Any one in this forum can go and see F-16 sites, grippen sites, mirage sites and see for themselves how sircrafts get updated thriugh out their service life with bigger engines and better ew suits, higher fuel capacity, longer nose cones , does that mean they have all failed the 12th exams and should have gone to tutorial colleges?
Look at when the first flight happened for these aircraft, all 70s and 80s. Any 4th gen aircraft which wasn't inducted in the early 2000s is a waste of time. Why do I say that? It is because 4th gen became obsolete the minute the F-22 was inducted in 2005.
Now combine 4th gen and light aircraft, that is beyond the word obsolete. It is like clearing 12th standard when you are 30 years old. Worthless?
The IAF is spending 1.5 billion dollars on mirage updates. a 30 year old airframe. It has been posted in IDRW.org recently that what jags are going to get for updates and anyone csncheck it. how mirage -lll and kfirs extended their nose cones and even put more avionics inside it.
All old frames can be upgraded for another 10 to 15 years of life. This makes sense because the frames have been in use for many years. All the protocols for training, maintenance and fighting a war were in place since decades. Comparatively LCA will be inducted in 2018 and will need another 10 years of service to have a similar level of training, maintenance protocols and war fighting capability in place. So, LCA will be a proven aircraft(say 2028) when superior aircraft like the F-16 and Mirage-2000 will actually be phased out of all air forces everywhere.
It's like Bangladesh making their first Maruti 800 today, when we have stopped production of the Maruti 800. The Bangladeshis can jump with joy, but what is the use of such a car today? Think? LCA is in that exact position.
Is it fair to accuse that tejas wont get any bigger engines and get a nose job.
Engine change is possible only after 2030, when LCA finishes 10-15 years of service life. Until then it will continue having the underpowered F-404.
It won't get a new nose either, because the changes need to be made before the final design is ready. Design changes are made only when the aircraft is still on paper. That's why all the problems on Mk1 will be fixed only on Mk2. Mk1 will stay as is.
Grippen NG is just ine prototype plane taking part in MMRCA competition with fancy specs. Will it also fail in it's 12th exam? Do you think that IAF selection committee is a body of budheads to allow grippen into it,sayimg since you have already crashed two prototypes ,you will crash more on in NG versiom amd fail the 12th exam?
Gripen C is far superior to LCA. Gripen NG is even more superior. It is meant for air forces that cannot afford a 5th gen platform like the F-35. Hence it is being made. LCA Mk2 will bring the aircraft to a Gripen C level.
This is a paper evaluation done by the Dutch on MRCA contenders.
In the above graph, see where Gripen C/NG is and see where heavier aircraft like Rafale and EF are. LCA Mk2 will be as low as Gripen C or MLU F-16. Mk1 won't even be in the graph.
What I want to point out to the respected member who posted this stuff is when planners induct a platform they visualize it's future potential not what it did before IOC? What tejas has is immense potential for future growth.
This is the Swiss result.
Rafale News: Switzerland, Armasuisse officialy ranks the Rafale first
Rafale and Eurofighter showed generally better performance than the F/A-18, Gripen worse"
"The performance of the Gripen in air-air engagements as well as attack missions was insufficient"
"The most limiting factors of the Gripen design were the operating time, the flight performance and the maximum weapon load"
"The Rafale is the only aircraft that has met the requirements of the Air Force in all types of applications"
3- The Gripen has serious weaknesses and is considered as a step back compared to the F/A-18 operated by the Swiss Air Force.
So, if an aircraft like Gripen NG was so inferior for an air force like Switzerland, then where does that put LCA Mk2? Do you get the point now?
1. It will defenitely get a more powerfull engine slatted for AMCA in the form of snecma kavery-K-10.
The Mk2 may, the Mk1 has even lesser chances. All of this may happen post 2030 when we may see the first 6th gen aircraft flying. So, no need to be so sure when I am using words like "may" here. Air forces don't work on concepts like "may."
Armed forces don't use words like "definitely." It is all about what you have "now." The reason why aircraft like Jaguar and Mig-21 are currently superior to LCA.
2.It will get the avionics and asea tech radar that will go in AMCA.Since miniaturisation in future will actualy result in weight savings and not weight increase with this new improvements.
Again, if you notice the ADA's poster for LCA Mk2 improvements that was posted in AI-2011, you will notice that there is no mention of AESA radar on it only a reference of the same old, same old.
LCA does not even need AESA. It is worthless. It does not have the payload or the range to use ESA's multi function advantages.
AESA is meant for aircraft that can carry 4+ A2A missiles and 2+ 500Kg LGBs and 2 drop tanks, so it can use the radar properly. Other than that AESA radars need a lot of cooling, so if we install AESA on the LCA's small nose, the radar will be less capable than a similar Mech scanned radar. What I am saying is a Mechanically scanned radar will be superior to the AESA because of size constraints, irony, because AESA is supposed to be smaller and lighter than MSA. Larger aircraft don't have such a problem.
So, can LCA carry this?
A big NO. So, is AESA useful? A big NO.
