ADA Tejas (LCA) News and Discussions

[p2prada]

name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&p=74789&sid=5916f3ad6685d9846b16cd298323ec96#74789[/url][/QUOTE]

This was a Super Hornet battle in WVR which ended with a snap shot of a gun kill.

The scenario I explained was an Aim-120 D shot from a Growler.

I think it is a "horses for courses" approach that is needed. The IAF flies the Mig21, which is obsolete four times over. IAF certainly does not need all fighters to be at the level of the MKI. An upgrade to the LCA Mk1 seems pretty good. The money spent goes to the development of the LCA Mk2 and helps the development of aviation technology in the country. If we bought the Gripen (which I guess is what you prefer), the money would go to an European company/ country and IAF will be dependant upon foreign sources for ALL components of all fighters forever. With the LCA, in the long run, India will have at least one indigenous front line fighter with little if any dependency on foreign sources. As and when the LCA Mk2 comes out, the LCA Mk1 will be replaced (just like the Su 30K replaced by the Su 30 MKI).
As for the Gripen, I know it is a damn good fighter, but if it is that good, we can get it for the M-MRCA? or the naval versions?

We will be phasing out 80Mig-21s by 2012, but we will be inducting 40 new MKIs by the same time. The first contract we signed in the MKI deal was for the production of 190MKI. 50 in Russia and 140 in India. The second contract we signed was for 40 aircraft pushing the number to 230 aircraft. IAF said they want the extra 40 aircraft from Russia for replacing the 80Migs that will be phased out by 2012. That's called an induction. You don't phase out technology that is obsolete four times over only to induct technology that's obsolete two times over. You phase out old technology for new technology.

I support Rafale. Gripen and EF are secondary choices. I took the example of Gripen to say how the aircraft with similar specs still out does the LCA by a huge margin even though it was inducted a decade earlier.

Talk about indigenous is just a fad. It currently has no real life affect in winning a war.

Real indigenous equipment that will fit IAF bill will only come out after 2030. It's only after 2030 that we will be able to call our industry capable enough to deliver to the IAF with great customer satisfaction. Until then imported stuff is all we have to stay ahead of the game.

IAF will be dependent on foreign equipment until 2050. It's a fact.

So ego in the end if you debating point.
Ego even though this is force with 50% obsolescence levels ,
One of the worlds highest Peace time attrition losses for aircraft and pilots.
In the last 15 years , we have lost more pilots to crashed aircraft as opposed to the who will be Tejas pilots.

50% obsolescence is only for our old aircraft including Bisons. This will be reduced to 20% by 2015. 20% only because of existence of Mig-27s and LCA Mk1.

As of today, obsolescence can only be avoided by imports.

Facts has nothing to do with ego. MKI is somewhere else. Other aircraft in our inventory as well as most other inventories don't even compare. Everybody knows it and even USAF accepts it.

what the hell is wrong with you , our air force has to import all this capability. That's nothing to be proud.
Its the stupidest thing i ever heard p2p

Everything has to be imported as of today. Even in 2050 we will still be using imported equipment like FGFA and MRCA. It's the most factual thing to say. It is certainly nothing to be proud about. But pride has no place in the battlefield. we can only rely on the air force to deliver when the time comes and then be proud about their service.

You talk about me having an ego, but you say using indigenous equipment is a matter of pride. As a civilian you can think that way. As a General you only say you are proud for morale, but as the strategic head of your force, you cannot think that way. A guy like me with a technocrat label in DFI can only influence members here. A positive influence or a negative influence from me does not affect the working of the country or the forces. If I say good things about LCA, I will get "Thanks" and "Reputation Points." But, if I say bad things about LCA I will obviously not get many supporters.

But a general will say positive things but only focus on the negative things when it comes to capability. Confidence is a positive emotion while pride is a completely negative emotion. A General can never claim his pride won the day because it simply cannot. Philosophy apart, LCA does not fit any of current IAF's requirement in 2012 and are willing to wait until 2016 for a superior version. It does not affect force's operational preparedness in any way except provide DRDO a push.

The most advanced Air force in the world your kidding your self more than any of the Tejas fanboys if you believe that.

Wrong. I never said the most advanced air force. I said one of the most advanced fighters out there. There is a huge difference between the 2 statements.

This is surprisingly poor quality post o your part

This is only a post that goes against your opinions. I can claim your's was a poor quality post as well.

Bring an American or Russian in the mix. Show him what we are inducting and show him the LCA Mk1. Even he will say the Mk1 is a useless addition to the air force even though it is indigenous. Supporting the indigenous industry is great. But supporting an indigenous industry that is coming out with sub standard equipment is plain silly. LCA has a long way to go, but DRDO is pulling too many strings to make things work their way.

Both Lt General Bharadwaj and ACM Naik are pissed off at the DRDO. But who cares, they are the bad guys.

 

[gogbot]

IAF will be dependent on foreign equipment until 2050. It's a fact.

IAF will be using , and not so much dependent

50% obsolescence is only for our old aircraft including Bisons. This will be reduced to 20% by 2015. 20% only because of existence of Mig-27s and LCA Mk1.

I know why we have Obsolescence.

I only wanted to humble your POV , that IAF is just too good for the Tejas.

As of today, obsolescence can only be avoided by imports.

And what about tomorrow.
One can't only focus on issue of today and avoid the storm of tomorrow.

They is a balance in meeting the needs of today and meeting the needs of tomorrow.

Facts has nothing to do with ego. MKI is somewhere else. Other aircraft in our inventory as well as most other inventories don't even compare. Everybody knows it and even USAF accepts it.

I like the MKI , it is my favorite plane till the PAK-FA showed up

But it has its limitations , even against the MMRCA aircraft when you compare Avionics , EW suite , sensor fusion , Data link and RCS.

Everything has to be imported as of today. Even in 2050 we will still be using imported equipment like FGFA and MRCA. It's the most factual thing to say. It is certainly nothing to be proud about. But pride has no place in the battlefield. we can only rely on the air force to deliver when the time comes and then be proud about their service.

Your tell me that , while the Navy has been able to do so much.
Is is that inconceivable for that to be replicated in the other two branches as well.

You talk about me having an ego,

You said IAF was too good for the tejas

but you say using indigenous equipment is a matter of pride. As a civilian you can think that way.

I am proud that the Tejas exists and i am proud India has a fighter jet to its name. Since that's such a long way from having nothing at all.
And i will be more proud if the Tejas is serving the IAF in a full operational capacity

As a General you only say you are proud for morale, but as the strategic head of your force, you cannot think that way. A guy like me with a technocrat label in DFI can only influence members here. A positive influence or a negative influence from me does not affect the working of the country or the forces. If I say good things about LCA, I will get "Thanks" and "Reputation Points." But, if I say bad things about LCA I will obviously not get many supporters.

But a general will say positive things but only focus on the negative things when it comes to capability. Confidence is a positive emotion while pride is a completely negative emotion. A General can never claim his pride won the day because it simply cannot. Philosophy apart, LCA does not fit any of current IAF's requirement in 2012 and are willing to wait until 2016 for a superior version. It does not affect force's operational preparedness in any way except provide DRDO a push.

This is only a post that goes against your opinions. I can claim your's was a poor quality post as well.

Listen dude you posted a heck of lot more stuff i disagree with and even stuff i agree with. And i am bing honest when i say i quench when you say stuff like LCA sucks , Arjun sucks and I threw a fit when u said LCH sucks .
But hey i am not so petty as give you negative rep as a result of me not agree , and i don't give positive rep for people just for saying stuff like to hear.
I give rep for good posts.
Heck there are numerous time reading your posts that i feel i should give you some rep , then i come upon the same polarzing , Lock of perspective comment that is just unnecessary.

Also i get it Generals also have to politicians , its just how it all works, they do their jobs the way they have to. But they know more than anybody the difficulty towards supporting domestic platforms , Just as the FONA said , it is difficult because they have a whole other list issue they also have to consider , and its a matter of weighing the two. FONA view on the matter is clear , supporting these systems is beneficial.

ACR may have different priorities but they have the same motivations.

Wrong. I never said the most advanced air force. I said one of the most advanced fighters out there. There is a huge difference between the 2 statements.

We can never be as good as the country that make our capability. its pointless to make such statements in that light.

Bring an American or Russian in the mix. Show him what we are inducting and show him the LCA Mk1. Even he will say the Mk1 is a useless addition to the air force even though it is indigenous.

They will understand more than anybody else , that this is an evolutionary process , they can see the tejas as the stepping stone that it is rather than the end result.
What next ? will be their question.

Tejas mK1 is not something i want to show off , it is still an aircraft that is needed for development , weapon integration , doctrine development and building expertise.
I agree with you when you say IAF has moved on from the Tejas MK1 and it probably the better decision , but i what i dont agree is that you assertion that the MK1 is a waste of our time and resource , because it just is not.

Supporting the indigenous industry is great. But supporting an indigenous industry that is coming out with sub standard equipment is plain silly. LCA has a long way to go, but DRDO is pulling too many strings to make things work their way.

Get it into your head , we all start somewhere.
Rafale , Gripen , F-16 , how many generations of design and evolution has gone into them. Into the parts that make them all work. The Electronics the sub-systems have been develop iteration by iteration , fielded , modified , re-fielded.

We are behind and we have to catch and that is never going to happen if that argument is allowed to prevail. We haven't even given the defense sector a chance , one generation of system and its a forgone conclusion that it can only produce sub-standard item.

unless we field what actually made, we are missing out an huge opportunity to gain expertise and improve that can only available happen when a system is ready for actual induction , When is the next time we can actually field an Indian Fighter Jet , 2018 at best , 8 years of development halted , while people go back to the design boards with no real field experience, on their only viable. I stress the point only , we never has something to field before so have no field experience on said systems what so ever

Both Lt General Bharadwaj and ACM Naik are pissed off at the DRDO. But who cares, they are the bad guys.

I don't see it like that anymore

They are not Bad guys and they are doing their jobs.

DRDO has to do better, but they can only do as much as the system allows.
ISRO managed to get its act together. Former ISRO chief now runs DRDO , There's been a limited revamp recently.

People like Kalam work at ISRO , DRDO despite the inefficiency of these organization they have achieved much that is just taken for granted.
All these expectation but very few people are willing to walk the hard miles to get and commit for the advanced tech.

I an realizing the systems we have now with regards to Arjun and Tejas , not good enough to mass produced and inducted. But hey whether it be 300+ Arjuns or 40 Tejas , these are commitments , even if they are pressured ones by the MoD to developing and building these systems. Money alone will not get us the Rafale.
You have to develop , field , modify , learn , develop , re-field. And do that over a couple of decade. Doing that on the test range itself is not enough. At the end of the day when possible the end user has to be able to get their hands on it and take it aprat.

 

[mattster]

Hopefully India aerospace engineers can come up with a better wing profile than what you just posted. That plane would be a sitting duck for any radar - composite or not !!

 

[gogbot]

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_o_no4M2xEPY/TUV7JAOW7sI/AAAAAAAAMPg/ZtucCthSBEw/s1600/LCAMK2_RANJAN.JPG

Hopefully India aerospace engineers can come up with a better wing profile than what you just posted. That plane would be a sitting duck for any radar - composite or not !!

This is nothing but far art

Tejas MKII will use levicons/LERX as on the Tejas-Navy as opposed to canards. It achieves the same purpose of increasing AOA without adding addition surfaces to increase the RCS.

 

[ppgj]

we keep hearing LCA mark 1 does not even match upto Gripen C. let's see how SAAB due to it's 'marketing' gimmicks fools people and the fanboys lap it up!!! let's look at this gripen brochure -

take good look at the specs in comaprison to LCA mark 1.

......................gripen C.....LCA mark 1

empty weight....6800kg.......6500kg.....(LCA mark 1 lighter by 300kg)

internal fuel......2400kg.......2486kg.....(LCA mark 1 higher by 86kg)

MTOW.............14000kg......13500kg

A/B thrust........80.5KN.......85KN........(LCA mark 1 higher by 4.5KN)

now take a look at the payload as per the Gripen brochure. it says 5300kg!!! how is it possible?? let's do some maths -

14000-6800-2400-100(pilot weight)= 4700kg!!!! unless the internal volume is reduced by 600kg, it is simply not possible!!! which means reduced range which is already less than LCA mark 1 as per the internal fuel volumes above!!!

besides what would be thrust to weight ratios?? in clean config with no load -

Gripen C - 0.88 vs LCA mark 1 - 0.95

so on any count LCA mark 1 scores over Gripen C. but ofcourse who cares facts?? as long as SAAB scores with marketing gimmicks and the fanboys fall over each other and bathe in it's glory!!!

besides what is the safety record of Gripen over the period -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accidents_and_incidents_involving_the_JAS_39_Gripen

6 crashes including 1 prototype, one production aircraft and 4 in service with the swedish AF.

people who talk about 'SAAB engineering' as some sort of 'god sent and defying physics' need to take a good look at these crashes and decide on the "maturity" of Gripen.

 

[black eagle]

 

[slenke]

we keep hearing LCA mark 1 does not even match upto Gripen C. let's see how SAAB due to it's 'marketing' gimmicks fools people and the fanboys lap it up!!! let's look at this gripen brochure -

take good look at the specs in comaprison to LCA mark 1.

......................gripen C.....LCA mark 1

empty weight....6800kg.......6500kg.....(LCA mark 1 lighter by 300kg)

internal fuel......2400kg.......2486kg.....(LCA mark 1 higher by 86kg)

MTOW.............14000kg......13500kg

A/B thrust........80.5KN.......85KN........(LCA mark 1 higher by 4.5KN)

now take a look at the payload as per the Gripen brochure. it says 5300kg!!! how is it possible?? let's do some maths -

14000-6800-2400-100(pilot weight)= 4700kg!!!! unless the internal volume is reduced by 600kg, it is simply not possible!!! which means reduced range which is already less than LCA mark 1 as per the internal fuel volumes above!!!

besides what would be thrust to weight ratios?? in clean config with no load -

Gripen C - 0.88 vs LCA mark 1 - 0.95

so on any count LCA mark 1 scores over Gripen C. but ofcourse who cares facts?? as long as SAAB scores with marketing gimmicks and the fanboys fall over each other and bathe in it's glory!!!

besides what is the safety record of Gripen over the period -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accidents_and_incidents_involving_the_JAS_39_Gripen

6 crashes including 1 prototype, one production aircraft and 4 in service with the swedish AF.

people who talk about 'SAAB engineering' as some sort of 'god sent and defying physics' need to take a good look at these crashes and decide on the "maturity" of Gripen.

You'll have your share of crashes as well! It's all part of a plane evolving, we are after all talking o about extreme planes, not an airliner! Crashes are really nothing to worry about it's all part of the game.

 

[gogbot]

@ppgj

what about AoA comparison
What about Speed comparison
What about avionics
what about sensor fusion
What about EW suits
What about loiter time
What about Radar

 

[neo29]

Price negotiations for JV for fighter engine in advanced stage

India's Defence Research and Development Organization (DRDO) expects to close price negotiations in a month for a joint venture (JV) with French engine maker Snecma to develop gas turbine engines that would power the Indian Air Force's light combat aircraft (LCA).The move to partner Snecma follows DRDO's failure to develop sufficiently powerful engines on its own after spending Rs.2,880 crore over two decades on the project.

While Snecma will bring in critical technology for the hot engine core, DRDO's Gas Turbine Research Establishment (GTRE) will work on the cold sections around it.

"GTRE will have 50% technology work-share and Snecma will have the other half. We will be closing price negotiations within a month," said Prahlada, chief controller, research and development, DRDO, who goes by one name.

GTRE will obtain complete know-how and intellectual property rights for the engine, Prahlada added. After the closure and approval from the cabinet committee on security, work will begin in three months and the engine will be designed and built in four years, another GTRE official said, requesting anonymity.

The Kaveri engine, developed by GTRE, is undergoing trials in Russia and is nowhere near developing the level of thrust needed to power the LCA. The Kaveri has a thrust of around 65 kilo newton (kN), while 90 kN or more is required to power the LCA for optimal performance. The engine is also much heavier than specified. Nonetheless, some of the technologies and components developed for the Kaveri will be used in the JV.

Because of the delay in developing the Kaveri, India opted for American GE-404 engines. The current Mk-I LCAs are flying with the GE-404 IN20, although even these do not meet original requirement specifications for levels of thrust for the LCA. In October, DRDO selected the more powerful GE-414 as the alternative engine for LCA Mk-II.

Prahlada declined to reveal the estimated cost of the Snecma-GTRE project, but said the new engine will be comparable in pricing and performance to the GE-414. DRDO plans to replace the GE engines on the LCA Mk-I with the Snecma-GTRE engine. "We have plans to fit the engine on all platforms, including the proposed advanced medium combat aircraft and unmanned combat air vehicle," Prahlada said.

Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd will manufacture the engines in India. Prahlada said the agreement is to make 100 engines in the first batch.

Ratan Shrivastava, director for aerospace and defence practice for South and West, Frost and Sullivan, said the project's value lay in the fact that India will finally have a flying fighter engine of its own, albeit with a foreign partner.

http://idrw.org/?p=2562

 

[chex3009]

^^^ Does it mean that the Kaveri-Snecma Engine is coming earlier than expected????

 

[p2prada]

I an realizing the systems we have now with regards to Arjun and Tejas , not good enough to mass produced and inducted. But hey whether it be 300+ Arjuns or 40 Tejas , these are commitments , even if they are pressured ones by the MoD to developing and building these systems. Money alone will not get us the Rafale.
You have to develop , field , modify , learn , develop , re-field. And do that over a couple of decade. Doing that on the test range itself is not enough. At the end of the day when possible the end user has to be able to get their hands on it and take it aprat.

In 10 years, our 800 strong airforce will have to be able to fight 1500 to 2000 fighter aircraft on two fronts. That's 350-400 4th gen and above platforms from PAF and some 1000 to 1500 4th, 4.5th and 5th gen platforms from PLAAF. That's no joke.

The PAF will have over a 100 F-16Block 52 and J-10Bs and some 250 JF-17 by that time.

The PLAAF already have 200 Russian Flankers and another 100 of their copies. That's a big deal. Then they have over 150 J-10s. Final plans will see PLAAF having nearly 500 Flankers and 500 J-10Bs in their force in just a few years. They have plans of inducting over 200 J-20 too, 2015+. With such force levels, 40 Mk1 is just a waste of time.

@ppgj
That's why stop reading specs. They are not always accurate, especially engine figures. The figures for empty weight varies from 5.7 tons in Gripen A to 7 tons in Gripen NG. The MTOW also changes as you go higher. This spec that you picked up isn't official. It's just some fan made specs list. The loaded weight of Gripen without payload is 8.7 tons and that gives 5.3 tons for payload.

These are just rough approximates. You are reading too much into specs.

Also, with engine power, you are yet to learn how Afterburners work. LCA engine is only slightly more powerful, but Gripen is a far superior aircraft in all categories.

 

[p2prada]

^^^ Does it mean that the Kaveri-Snecma Engine is coming earlier than expected????

Design and building in 4 years and then starts the testing phase. 2017-2018 is the most realistic date for entry. It may perhaps power the Mk2 at a later date.

 

[ppgj]

You'll have your share of crashes as well! It's all part of a plane evolving, we are after all talking o about extreme planes, not an airliner! Crashes are really nothing to worry about it's all part of the game.

slenke, i agree without doubt.

crashes can happen anyday. i myself have great regard for the SAAB and the gripen. if you remember i have admitted so - long back - to one of your posts on the MMRCA thread IIRC. my point was wrt members here who have been going gaga and criticising LCA as if there is no tomorrow and putting the LCA in badlight wrt Gripen when there is none!!!

@p2prada

sir your take is well known and we have debated enough on this. even when facts stare in the face you would do go out of the way to justify Gripen. so let's not go down that road again. you think Gripen is great and LCA is crap. fine, no issue. thank you.

 

[p2prada]

Gripen has the best sensor fusion among all MRCA aircraft. Also, if Saab says they will assist in a re-engine program for the Gripen IN with Kaveri-Snecma during its manufacturing phase, that would be pretty great.

The only disadvantage in that case would be the single engine of the aircraft.

So, Rafale would make a better choice in that respect. We will get similar sensor fusion and also the ability to re-engine Rafale with Kaveri-Snecma later on. Perhaps we can re-engine even the existing Rafales during MLUs, but that's going by a long shot.

EF is unnecessarily expensive.

F-16IN and SH seem to be the best bet to continue having a technological superiority over PLAAF.

@ppgj
Our discussion has run it's course. Cheers.

 

[gogbot]

In 10 years, our 800 strong airforce will have to be able to fight 1500 to 2000 fighter aircraft on two fronts. That's 350-400 4th gen and above platforms from PAF and some 1000 to 1500 4th, 4.5th and 5th gen platforms from PLAAF. That's no joke.

And we will never be able to match them in any quantitative way , unless we can come up with cost-effective platforms.
MKI , MMRCA , FGFA , they all have high capability , but they all cost too much. They are expensive to buy , expensive to run and require twice the manpower to operate them in their two seat configuration. And the maintenance on all that is going to be a pain.

LCA and AMCA are a necessity.

Unless of course you think we can keep the qualitative edge is sufficient to nullify quantity.
Frankly i want mass induction of the LCA , but that's a decision for the IAF.
We could easily close the quantitative gap via LCA

The PAF will have over a 100 F-16Block 52 and J-10Bs and some 250 JF-17 by that time.

well not much to worry about then , station a few FGFA's squadrons. it will be a repeat of 1971 where they were afraid to even fly sorties due to losses.
and since when did the JF-17 become to much to handle for the Tejas,

The PLAAF already have 200 Russian Flankers and another 100 of their copies. That's a big deal. Then they have over 150 J-10s. Final plans will see PLAAF having nearly 500 Flankers and 500 J-10Bs in their force in just a few years. They have plans of inducting over 200 J-20 too, 2015+. With such force levels, 40 Mk1 is just a waste of time.

You mentioned the J-10 and the J-20 , those planes were also domestic developments. And the J-10 has an established inferiority to its western counterparts , still you see it as a threat anyway.

What makes the J-10 so different form the Tejas.
Don't get into the specs both planes are in a different weight class all together.

Either way you keep blasting at me, about how supporting the indigenous development via induction is a waste of time while at the same time you acknowledge the end result of the same process in China as a viable threat.

 

[p2prada]

And we will never be able to match them in any quantitative way , unless we can come up with cost-effective platforms.
MKI , MMRCA , FGFA , they all have high capability , but they all cost too much. They are expensive to buy , expensive to run and require twice the manpower to operate them in their two seat configuration. And the maintenance on all that is going to be a pain.

That's the wrong way of thinking. If we are to match their forces with lesser numbers then our aircraft should be much more capable. Our budget can handle 800 twin seat twin engine fighters, maybe a 1000 after 10 years from now. Maintenance on high end aircraft is not a pain, it's only a requirement.

LCA isn't where we can send it across the border for air superiority missions. So, the spending on MKI, MRCA, FGFA is justified and cannot be compared to LCA.

LCA and AMCA are a necessity.

Mk1 isn't. Mk2 is.

Unless of course you think we can keep the qualitative edge is sufficient to nullify quantity.
Frankly i want mass induction of the LCA , but that's a decision for the IAF.
We could easily close the quantitative gap via LCA

Modern air warfare is less to do with a single product and more to do with technology. It isn't like 1971 when Gnats could kill Sabres. Earlier the kill ration used to be 2:1 or 3:1 against inferior platforms. But in the 21st century if you go in with inferior platforms then the kill ratio could end up being 10:1 or 20:1. This is the same as the Arab-Israeli wars. We cannot use LCA against much more capable aircraft unless the aerodynamics of LCA are superior even if inferior in technology to enemy aircraft.

LCA Mk1 has room for improvement. But even after FOC it would only be a Mirage-2000 with a bit more modern avionics. It's just obsolescence being packaged into something new. Pretty much like Americans trying to sell a Block 20 F-16 with AESA radar.

well not much to worry about then , station a few FGFA's squadrons. it will be a repeat of 1971 where they were afraid to even fly sorties due to losses.
and since when did the JF-17 become to much to handle for the Tejas,

Both platforms are more or less the same. JF-17 will be aided by AWACS and that poses the problem. Even if LCA gets AWACS support, its advantage is severely reduced against enemy AWACS without having stand off platforms like MKI.

You mentioned the J-10 and the J-20 , those planes were also domestic developments. And the J-10 has an established inferiority to its western counterparts , still you see it as a threat anyway.

Don't underestimate them. The J-10 and J-20 are substantially superior to LCA in airframe. They may have established inferiority only for now. But what about 10 years down the line? Analysts predict the Chinese will come out with really state of the art equipment after 2020.

What makes the J-10 so different form the Tejas.
Don't get into the specs both planes are in a different weight class all together.

PLAAF did not go for an obsolete development. They managed to induct the J-10 in 2003. I don't normally talk about specs. The Gripen is a superior aircraft to the J-10 in that standards, including aerodynamics. The same time as we are talking about a MK2, they are already flying their J-10B. They are playing catch up with the west and are far ahead.

Most importantly, they are under severe sanctions from all countries except Russia and CIS. All of their developments are lacking in technology while we do not have such restrictions. Had the Chinese not had sanctions placed on them they would have placed even larger MMRCA orders compared to us. They are running many parallel developments at the same time. Their aerospace industry also has major competition unlike in India. So, they may not be there just yet, but they will eventually reach before us. The only way for us to maintain parity or superiority now as well as in the future is to buy from outside until our indigenous development catches up with the west. I don't see that happening until 2025-30 period.

Either way you keep blasting at me, about how supporting the indigenous development via induction is a waste of time while at the same time you acknowledge the end result of the same process in China as a viable threat.

China has the ability to dump huge amounts of money for R&D and buy Russian in the meantime to close the gaps with whatever they couldn't do on their own. It is a big deal for a country like ours whose indigenous industry is a decade behind China's.

They made their LCA Mk1 in 1998. They made their LCA Mk2 in 2008. They are flight testing their fifth gen in 2011. When we are flight testing our AMCA, they will already be inducting theirs. It's another point playing catchup with the west and a completely different point playing catchup with a country that is trying to catch up with the west.

Edit: The Chinese indigenous development is a big threat to India. But at the same time, their current development is not a threat to the US. But the US is wary of the Russian Su-30MKK Flankers in their possession and that forms a potent threat to the US and her allies in the region who have inferior aircraft.

 

[ppgj]

gogbot,

i appreciate lot of fine points you have made in this thread. i urge you to go thro' B HARRY's compilation on LCA which is the best source one can get -

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/downloads/Tejas-Radiance.pdf

@ppgj

what about AoA comparison

LCA has already crossed 22d AOA for the IOC. FOC calls for 24d AOA.

now even if reaches it's design limit of 35d (as per B HARRY) over the period, it won't be a norm in air combat because high AOA bleeds energy which means loss of fuel and hence range. this is even more significant for a delta design. no aircrafts sustains more than the 'stall' AOA and most aircrafts 'stall' between 15 - 20degress beyond which you lose lift due to wing stall which may lead to fatal spins. most aircrafts have an alpha - limiter (controlled by the FBW) which does not cross the stall angle for that particular aircraft.

Gripen infact in one of the ACM limited it's alpha limiter to 17degress AOA. here is the link -

Limitations on the target were, not to exceed 6 g´s/17 deg AoA during ACM and to initiate evasive manouvering after establishing visual contact with the attacking fighter.

http://www.havkom.se/virtupload/reports/info_jas39e.pdf

unfortunately that ACM turned fatal for one of the aircraft though pilot ejected safely.

What about Speed comparison

LCA mark 1 design parameter is MACH 1.8(2200+km/h while Gripen is MACH 2(2400+km/h). now this is fuction of what load you are carrying too.

What about avionics

not much to chose from. pretty similar.

what about sensor fusion

sensor fusion is again a 'hyped' marketing gimmick. what does it mean?? you have primary sensors like Radar and secondary sensors like LDP, IRST/FLIR (LCA's LIGHTENING pod has FLIR) - whose inputs have to be fused thro' different channels via the the databus - on to the cockpit display for a better situational awareness for the pilot.

this sensor fusion is already done in both LCA and the Gripen.

What about EW suits

don't know much about Gripen EW. LCA's 'mayawi' is supposedly superior to even ELTA 8222 according to many people - which is likely because IIRC israel was involved in that.. since the nature and capabilities of EW is rarely spelt out, one can't say much.

What about loiter time

LCA mark 1 will have higher loiter time due to it's higher internal volume of fuel.

What about Radar

most of the modern pulse doppler radars like RDY 2, EL 2032, ZHUK ME, PS-05A are quite capable and comparable. LCA mark 1 is a hybrid of EL 2032 with israeli processor. i guess it would be similar to EL 2032. equal is what i would say.

here is the link for EL 2032 - http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...6bGbBA&usg=AFQjCNFwIULSFjaO1-CyMRCdp3kT0AG6aA

 

[slenke]

LCA has already crossed 24d AOA for the IOC. FOC calls for 28d AOA.

now even if reaches it's design limit of 35d (as per B HARRY) over the period, it won't be a norm in air combat because high AOA bleeds energy which means loss of fuel and hence range. this is even more significant for a delta design. no aircrafts sustains more than the 'stall' AOA and most aircrafts 'stall' between 15 - 20degress beyond which you lose lift due to wing stall which may lead to fatal spins. most aircrafts have an alpha - limiter (controlled by the FBW) which does not cross the stall angle for that particular aircraft.

Gripen infact in one of the ACM limited it's alpha limiter to 17degress AOA. here is the link -



http://www.havkom.se/virtupload/reports/info_jas39e.pdf

unfortunately that ACM turned fatal for one of the aircraft though pilot ejected safely

It was the target aircraft that was limited during the exercise, it says nothing about limitations on the attacking aircraft.

Here's the reason on why the accident occured.

The ACM exercise was initiated by the splitting of the two-ship formation. Number two in the
formation represented attacking fighter and was controlled by the forward ground controller in a
head-on (180 deg) attack on the two-ship commander. The two-ship commander represented target
aircraft at 200 m altitude at M 0.66. Limitations on the target were, not to exceed 6 g´s/17 deg AoA
during ACM and to initiate evasive manouvering after establishing visual contact with the attacking
fighter.
Radar contact with the target was established by the attacking fighter and at a distance of 8 km he
got visual contact. Once visual contact was established ACM was initiated during increasing altitude
where the aircraft met head-on several times. The intention of the pilot in the attacking fighter was to
"kill" the target using a sidewinder missile (AIM-9L). About 60 seconds into the ACM the attacking
fighter got too close to the targets tail sector and initiated a climbing manouver followed by a steep
diving turn with an indicated airspeed of approx. 400 km/h. During this manouver the attacking
fighter passed through the target aircraft vortices which resulted in a large aerodynamic transient.
The transient induced by the vortices resulted in increasing negative pitch attitude, leaving the
attacking fighter in an almost vertical dive at approximately 1,000 m altitude. The pilot observed that
the ground collision warning system was activated and that the manouver to avoid ground collision
as recommended by the system was impossible to perform. The pilot decided, in accordance with the
flight manual instructions, to eject from the aircraft.

 

[p2prada]

LCA IOC achieved 22deg AoA. Final FOC figure is 24deg.

LCA does not have sensor fusion. It was never a requirement from IAF but may be a requirement in LCA Mk2. Even MKI does not have sensor fusion. Mirage-2000 does not have sensor fusion and neither will we be getting sensor fusion in the Mirage upgrade program.

Sensor Fusion isn't just randomly showing the data generated as in regular avionics. Sensor Fusion isn't just showing everything on one screen either. The data that the RWR, Radar and IRST picks up is categorized into useful information and noise automatically. Then each target picked up uses all 3 devices to help identify the target using a computer. This information is relayed onto the pilot's screen and this is called sensor fusion.

The very reason for the MMRCA program was Technology that IAF wants, something they are not going to get from LCA.

MKI will be getting capable sensor fusion only during MLU. The only Russian aircraft with sensor fusion today are Mig-35 and Su-35. The LCA Mk1 is just an average plane with good avionics that will come up to the Mirage-2000-5 Mark 2 technological standards in 2012, but with a weak engine.

 

[p2prada]

It was the target aircraft that was limited during the exercise, it says nothing about limitations on the attacking aircraft.

Here's the reason on why the accident occured.

Our man is in the 80s. No point explaining all that.