What I said mate is that you can afford to have more Lcas in combination with SU-30 for the same budget.In the world You live there are no budgets I think.and You will never answer the following scenario.
I have been telling you since a long time. Budget is not an issue anymore. Squadron size is and MoD won't increase squadron size on a whim.
We are going for greater numbers of Sukhois and not otherwise. By 2030 you can say we will have around 600-700 heavy aircraft like MKI and PAKFA, maybe more. We will also have 126-200 medium size Rafales and would have started inducting 250+ AMCAs. That is IAF's plans for "today." Threats and Requirements change every few years. So, we don't know what IAF may plan for by the end of the decade. Something that may make MKI and Rafale wholly obsolete like how the LCA is today.
How can SU-30 sized fighter aircraft manage to detect and launch a BVR missile on an LCA which has six time less RCS than SU_30?
Because of a much more powerful radar with many more capabilities. If LCA has eyes, MKI is carrying binoculars. Large radars can be upgraded to be more capable much faster than small radars. Mirage-2000 pilots during exercises did say MKI have look first capability and this is only on the older version of Bars using training signals and not the newer Bars with double of everything and newer modes.
An LCA type aircraft can be picked up by the Su-35's Irbis from a distance of 400Km. The current version of the Bars can detect a LCA type aircraft from 250Km and track it at 150-180Km. Apart from this the design of the radar allows the radar more identification capabilities. For eg: If 4 MKIs and 4 LCAs are flying towards each other. The LCA will see all 4 MKIs as one single MKI whereas the MKI will see all 4 LCAs distinctly.
At best LCA's real capability against MKI type aircraft will be in the 150Km range because of a smaller radar and lesser power output. At greater distances, the resolution offered by the radar followed by the attenuation in the atmosphere may render the returning signals bereft of information. Similarly, an LCA class radar against another clean LCA would be in the 50Km range, quarter the range of the current Bars.
You will argue that misssiles slung out will send higher RCS. How is that possible If Lca flies at alower altitude than the bigger craft?
The distance between the target and the radar is enough for the returns to make sense. LCA is not designed as a stealth aircraft. Being a smaller aircraft, it has lower stealth, that's the only logic involved. Other than that, it is still a truck on a radar like the Bars.
We can easily know the altitude and direction of radar emissions.In this scenario the LCA will see first lock first and fire first.Can you dispute that?
It is not good to engage aircraft which is at a much greater height compared to yourself. The missile will lose all kinetic advantages. Comparatively the aircraft at higher altitudes will enjoy greater kinematic advantages and allows greater range and speed for BVR missiles.
If you are talking about 4th gen aircraft then both aircraft will more or less know where the other is, if radar capability is the same. Radar emissions alone isn't enough for acquiring a target especially if the target is not static. You need to be able to see the target continuously if you want a successful BVR engagement.
LCA and Mig-21 were never intended for taking long range shots. The idea is to ride behind a better aircraft and take pot shots at the enemy like the way they did at CI-2004 against F-15s while more capable aircraft were engaged in dog fights. Mig-21s did not even need radars. They moved in close and allowed the R-77 seekers to lock on to the F-15s before firing. So, LCA's purpose is to get a closer shot at the enemy. Nothing big there. As a stand alone aircraft it is worthless against a better adversary, same as a Mig-21. The reason is because of it's smaller visual signature. During the 90s and early 2000s, it made sense to preoccupy the enemy and generate kills using the smaller profile of the Mig-21 which makes it harder to see visually. This was because of lower capability of the BVR missiles of the time. So, an even smaller aircraft like LCA was a great idea for the time. Today, with new generation radars and greater capabilities of BVR missiles, a LCA class aircraft has lost all relevance. This is the same for all air forces around the world.
The other role is to disburse enemy strike formations.
An AWACS supported LCA is a great idea on paper. But in reality, the AWACS is a big bleeding target. In computer simulations over Taiwan, it was determined that the AWACS used, E-3, did not survive more than a few minutes in a squadron on squadron fight against Su-35s against enemy aircraft. Even when backed by F-22s, the AWACS was taken out very early.
Even today, the primary fear for the USAF against a China engagement over Taiwan is the survivability of their tankers, which fly well behind AWACS, while fighting Flankers. Let's not forget that Flankers were designed to circumvent fighters and engage AWACS, bombers and tankers over Europe and we aren't just talking about one or two AWACS there. We are talking about dozens of AWACS.
So, the next stop would be a stealth optimized AWACS. But even with that, LCA's payload is simply too less at 2-4 BVRs. Even Gripen NG will have 10 hardpoints with 6 BVR missiles. An fighter without weapons is nothing more than an airliner. More the weapons, the greater is the fighter. Lesser the weapons, the more obsolete it is.
