an F22 is built in LCA dimensions it's RCS will be less than a normal F22 or same??

You are getting OEM noises stuck in your head. Just because LCA is small does not mean LO. Even wooden gliders can be picked up on radar.

i repeat LO/VLO are terms associated with Radar Reflections. normally since 5th gen fighters are specifically designed for LO/VLO people associate the terms

to 5th gen. IMO that is not true.

That's why LCA Mk2 is a more viable option compared to the obsolete LCA Mk1. This is why I am claiming LCA Mk1's second squadron was forced on them.

If given an option I am sure IAF will cancel the Mk1 induction all together.

no doubt LCA mark 2 would be a lot more capable but Mark 1 is still better than the existing Mig 21Bisons. they can replace them.

This Light and Medium difference is not defined any more. It's probably just to shut the media up.

whether one defines them as such or not, they are there. also the lighter ones are more cost friendly and their turn around times are much less besides you

don't need a heavier ones where a lighter one can do the job.

Yes. It's true.

good.

That's why the terms LO and VLO are associated with 5th gen aircraft. Did you not notice the way I pulled you down just now.

i explained it earlier.

I gave you specs suggesting smaller aircraft like Surya Kirans with clean loads were picked up by LCA's radar from 100km. You were very happy with

that info, claiming "it's Great." So, what makes you think LCA, a bigger aircraft is suddenly LO?

a fighter aircraft needs to carry a decent enough load to be of any use in combat. LCA sort of fighters are the minimum one could ask for - unless you want

only the cannons to be on.

LO is a relative term. wrt an aircraft with an RCS of 5m2 an aircraft with an RCS of '3m2/1m2' is LO relative to 'those two fighters'.

F-15s, MKIs, F-16s and J-10s will be eating aircraft like LCA for breakfast in a mano a mano.

you were bragging about Mig 21 KILLS in the cope india exercise??

It does not compare to any aircraft and that's why it shouldn't be inducted at all.

but it is being inducted!!

Knirti SAP 14. It's the Russian equivalent of the American Al/Q 99E. Also the Knitri SAP-518 jammer. Both are massive and was first displayed attached

to the Su-30MKI model at MAKS 2009.

SAP 14 is carried on the centreline while SAP-518 are on wingtips.

ohhhh!! there was one photo on one SU 30M ages back. does not mean we get them. even FGFA is supposed to have indian EW.

russians are behind in electronics. i doubt it.

any specs for these???

Doubt that's happening. Did you not see our ACM?

The plan was 7 squadrons of Mk1. Later the plan became 2 squadrons of Mk1 and 5 squadrons of Mk2. Numbers have been reduced from 100 to 83. The more the

delay the smaller the numbers.

there is only a livefist article. true or not nobody knows. lets wait and see.

It is official. ADA announced it during IOC function. IAF wants 83 and those are the last figures from IAF.

i did not see this at all when i saw the IOC function on tv. neither have i seen any other report other than the livefist. infact if the LCA mark 2

supposedly is a different aircraft with bigger wings/more internal fuel/more hard points/aesa/high thrust engine - then we may see MMRCA capped at 126 and

more LCA mark 2 ordered!!!

we need to wait.

It's not always. But I gave it as an example. An aircraft that claimed 140:0 kill ratio just got shot in the azz with a radar lock. It's a HUGE deal,

the Growler achieved radar lock on Raptor.

it is good no doubt. the whole purpose of the american simulated exercises is to find weaknesses in F 22 and fix it. i don't see it happeneing often.

Huh! What's that go to do with the fact that Gripen surpassed Mirage-2000?

the question was about sustained AOA of Gripen. not what surpassed what!! besides still you have not proven that gripen C surpassed Mirage 2000. all you have

been saying is "it surpassed".

It's not a one off incident. Pilots always do that for unpredictability. Turning off FBW is done by experienced pilots.

experienced or not there is something called human endurance.

it is one off incident because a normal pilot can't take more than 11g beyond which they will lose consciousness. but few pilots like the one satish

mentioned can take more momentarily and during that moment he may have managed that kill.

IAF does not need Mk1 anymore. Even Mk2 could end up getting the short stick in 3 or 4 years. But we don't know that. But we can be sure the Mk1 got

the short stick.

but mark 1 even in its present avatar can easily replace Mig 21s including the Bisons. ofcourse IAF wants high thrust engine on the LCA. let's wait on LCA

mark 2.

Nothing to twist. You asked for fact based analysis. Here's an interesting one. Go to A-11 on the first day or the second day and go to Saab. Ask him

how would the LCA fare against GripenC/D? Then come back and give me a "link" about what you learned from him. I won't believe you unless you provide a link.

If you go after the business days then its no use.

i have neither the time nor do i stay in B'lore.

Ok. Then the only alternative to my statement is we are better than Western OEMs.

i never claimed that but that would be correct wrt Gripen C.

Stopping spares supply for 4 weeks is no big deal. It takes that long for us to get it anyway.

you are justifying somebody screwing us in a war!!!

Can you give me detail on war reserves saying IAF aircraft will be badly affected as soon as OEM stops supply within the first week? This was your

assertion so back it up.

as if you have backed up any of your assertions!!!

i said may be Ray sir/Kunal sir can throw more light on this. IIRC i read long back, can't reacall where, which spoke of this war reserve to be about 1 - 2

months. if i get that link i would be happy to give you.

My contradiction is LCA is a fail. ACM said on National Television that LCA is a fail. Best of luck.

fine. keep to your beleif.

If we fix a more powerful engine on a small aircraft without changing fuel load, the aircraft will be an even bigger fail than the first model.

not in the case of LCA mark 1. even if you stick a higher thrust engine of say 100-110kn the point you are making does not happen. there is a lot of scope.

You are short sighted if you believe an airframe enhancing part is useless when it pitches up. Now you will ask me to back this statement up and then

you will say I am providing only fictional rhetoric. For the above "brilliant" statement I am ending this discussion simply because you don't know **** about

aerodynamics.

oh mr. aerodynamics, heard of "form drag??". i guess you have not - looking at your silly answer.

let me illustrate. take a plywood sheet in your hand

1. hold it horizontally relative to the earth and slice it thro' the air in one forward motion. (that was smooth i guess)

2. now incline the sheet at 30degrees and repeat the action. (it may not have been as smooth..)

3. now incline it at 60degrees and repeat. (worse than last time??)

4. now incline to 90degress and repeat. (ouch.. this was the worst)

now get it?? btw in all 4 situations the drag was there but you felt more as you moved from 1 to 4.

so why a canard?? because the advantage of a canard wrt to maneurability is a bigger gain than the drag factor. an aircraft - by any design - is a

compromise. it is not perfect for all situations and hence you compromise on some parameters for a bigger gain on some other parameters. as long as it suits

one's requirement it does not matter. simple.

any external element to an aircraft brings in the drag factor!!! period. even pylons have to be designed for low form drag and so are the external pods. in

AOA even the wings are a big drag factor. this is even more felt in delta wings. canard is no different. they are but small wings!!!

Read up a bit more, learn more about terminologies and how each aerodynamic aspect affects the other and then come back. By then you won't be asking

such stupid questions.

who is being stupid??

You will never be happy with anybody who goes against your view points.

as if you are any different.

atleast i am sticking to facts while all you have been doing is passing off your fiction as fact.

..........

Did you not see the post where I asked for the full video of the speech as well as the interview?

Anyway in the link I provided, ACM compares LCA Mk2 with Gripen NG saying Gripen will be better.

Do you have the Mig-21++ video as well?

Or anything that puts the actual comment in quote?

Perhaps a video which sees him quoting this"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."

Let's not forget Mk1 will still not clear ASR and production has been capped to 2 squadrons.

i told you earlier beleive what you want to. makes no difference to me.

 

[p2prada]

There are only a few points which I want to stress on in answer to your report.

LCA Mk1 is obsolete. It's specs were fine in the 20th century. I don't want IAF buying an aircraft in 2010 that will be retired in 2025. Even US retired their Very FIRST jet aircraft, the North American Fury in just a few years after induction.

LCA cannot hold a candle to any of the air superiority aircraft including Gripen at its current FOC specs. When I say the bigger aircraft can spit out more power, I always meant their reserve power for jamming is much more than LCA's capacity to power all of its electronics. It's obvious. If you just wanna twist and turn at the same angle then be my guest.

Stealth has nothing to do with size. Only design. LCA isn't LO or VLO. You don't make a bus fly and then call it less VLO than F-22. LCA isn't LO compared to Su-30MKI. It's an aircraft that will be picked up a little later than usual. It's not a major advantage when radar technology is progressing faster than stealth tech.

LCA Mk2 is a better bet and IAF should have waited for it rather than go ahead with procurement of an aircraft that is obsolete. Pride and Ego only takes you to the grave, anybody with experience would tell you that.

The Mig-29smt is getting 120 engines only because it is in it's last legs. And the life of the engine matches the extra 15 years required from Mig-29. Going for extra engines wouldn't make sense. MKI is a new platform that will need another engine change after 10 years at 300hrs/year, so the need for extra engines. Jaguars are being upgraded by engines that will last only 6-8 years. So they need a replacement. The LCA is the same.

IAF war reserves of 1 to 2 months are for aircraft that will fly it's entire lifecycle worth of flying in just a month or 2. It's a big deal. A ship load of spares does not help resupply that because it was delayed by a short war. Considering we will be making spares in India, this point is no longer a point of contention.

You are comparing high school aerodynamics to military technology. You are not considering what happens to the air flow behind the wooden board because that's all you are able to think. The Canards are needed to control air flow behind it so it's flow on the wings are controlled. Like you said, everything in aircraft design can be a compromise. The canards do not increase drag, it's main aim is to create vortices over the wing to generate lift. The way it is used has brought Delta away from obsolescence. ADA did not use canards on LCA only because they did not want to complicate the design and bring in more delays to an already delayed program. They decided for cranking the wings instead which is a poor substitute for canards or LERX. If your knowledge in aerodynamics is related to throwing wooden boards in the air to define drag without knowing the effects of drag on airflow then you have a lot left to learn.

Also, You are still hung up on specs. They aren't everything. Spec to spec comparison does not lead anywhere.

Edit:
You are considering reserve power to be a direct corelation to the payload being carried. That's not true because you are comparing apples and oranges. Payload affects a lot of other parameters like air speed and maneuverability. A Rafale with full payload of 9.5 tons and only 15 tons of thrust can still deliver enough jamming power to beat the LCA's defences. Just that Rafale will not be able to out manuever a LCA in a turning fight if LCA has only 4 R-77s and 2 R-73s. But a Rafale with 4 530Ds and 2 Magics IIs will be able to out do the LCA in any parameter including reserve power for jamming. I understand what you are trying to say, but a twin engined aircraft is simply superior to a single engined aircraft in reserve power even if you want to say the twin engine aircraft needs more power to fly. But, that's not how it works.

 

[chex3009]

 

[ppgj]

There are only a few points which I want to stress on in answer to your report.

LCA Mk1 is obsolete. It's specs were fine in the 20th century. I don't want IAF buying an aircraft in 2010 that will be retired in 2025. Even US retired their Very FIRST jet aircraft, the North American Fury in just a few years after induction.

LCA cannot hold a candle to any of the air superiority aircraft including Gripen at its current FOC specs. When I say the bigger aircraft can spit out more power, I always meant their reserve power for jamming is much more than LCA's capacity to power all of its electronics. It's obvious. If you just wanna twist and turn at the same angle then be my guest.

Stealth has nothing to do with size. Only design. LCA isn't LO or VLO. You don't make a bus fly and then call it less VLO than F-22. LCA isn't LO compared to Su-30MKI. It's an aircraft that will be picked up a little later than usual. It's not a major advantage when radar technology is progressing faster than stealth tech.

LCA Mk2 is a better bet and IAF should have waited for it rather than go ahead with procurement of an aircraft that is obsolete. Pride and Ego only takes you to the grave, anybody with experience would tell you that.

The Mig-29smt is getting 120 engines only because it is in it's last legs. And the life of the engine matches the extra 15 years required from Mig-29. Going for extra engines wouldn't make sense. MKI is a new platform that will need another engine change after 10 years at 300hrs/year, so the need for extra engines. Jaguars are being upgraded by engines that will last only 6-8 years. So they need a replacement. The LCA is the same.

IAF war reserves of 1 to 2 months are for aircraft that will fly it's entire lifecycle worth of flying in just a month or 2. It's a big deal. A ship load of spares does not help resupply that because it was delayed by a short war. Considering we will be making spares in India, this point is no longer a point of contention.

You are comparing high school aerodynamics to military technology. You are not considering what happens to the air flow behind the wooden board because that's all you are able to think. The Canards are needed to control air flow behind it so it's flow on the wings are controlled. Like you said, everything in aircraft design can be a compromise. The canards do not increase drag, it's main aim is to create vortices over the wing to generate lift. The way it is used has brought Delta away from obsolescence. ADA did not use canards on LCA only because they did not want to complicate the design and bring in more delays to an already delayed program. They decided for cranking the wings instead which is a poor substitute for canards or LERX. If your knowledge in aerodynamics is related to throwing wooden boards in the air to define drag without knowing the effects of drag on airflow then you have a lot left to learn.

Also, You are still hung up on specs. They aren't everything. Spec to spec comparison does not lead anywhere.

Edit:
You are considering reserve power to be a direct corelation to the payload being carried. That's not true because you are comparing apples and oranges. Payload affects a lot of other parameters like air speed and maneuverability. A Rafale with full payload of 9.5 tons and only 15 tons of thrust can still deliver enough jamming power to beat the LCA's defences. Just that Rafale will not be able to out manuever a LCA in a turning fight if LCA has only 4 R-77s and 2 R-73s. But a Rafale with 4 530Ds and 2 Magics IIs will be able to out do the LCA in any parameter including reserve power for jamming. I understand what you are trying to say, but a twin engined aircraft is simply superior to a single engined aircraft in reserve power even if you want to say the twin engine aircraft needs more power to fly. But, that's not how it works.

as for as LCA is concerned we are like north pole and south pole. so let's agree to disagree.

stealth/LO/VLO again i have answered. if you differ from me no issue with me.

"reserve power" is the key. an aircraft is fully optimised for power. if one wants more power to be apportioned (in a non - electronic attack type) to the jammer, one has to either cut payload or internal fuel so the engine gets more reserve power. naturally in A2A the aircrfats get that advantage because A2A armament is lighter but this advantage applies to both single engined and double engined. i also said LCA mark 1 needs higher thrust engine.

i repeat the number of engines in 'reserve' are between 10-15%. you can check any deal. when engine change is required in a MLU that would be separately dealt because even engines mature as either more thrust is added or any other technological glitch is fixed (RD 33).

Examples - RD 33 and RD 33 series 3 for Mig 29s/Adour or Honeywell engines for Jags.

M53 and M53 - P2 for the Mirage 2000s though this was not MLU.

my wooden board example was to illustrate the 'drag factor'. i agreed Canard brings an advantage that overrides the drag factor.

 

[p2prada]

You still don't get the point of reserve power. A small 85 KN engine cannot compare to 2 90KN engines. The weight difference between the 2 aircraft is not the same. The Mig-29 is heavier, but its ability to deliver huge amounts of power is well known. The fact is LCA does not have a T/W ratio of 1.0+. The Mig-29 does which means the Mig-29 can power more with even more reserve power. Even if one engine on the Mig-29 fails, the Mig-29 can come home with the other engine. The Mig-29 has plenty of power.

Weight plays a problem only in WVR. But in a BVR situation the Mig-29s powerful engines can keep the aircraft hidden for a long time against a LCA like aircraft. Even if I can make the SAP 14 smaller to fit into the LCA, its not going to be able to power the jammer.

I gave you examples of radars on Su-30 platforms. The Su-30Mkk has the Al-31F with 12.5 tons of thrust. So, it can power only the planar array. The MKI with 13.5 tons can power the Bars. The Su-35 with 14.5 tons is meant for Irbis. The difference is quite a bit.

LCA is not an air superiority aircraft. It's just a Mig-21 with a modern radar, FBW and carbon composites. Also, I don't have to agree to disagree on the LCA. I know the LCA is obsolete. The ACM knows that too and so does ADA. I am not willing to agree to your assertion that LCA adds to capability even by a small margin. It just fills numbers and it also cannot be upgraded to Mk2 standards even by a long shot. You can however stay put with your opinion. I can agree to disagree on a point that has equal merit which your's does not even by a hair's length.

With a 40% fuel load increase, 35% thrust increase and only addition of 200kg still gives the Gripen NG a loiter time of 30 minutes, the same as in Gripen C/D. The LCA Mk1 with only an engine upgrade and no increase in fuel will be a fail.

The Carnegie Think Tank refers to Gripen's aerodynamic profile as "Superlative." Nobody would be even remotely close if they defined the LCA that way.

Your opinion is only supported by fanboys who are more interested in having sub standard indigenous products than a capable foreign product simply because the media has been feeding stories. India is not a great power, but only a regional power. India is a moderately rich country with a vibrant economy. Our defence industry is a fledgling sector which is learning to walk on its feet only now. Just because you see a 9% growth you are fooling yourselves into believing we are better than others. There is a word called Realistic. Realism does not have any place for falsified Pride. We only have the potential to be better than others, but we are not yet there. We will need at least another 15 years before anything indigenous can be called World Class. Somehow people are not willing to wait that long because of the media's influence. In 5 to 10 years, China will be at a position we will reach only between 2025 and 2030. Their economy allows them to be world class 10 years before us. We just have to get off our azzes and realize that.

 

[gogbot]

It just fills numbers and it also cannot be upgraded to Mk2 standards even by a long shot.

We can always do a complete replacement using the MK-II 15 years or so down the line.
It's not unheard of for 1st gen systems to be replaced early with improved versions earlier in its life

 

[ppgj]

You still don't get the point of reserve power. A small 85 KN engine cannot compare to 2 90KN engines. The weight difference between the 2 aircraft is not the same. The Mig-29 is heavier, but its ability to deliver huge amounts of power is well known. The fact is LCA does not have a T/W ratio of 1.0+. The Mig-29 does which means the Mig-29 can power more with even more reserve power. Even if one engine on the Mig-29 fails, the Mig-29 can come home with the other engine. The Mig-29 has plenty of power.

Weight plays a problem only in WVR. But in a BVR situation the Mig-29s powerful engines can keep the aircraft hidden for a long time against a LCA like aircraft. Even if I can make the SAP 14 smaller to fit into the LCA, its not going to be able to power the jammer.

obviously you are not a man who beleives in facts and neither do you present fact based analysis. let me take some trouble on myself and present you one -

let's take LCA and Mig 29s as they are now -

(remember i am taking the same 910kg load which actually favours the Mig 29 in terms of T/W).

(empty weight*internal fuel*pilot weight*payload*total*thrust*t/w)

LCA mark 1 *6500*2486*100*910*9996*85KN*0.87

Mig 29***11000*4365*100*910*16375*162.8KN*1.01

now i have said before LCA mark 1 needs a higher thrust engine for a reason!!! even though Mig will have a bit of an advantage here there is not much of "reserve power" to speak about.

now let's look at LCA mark 2 (now my figures for LCA are my assumptions but realistic for example i imply the weight to grow inspite of the weight reduction for obvious reasons and i expect extra internal fuel to increase by 40%). GE414IN6 is supposed to give 128KN as somebody mentioned but i am taking only 120KN. all these go against LCA for this calculation wrt T/W.

now everyone knows Mig 29SMT has increased internal fuel compared to the basic Mig 29s but i don't know exactly how much. i have increased the internal volume by a modest 765 kg - again advantage Mig 29SMT for calculatios.

LCA mark 2*7000*3500*100*910*11510*120KN*1.06

Mig 29SMT*11000*5000*100*910*17010*162.8KN*0.98

now tell me where is your 'reserve power' for the Jammer advantage?? even if i take 115KN for GE414 still LCA mark 2 pips the Migs at T/W of 1.01!!!

what about Mig 29SMT's climb rate, accelaration with this T/W rato?? besides GE414 will have better SFC than GE404 by 4% when GE 404 itself had a good SFC!!! russian engines are fuel guzzlers meaning less loiter time for your Migs!!!

where is 'extra' power and the 2 engined aircraft advantage??

so sir, instead of sticking to biased, unsustantiated rhetoric get some facts and save the forum from your fiction.

are we clear here???

I gave you examples of radars on Su-30 platforms. The Su-30Mkk has the Al-31F with 12.5 tons of thrust. So, it can power only the planar array. The MKI with 13.5 tons can power the Bars. The Su-35 with 14.5 tons is meant for Irbis. The difference is quite a bit.

and who differed with that and who discussed that??

LCA is not an air superiority aircraft. It's just a Mig-21 with a modern radar, FBW and carbon composites. Also, I don't have to agree to disagree on the LCA. I know the LCA is obsolete. The ACM knows that too and so does ADA. I am not willing to agree to your assertion that LCA adds to capability even by a small margin. It just fills numbers and it also cannot be upgraded to Mk2 standards even by a long shot. You can however stay put with your opinion. I can agree to disagree on a point that has equal merit which your's does not even by a hair's length.

and who said LCA is an air superiority aircraft?? did you have a dream?? LCA is a multi role aircraft. what you disagree who cares?? fact is LCA is part of IAF already. if you can't take it find someway to calm yourself.

With a 40% fuel load increase, 35% thrust increase and only addition of 200kg still gives the Gripen NG a loiter time of 30 minutes, the same as in Gripen C/D. The LCA Mk1 with only an engine upgrade and no increase in fuel will be a fail.

The Carnegie Think Tank refers to Gripen's aerodynamic profile as "Superlative." Nobody would be even remotely close if they defined the LCA that way.

oh your prediction?? do i remember the astrologer??

carnegie also advises IAF not to buy Gripen!!!!

Your opinion is only supported by fanboys who are more interested in having sub standard indigenous products than a capable foreign product simply because the media has been feeding stories. India is not a great power, but only a regional power. India is a moderately rich country with a vibrant economy. Our defence industry is a fledgling sector which is learning to walk on its feet only now. Just because you see a 9% growth you are fooling yourselves into believing we are better than others. There is a word called Realistic. Realism does not have any place for falsified Pride. We only have the potential to be better than others, but we are not yet there. We will need at least another 15 years before anything indigenous can be called World Class. Somehow people are not willing to wait that long because of the media's influence. In 5 to 10 years, China will be at a position we will reach only between 2025 and 2030. Their economy allows them to be world class 10 years before us. We just have to get off our azzes and realize that.

who is being a fanboy here?? i guess most members have seen here your incessant rhetoric. so don't sell fiction!!!

 

[ace009]

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

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.

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.

I may have missed this in this thread, but can someone provide a head to head comparison for the Gripen and the LCA?

As far as I know the RCS of all the M-MRCA aircarft are larger than the LCA, with or without external weapons (and none of them have full internal weapons bay. So, RCS is not a comparison issue to be held against the LCA. As for EW, the counter counter measures will be pretty good for the LCA Mk2 , so Jamming should not be a problem there. As for the LCA Mk1, I think it is only a stop gap measure - similar to the Su-30 K we received from the Russians, which were a fraction as capable as the MKI.

The EA-18G Growler catching a Raptor was a pure chance event, unlikely to happen in another million flights. Even then the growler could not get a missile lock onto the Raptor because of the low RCS. THe Growler pilot did not get a chance to shoot, since the whole event took place over a period of a second or two (3-4 frames in the Growlers camera). So, please do not bring the Raptor into this - you cannot compare it to any of these aircrafts.

For all those LCA haters - get a grip guys. The LCA has many faults and shortcomings - some of it due to ineptness of the DRDO/ ADA, some of it due to international politics (Nuclear test related ban etc) and some of it due to lack of foresight (both from MoD and from IAF). But all said and done, the LCA is the first indegenous Indian Jet fighter, which has opened up a whole new dimension of military capability for us in India. The more it is inducted into the IAF, the more we will learn about it's shortcomings and the better we can design it's future versions as well as the AMCA.

 

[p2prada]

obviously you are not a man who beleives in facts and neither do you present fact based analysis. let me take some trouble on myself and present you one -

so sir, instead of sticking to biased, unsustantiated rhetoric get some facts and save the forum from your fiction.

are we clear here???

You show "incredible" knowledge about aircraft, propulsion, aerodynamics and power without actually knowing anything and you claim about talking facts.

Let me explain how the real world works.

Every aircraft that has electronics and electrical systems run on power generated within the system. Electronics run on DC power with a 12KW limit at 28V and electrical run on AC power at 400Hz and 115 V.

On an average a power plant generating 90 to 100KN is generating 1 MW of power. So you could say LCA gives out ~1MW and Mig-29 is generating ~2 MW. Watts is not a unit of thrust. So, this is only a converted mathematical figure for analysis. Now I cannot use Kinetic energy as electricity. Kinetic energy is meant for physical work. But to power my avionics I need electrical power, DC as well as AC.

For that there is 1 generator attached to a single engine and this is called power pack or power generator. The generator generates 50KVA on the Mig-29 and 50KVA on the LCA.

So, total power generated for electrical functions on a fighter aircraft like LCA is 50KVA(35KW at pf 70%) and the Mig-29 is 2*50KVA = 100KVa(70KW at pf 70%).

Therefore total power generated by LCA is 35KW while Mig-29 is 70KW due to presence of 2 engines.

So, Mig-29 has a lot more power (twice to be exact) than the LCA for all its avionics.

The Super Hornet or EA-18G Growler based on the F-414 engine also have 2*50KVA power generators and thus have 75KW for avionics.

Larger aircraft like F-22 and Su-30MKI are attached with 2*75KVA(100KW) power generators. Single engined F-16 has a 75KVA power pack connected and thus generates more power than LCA but less power than Mig-29.

This implies twin engine aircraft deliver more power for jamming than single engined aircraft.

This was your science lesson for today and I hope you have enjoyed it. Your way of calculating power is obviously ignorance and fanboyism, not to mention a desperate attempt at trying to prove me wrong with silliness.

I will repeat, yet again, you are still hung up on specs. Even if we calculated using your method, I still counted Mig-29Smt as having a higher T/W ratio than LCA Mk2 with F-414 at 120KN(118KN to be closer). Did you forget the Mig-29Smt's power isn't 162.8KN but 180KN? Check RD-33 Series 3 engine. So, both attempts are a fail. None of this has anything to do with powering a jammer.

You don't understand the concept of reserve power and where's it actually applied. Mig-29 has plenty of reserve power, more than LCA. But of course, my posts are only fictional rhetoric.

and who said LCA is an air superiority aircraft?? did you have a dream?? LCA is a multi role aircraft. what you disagree who cares?? fact is LCA is part of IAF already. if you can't take it find someway to calm yourself.

According to Carlo Kopp, aircraft airframes are usually exceptionally
well suited to one task, reasonably good at a range of other tasks, and marginal
for some tasks.

The LCA is supposed to be exceptionally suited to air superiority missions, reasonably good at strike and marginal at CAS. IAF always wanted LCA to be an interceptor and a point defence fighter with a secondary strike feature.

oh your prediction?? do i remember the astrologer??

Funny how we were once discussing about T-90s and how I said future of warfare aren't big tanks with heavy armour, rather it would be small profile and fast tanks with small crews, increased situational awareness with advanced active protection and BANG a few months later Indian Army releases FMBT specifications for a 40 ton tank with advanced Active protection instead of the 60 ton norm.

carnegie also advises IAF not to buy Gripen!!!!

Hell No. They said American fighters are a cheap bet with immediate results but European fighters are a better option if IA is looking for technology that evolves at a faster rate if the MRCA is a stop gap for FGFA.

who is being a fanboy here?? i guess most members have seen here your incessant rhetoric. so don't sell fiction!!!

I am giving gyan that no text book or link provides as easy as your awesome information sources. Learn or begone.

You call all my posts as fictional and rhetoric. Funny how I am providing all the data and you have only been resorting to ad hominem attacks. Go back to all your posts and find me at least one post where you have something positive to post about LCA where you have given any information that has attempted at changing my mind.

Whenever I post my "fictional rhetoric" you have never attempted to give a successful "fact based analysis" that discounts my "fictional rhetoric."

I may have missed this in this thread, but can someone provide a head to head comparison for the Gripen and the LCA?

The Gripen's aerodynamics have been stated to be the best in the world as of today. I don't know if the claim matches up with MKI and F-22, but non-TVC aircraft it's a yes.

It has similar specs to LCA but Gripen's are more real world specs while LCA's are only on paper as of today.

LCA isn't LO and is not as stealthy as claimed. Actually none of the aircraft in operation today except F-22 is LO or lower. All look pretty bright on radar without EA.

The EA-18G scored a BVR lock on F-22 and achieved a kill. Primarily credit is given to pilot and Electronic Attack. The F-22 achieves stealth using RCS reduction measures and highly refined signals emissions, but Growler achieves stealth using high powered jamming and denying the use of your sensors.

For all those LCA haters - get a grip guys. The LCA has many faults and shortcomings - some of it due to ineptness of the DRDO/ ADA, some of it due to international politics (Nuclear test related ban etc) and some of it due to lack of foresight (both from MoD and from IAF). But all said and done, the LCA is the first indegenous Indian Jet fighter, which has opened up a whole new dimension of military capability for us in India. The more it is inducted into the IAF, the more we will learn about it's shortcomings and the better we can design it's future versions as well as the AMCA.

These shortcomings could be detected even without IAF. Heck, the LCA Mk1 does not even fullfill basic thrust requirements. Whatever IAF tries will be short of anything they want from the airframe. Mk1 is only a prototype of the Mk2. IAF wants the Mk2, not the Mk1 but it was easily forced on them so ADA and DRDO "breaks even." Such a waste of 40 pilots on a platform that is currently suggested at being retired even early than anticipated from your post as well as Gogbot's post. IAF is compromising on a platform that is already obsolete.

 

[gogbot]

These shortcomings could be detected even without IAF. Heck, the LCA Mk1 does not even fullfill basic thrust requirements. Whatever IAF tries will be short of anything they want from the airframe.

Well not fulfilling the trust requirement is hardly the result of poor design , we all know the Kaveri story. Kaveri and LCA were de-linked because the project could move forward without waiting on the trust requirement. IAF has accepted that compromise .

Mk1 is only a prototype of the Mk2. IAF wants the Mk2, not the Mk1 but it was easily forced on them so ADA and DRDO "breaks even."Such a waste of 40 pilots on a platform that is currently suggested at being retired even early than anticipated from your post as well as Gogbot's post. IAF is compromising on a platform that is already obsolete.

Your ruing your credibility with these comments dude , i Have read your posts for the last few weeks you made a lot of good points but you always push it too far to point where you won't accept a different perspective.

So first ADA And DRDO don't need to break even , they are government owned agency's with Government budget. DRDO budget comes right from the PM office.
Its a different story for HAL , but DRDO is not a profit organization. Money spent on tejas MK-I aircraft is money that is infused with the LCA MKII project.
It's not as if DRDO or ADA takes this cash and gives it to it shareholders they have none they are an government R&D lab.

You know i get it Tejas may not be much to take in compared to the MMRCA platforms , but i don't think its a waste of pilots. IAF certainly did not feel that way , if they really wanted to they could have not inducted it at all. No amount of arm twisting take away that power from them. I agree the MK-I is a compromise , but as always in compromises , you compromise for a reason. Tejas had to fielded at one point , moving on to the mK-II without doing that would have been premature.

 

[p2prada]

Well not fulfilling the trust requirement is hardly the result of poor design , we all know the Kaveri story. Kaveri and LCA were de-linked because the project could move forward without waiting on the trust requirement. IAF has accepted that compromise .

So, ACM was only sarcastic on national TV for kicks? Watch his speech again. That's sarcasm at it's best. A guy like that wouldn't be buying planes for kicks.

Your ruing your credibility with these comments dude , i Have read your posts for the last few weeks you made a lot of good points but you always push it too far to point where you won't accept a different perspective.

The problem is there is no "different" perspective. Indigenous capability is a needed must. But it shouldn't come at the cost of IAF's priorities. IAF is after all more important than ADA.

So first ADA And DRDO don't need to break even , they are government owned agency's with Government budget. DRDO budget comes right from the PM office.
Its a different story for HAL , but DRDO is not a profit organization. Money spent on tejas MK-I aircraft is money that is infused with the LCA MKII project.
It's not as if DRDO or ADA takes this cash and gives it to it shareholders they have none they are an government R&D lab.

Are you kidding? When Arjun was rejected, DRDO came out openly and said Army HAS to buy 500 tanks because they want to "break even." That's what I have been saying since before. DRDO is not a profit organization and they don't need to break even. But their top leaders wouldn't listen to reason. They are still pushing the Army and Mod to buy 500 Arjun tanks even when they are not needed. It's the same with IAF. The number of LCA matches development costs and their attempts to break even is staring us in the face.

Also Tejas Mk2 will be a whole new aircraft, right from cockpit to aerodynamics. The 40 pilots meant for LCA Mk1 may or may not carry their experience into Mk2 at a cheaper rate. Also we will need another 20 to 40 pilots flying more development aircraft after 2016. That's 80 pilots lost to ADA's development work.

You know i get it Tejas may not be much to take in compared to the MMRCA platforms , but i don't think its a waste of pilots. IAF certainly did not feel that way , if they really wanted to they could have not inducted it at all. No amount of arm twisting take away that power from them. I agree the MK-I is a compromise , but as always in compromises , you compromise for a reason. Tejas had to fielded at one point , moving on to the mK-II without doing that would have been premature.

That's the problem. I don't think IAF had a choice. Even the Carnige report said there is a possibility IAF will have LCA forced on them in the long run.

Gripen NG and F-16IN fill the same low end class as LCA Mk2. If either of these aircraft are selected the IAF will not have it's HCA, MCA, LCA mix at all.

 

[bharadwaj]

Guys,one question-Why can't IAF replace all her supersonic trainers with the Tejas mark-1 as it has considerably less life cycle costs when compared to the MiG-23 BN,MiG-21's,MiG-29's and other aircrafts?It also keeps the Tejas line going(At a faster pace)until the Mark-2 occupies the production line!The current engine on the mark-1 is twice as reliable as the MiG engines and the modern cockpit layout is designed around Indian pilots hence the trainees might find it easy for their transition from trainers to fighters.The initial costs might be high but its considerably safer and will benefit our air force in the years to come and they might end up recovering their initial costs.Most of all it fuels HAL's hunger for improvement which might result in an AWESOME mark-2.