ADA Tejas (LCA) News and Discussions

[ersakthivel]

DRDO Chief VK Saraswat has clarified the details of the indigenously developed Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar in the AEW&CS project. The radar is the one the best in the world, DRDO chief said that it can capture images and send to the ground control centers besides incorporating all the features of an airborne surveillance system. It has unmatchable resolution, performance and electronic warfare capability.

The AESA radar is also expected to be integrated with the Tejas Mark II LCA besides other programmes. DRDO Chief added that the work is already on and the Tejas Mark-2 will have nothing but the AESA radar. The DRDO lab LRDE is working on the TR (Transmitter & Receiver) modules for the same. Apparently, it is now possible to configure small as well as large AESA radar. The advantage of AESA is that more power can be derived if you increase the numbers of TR modules. DRDO's AESA radar will be of same size and volume of the present radar integrated on Tejas Mark-1. Once the work starts for the Mark-2 of Tejas aircraft, the old radar will be simply replaced by the indigenous AESA radar.

 

[ersakthivel]

f
http://www.flonnet.com/fl2903/stories/2 ... 309800.htm

Anil Kumar Singh, who is also Project Director for the Active Electronically Scanning Array (AESA) radar, called it "an ambitious project". The project was approved in January. The main role of the radar, which will be integrated with the fighter aircraft, is to direct the fire accurately from the aircraft. It will feature advanced electronic counter, counter measures (ECCMs). The radar will direct the fire from air-to-air, air-to-ground and air-to-sea missiles.

A derivative of Rajendra is Swathi, which was developed in the aftermath of the Kargil conflict. When shells are fired from an enemy artillery gun or mortar, the WLR will track their trajectory and thus identify the gun's location. It can locate, in a few seconds, large mortars positioned 20 km away and guns positioned 30 km away. "This radar can see up to seven shells at the same time. The WLR, in its secondary role, can track the fall of shots from our own weapons to give corrections to our fire," said R.V. Narayana, Project Director of Swathi. Swathi went through extensive trials at the Army's test range in Pokhran in Rajasthan and its performance was found to be among the best in the world, he added. "We went for concurrent engineering where the development, user and production agencies worked together from day one. Within two months of proving the prototype, the production model went for user trials," he said. Swathi has been cleared for production and is being inducted into the Army.

 

[ersakthivel]

The ambitious indigenisation list drawn up by ADA includes 21 avionics components (including gyro reference unit, tactical navigation antenna and GPS antenna), 27 environmental control components, 14 electrical components (including under-carriage display unit, integral drive generator and ground power receptacle), ejection seat, nine components in the flight control area (left and right air data sensors, angle of attack sensor, sensor assembly rate).

The list also includes several key LRUs in hydraulics, landing gear, propulsion and fuel, and the aircraft's health and utility management system. In a statement announcing it's interest, the ADA has said, "There are 358 LRUs (components) in the Tejas aircraft, out of which 53 per cent of total LRUs are indigenously developed within India. In view to reduce the remaining 47 per cent of the import LRUs, ADA has initiated the indigenous development programme for indigenisation of the import LRUs."

 

[ersakthivel]

many people in this thread are criticizing thal the LCA which is a single engined aircraft cannot compete with big twin engined aircrafts. So to clarify the matter I will post some interesting reads from the IAF's MMRCA evaluation.

Point One, The Indian Air Force won't choose a twin-engine aircraft in the MMRCA, if a single-engine aircraft can "do the job", i.e, is satisfactorily compliant on all 643 test points that each of the six airplanes were tested for during the field evaluation trials (FETs). The IAF is of the view that both single and twin engine platforms have their own advantages, but that it will not discriminate between the two. If all six aircraft are compliant, the cheapest will be selected whether its twin or single-engined.

How can the above point be explained if all single engined aircrafts are inferior in all parameters to twin engined planes?The IAF itself says there are unique advantages for both single engined and twin engined aircrafts.

Point Two, The model being used to gauge cost is not the lifecycle cost (LCC) model as was previously thought. That model has been dumped since the IAF perceives it to be indeterminable (read, ambiguous), and not measured in precisely the same way across the six aircraft being offered. In other words, the MMRCA purchase model will be based on unit flyaway cost of aircraft and financing options -- i.e, not overall cost of ownership. The IAF decided that it would only work with what is "determinable". In other words, no complex formulae on future savings on maintenance and overhaul

So after seven years of evaluating MMRCAs the IAF could not even determine the life cycle cost with any measure of confidence .So they dumped the original lifecycle cost and now going on for fly away unit costs.SO what does that say about IAF's competency in formulating original lifecycle cost evaluation and now turning turtle and going in for UNIT FLY AWAY COSTlike srilankan airforce.

So what is wrong whether your original evaluation method? or the new method?

But you can see IAF people flaming ADA ALL OVER THE NET AS INCOMPETENT for the seven years delay(whether it is true or not) in PLANNING,DESIGNING ,PROTOTYPING,FLIGHTTESTING,CERTIFYING AND AND CONDUCTING 4000 FLIGHT TESTS NECCASSARY FOR FOC . HOW GENUINE ARE THE IAF CRITICISM THAT THEY CANNOT GET LCA ON TIME?

Point Three, cost is going to be a big determinant. Out of the six aircraft that are judged compliant, the cheapest will be identified as L1, and will logically be the chosen aircraft.

But in this forum there are many people who keep on saying that costlier twin engined crafts are far better with some excess capacities than economical single engined fighter. Now this statement comes out from horse's mouth is so different.In any air war the number of aircrafts you are going to have will be very important, a small degree of excess capabilities in twin engined craft alone wont tilt the war in your side.All modern airforces of the world till date have a significant portion of single engined fighters.

Point Three-and-a-half, it emerges now that each vendor was extensively briefed on their performance once the trials were over, so they have a comprehensive sense of how they performed -- their function of compliance, if you will -- but they have nothing to compare it with. So unless you account for industrial espionage, none of the vendors know how the others have performed, but know exactly how well or badly their own platform performed during trials.

So much for the transparency of the evaluation process.No one knows the comparison evaluation.

Point Four, the air force's trial report has been submitted to the MoD, but the latter hasn't approved it yet. The trial report strictly contains a tabulated representation of each contending platform's compliance or otherwise for each of 643 test points. Significantly, the trial report does not quantify the level of compliance of each airplane, but rather leaves this for the MoD to understand. In other words, the trial report has all the data and results, but no recommendations, no merit list, no explicit downselect, no stated eliminations, nothing. Yet, by virtue of the data it presents, everything is implicit. It provides the data. It provides the benchmarks for compliance. The MoD figures out who's in, who's not quite in, who's definitely out. The IAF hasn't put that down. The IAF has submitted a "factual report" -- the rest is upto the MoD. Again, there's been no ranking at any stage.

when it comes to LCA the chorus is give the IAF what it wants. But when it comes to MMRCA ,IAF behaves like an obedient school boy and doesn't even rank or down select the craft. Why so much leeway to MOD?Does the IAF have no particular aircraft in mind.What does the civilian MOD knows about the fighters? when ADA a body of experts in the field is often criticized for not knowing what the force wants?

Point Five, there have been frequent attempts by various players to suggest that some of the non-US contenders will have trouble (Livefist: Lockheed Launches Attack On Gripen's MMRCA Campaign) getting export licenses for subsystems that may be of American origin (like the Gripen's engines, weapons on some of the others etc). Let's lay that to rest for now -- the IAF extracted government-endorsed guarantees from each such contending vendor that there would be no problems in the supply of such equipment, and it was based on this guarantee certificate that the contender was allowed to participate in trials.

So the future of IAF's new age MMRCA fleet will be tied to the "FATE OF GUARANTEES FROM CONTENDING VENDOR".If tomorrow
india tests a thermo nuclear weapon what will these "GUARANTEES FROM CONTENDING VENDOR" amount to? .Not even worth the paper they have been written on.Will they rise above the economic allure of china and the sanctions imposed by US(in extreme case,right now it is INDO-US BHAI BHAI. But you can ask the MAJOR NON-NATO ALLY (which is bombarded daily from the air)) and supply spares and mid life upgrade in critical time.

But the LCA which will offer close to 90 percent of the MMRCA contenders is being dragged through the street and lynched by a lynch mob in the internet.
The grippen says "UPGRADING GRIPPEN C/D TO NG SPECS WILL BE MORE OR LESS EQUAL TO THE COST OF THE CRAFT,INCLUDING MOST IMPORTANT MODIFICATIONS"

We are paying more than the price of the new fighter for upgradation of mirages. So if mid life upgrades are included the unit fly away costs will double and if you include spares and overhaul the cost will be actually four times,or how much only god knows.
How much did ADA charge for using each and every piece of components it developed for LCA to the entire fleet of IAF? in future will ADA also charge more than the fighters cost for midlife upgrades of mark-1s ,and will it charge the moon for including many of the cutting edge technologies and missiles to be developed for AMCAA in LCA mk-II?


Any self respecting critic of LCA program should answer these points beforee moving on. Also how much will ADA charge for including most of the technical competence for LCA into AMCA?

That's why IAF backed away from lifecycle costs. in reality if all the above factors are considered the LCA will be actually 6 times less costlier than each MMRCA contender with almost 90 % of their capabilities.That's why even oil rich gulf countries in volatile area call RAFALE prohibitively expensive. The forien companies are run for profits. Not for INDIA's NATION BUILDING GOALS.They will squeeze you like hell for the product they offered. All contracts wwill be signed with the clause that "WHEN UNFORSEEN CIRCUMSTANCES BEYOND THE CONTROL OF VENDOR ARISES THE CONTRACT WONT BE HONOURED AND ALL PARTIES CAN GO FOR INTERNATIONAL ARBITARATION".

tHESE ARE COMPANIES RUN WITH THE MOTIVE OF MAXIMIZING SHARE HOLDER RETURNS.NOT LIKE ADA WHOSE GOAL IS TO SAFEGUARD THE INDIAN SKIES FROM AGGRESSION.

The russian aircrafts are on another sphere. The strategic co operaion between russia and india is so deep. But for these forien companies participatin in MMRCA india is just a customer which wont most probably buy another aircraft type from them. Please mind it.

 

[ersakthivel]

members can go this thread for some very interesting news on MMRCA tenders and the back ground wheeler dealer stuff going on. You can read at leisure.

New fighters for Indian Air Force [Archive] - Israel Military Forum

 

[ersakthivel]

For people saying that lack of long range radar will not allow LCA to carry long range BVRS, the following statement by rafel pilots clears the doubt. And how rafeal can receive target co ordinates from AWACS and other co ordinates via link 16.The same can be done on LCA too.

And also how suites like SPECTRA allow 4th gen aircraft to fly without escorts into combat and with out any need forSEAD mission.

New fighters for Indian Air Force [Archive] - Israel Military Forum

The Rafales work in a truly networked environment, and are fed targeting and other tactical data from a wide range of coalition sources through the Link 16 datalink. Incoming data is combined with that collected by the aircraft's own sensors – Thales SPECTRA self-protection suite, OSF electro-optics, RBE-2 radar and even the infra-red guided version of MBDA's MICA air-to-air missile which, as it scans continuously, can provide IR imagery to the central data processing system. "MICA is not just a missile, it's an extra sensor as well," says Pierre G., and its detection range is much longer than generally supposed.

Data from all on-board and off-board sensors are combined into a single tactical picture presented to the pilot on the cockpit's central color display or, if desired, on one of the lateral displays. The pilot can select the data he wants, combine it with other data, and pass it on to his wingman or to other allied aircraft, ships or ground troops through the Link 16, without speaking a single word on the radio and, if not using the radar, without any transmission whatsoever. Link 16 can also be used to de-conflict assignments with other aircraft without using radios.

To illustrate the Rafale's networking capabilities, one pilot described how the aircraft can receive target coordinates from an AWACS or another aircraft via Link 16. To accept the assignment, the pilot pushes a button, and the coordinates are automatically programmed into the AASM guided bombs, with no further action by the pilot who, once in range (up to 30 nautical miles), again pushes a single button to launch all three – or all six – AASMs to their individual targets. "We can fire the AASM against targets abeam or behind us, and can hit up to six in a single pass," the pilot continues.

Rafale pilots are also very complementary about their SPECTRA self-protection suite, which is of critical importance as France does not have any aircraft dedicated to the Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses (SEAD) missions. "SPECTRA allowed us to begin operations over Libya the very same day the political decision was taken, and to fly deep into Libyan territory without an escort," says one pilot, adding that "the Americans also flew in, but only after they had fired 119 Tomahawks to take out Libyan air defenses."

 

[ersakthivel]

New fighters for Indian Air Force [Archive] - Israel Military Forum

This is what it says about grippen NG.

The NG is essentially a Mark III Gripen fighter. The Gripen A/B, a 12-tonne light fighter, was the Mark I. This went up to 14-tonnes in the Gripen C/D, which can be considered the Mark II. Our latest development, the Gripen NG, will be a 16.5 tonne medium fighter," explains de la Motte.

That extra weight includes an additional tonne of fuel. Along with two 450-gallon fuel pods on the wings, this allows the Gripen NG to fly a staggering 4,100 kilometres. On internal fuel alone, it flies 2,500 kilometres. That exceeds the range of much bigger aircraft like the Typhoon.

Moving the undercarriage to the wings for enlarging the fuel tanks also created space for two additional hard points (on which weapons are mounted). The Gripen NG now has ten stations, extraordinary for a 16-tonne fighter. Flying into combat, it would typically carry two IRIS-T air-to-air missiles on its wingtips, which can shoot down enemy aircraft 25 kilometres away; two Meteor beyond-visual-range (BVR) missiles, deadly accurate at ranges in excess of 100 kilometres; two fuel pods with 900 gallons of fuel; three GBU-12 precision-guided bombs for ground targets; and a reconnaissance pod.

To power all this weight, the Gripen-D's General Electric F-404 engine is being replaced with the advanced F-414 engine, an upgrade that is common to India's Tejas fighter. With thrust increased from 18,000 pounds to 22,000 pounds, the Gripen NG already super-cruises, or flies supersonic in economy mode.


But the NG's real strength is the cockpit, which is built to delight a fighter pilot. Using Saab's acknowledged data link capability, information is drawn from multiple sensors inside and outside the aircraft, including satellites. A terabyte-capacity computer screens out superfluous information, providing the pilot only the best input of each category. This allows him to concentrate on battle, rather than handling information.

And finally, the pilot has satellite communications, permitting him to communicate across the globe. In a sensitive situation — such as an attack that could start, or escalate a war, or even on a nuclear strike mission — the pilot might need to take permission before launching weapons. This could be done over the satellite radio.

"During the Indian trials, when the Gripen successfully took off from Leh, the pilot called Linkoping on the satellite radio to say all is well," said one of the Gripen NG pilots.

All of these can be done for LCA mk-II,which has even lower wing loading than grippen ,of which the IAF chief wass so impressed and flew in it personally during his visit to SWEEDEN. The LCA-mk-II also has much higher composite percentage and it can have the next gen AMCA engine for mid life upgrade. WHen GRIPPEN NG claims it can fire fire 120 km meteor, who says LCA mk-II can't fire them?

The ASEA for MK-II is also near certain. ANd all sensor fusion are algorithm based and can be done. Add to that ASTRA BVR is ramjet propelled and will have a higher range for lesser weight and longer range ASTRA is also planned. The dual seeker is already developed for ASTRA in hyderabad based RESEARCH CENTER IMARATH.

And ada can add as much futures from amca tech as possible to mk-II in midlife upgrade.And LCA mk_II can beat any fighter in the sub conitnent in himalayan heights as it has the lowest wing loading,lower than GRIPPEN,which translates to superior high altitude performance.

Note how gippen high light's it's success in LEh ,while other 4 contenders failed in LEH trials. But LCA Mk-I has succedded in completing high altitude trials in LEH. Then think about LCA mk_II

 

[ersakthivel]

Further proof that why LCA don't need a big and powerful radar to have a BVR lock. Passive systems like The ALR-94 system on the F-22 will see an enemy aircraft's RADAR emissions, and will be able to not only lock on to that transmission, but accurately guide an AMRAAM to that position, all without ever using it's RADAR. So even if a 5th gen stealth aircraft uses radar for a BVR lock on LCA the non radar emitting LCAwith it's the passive system can have a BVR lock without the need for RADAR in the same way as F-22 does.

So 5th gen planes while searching for LCA like 4th gen planes can also be a target themselves if LCA carries passive targeting systems like ALQ-94.Since india is making it's own aesa awacs radar, passive systems like these which run on algorithms are not beyond the reach of LRDE or DRDO.So long range BVR shots on LCAA by 5th gen stealth is a pipe dream in reality as they too have to rely on RADAR for these BVR shots.

Thats why french have a lesser range ASEA radar in RAFAEL, Their philosophy is "NEVER SHINE THE TORCH TOO FAR ,SINCE IT COULD BE DETRIMENTAL". IN REALITY MOST MODERN FIGHTERS fly radar silent and the task of picking targets are left to specialized crafts like awacs and ew crafts. Since 100s of fighters switching on their huge radars will be like switching on a light house and it is detrimental in reality. That's why french saay most of the aircombat happens in 40 km range because no one switches on the IFF at longer ranges,as even this will result in detection and being targeted.


From the above site, I post this following quote

The ALQ-94 passive detection system on the F-22 can detect and locate an enemy at a range 250 to 288 miles -03/17/ AW&ST.

The F-22's passive cover is approximately 360° and on all bands -Jed article 07/01/00. A quote later from the same article, "The system uses techniques such as cued tracking: since the track file, updated by the ALR-94, can tell the radar where to look, it can detect and track the target with a very narrow beam, measuring as little as 2° by 2° in azimuth and elevation."

Other periodicals have stated the data from the passive system is so accurate a AMRAAM (Slammer) Missile can be targeted by the usage of passive detection only.

BASICALLY, The ALR-94 system will see an enemy aircraft's RADAR emissions, and will be able to not only lock on to that transmission, but accurately guide an AMRAAM to that position, all without ever using it's RADAR.

 

[ersakthivel]

New & emerging fighters from Asia. - Page 8 - Key Publishing Ltd Aviation Forums

If you go to this thread the same uninformed debate continues all based on the wrong facts.They say that tejas can do only 17 degree.and has poor agility compared to grippen ,mig-29 .All this bull shit is based on partially opened FCS.despite best efforts from other thread posters some guys keep on saying LCA cant do more than17 deg AOA.And grippen can do 110 deg. In actuality all fighters do no more than 28 deg aoa in safe close combat configuration. That is the pretty much same figure of LCA.

this is the reply that says why LCA doesnot need a canard to achieve agility as it has very large elevon actuators.

Please note that earlier it was mentioned that Tejas has compounded and cranked wing, the combination of which is NOT present in any of the fighters mentioned by you, including Mirage-2000.

The Tejas has a crank which apparent as a dihedral, is seen in the photo of Tejas from the front-view that you had posted earlier. However, the dihedral is an "illusion" only because as seen in this photo, the lower portion of Tejas' wing is flat and so indicates no cranking.

This crank is visually apparent due to the slope of the lower-swept portion that is parallel to the boundary of the glass cockpit (seen in the same photo). As per the article, "Radiance of the Tejas", this crank is used for vortex generation thus performing the function of canards to quite an extent. This shape of the wing is not seen in other fighters including Draken, Viggen or Mirage-2000.


It must be noted that it is true, as you said above, that as canards work in tandem with tailplanes a greater moment about the lift-point can be achived (this was noted by crobato earlier). However, note that Tejas' elevon actuators are far larger than those shown earlier on diagram of Gripen, or Rafale. Thus, Tejas' deflection angles are likely to be much more to compensate for the lack of canards.

It may also explain why the actuator fairings for 'elevons' on canard planes are either small (as in Gripen) or partially absent (as in J-10). It is because being subjected to 'wash' from canards, they cannot achieve the fullest desired output on a given AoA, and consequently further power to deflect them may not be necessary.

Thus, it is highly likely that Tejas can match the J-10 or any so-termed 'Eurocanard' in manoeuverability and agility.

Again, for a given manouever, the degrees of AoA required for delta-planes are likely to be lesser than those of tailed or canard delta-planes, as a delta design has "natural" tendency to respond well to pitch (especially at high speeds), albeit at the cost of "bleeding" forward thrust.

 

[A chauhan]

LCA Tejas Mk-II To Have Indigenous AESA Radar
Saturday, September 22, 2012,

Chindits: LCA Tejas Mk-II To Have Indigenous AESA Radar

Only been hearing about the E F414 that will power the LCA Tejas Mk-II, never heard anything about the radar, but at the recently concluded International Conference on Energising Aerospace Industry, got to know that the AESA will be on the Mk-II, indigenously built, making the Mk-II a full-fledged multirole fighter, besides other stuff like new avionics and airframe.

Right now under design and conception stage, the radar will have some help from outside, but largely home-built.

Indigenous content on the Mk-II will be 75 per cent. First flightof Mk-II expected in 2013 and induction into the IAF approximately by 2015.

Can't say how authentic Chindits is!

 

[p2prada]

AESA is expected, the question to be asking is When?

Whether it will make it in time for LCA's FOC or will only see first flight after LCA's FOC.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

 

[ersakthivel]

AESA is expected, the question to be asking is When?

Whether it will make it in time for LCA's FOC or will only see first flight after LCA's FOC.

The chinese still don't have ASEA radar or indigenous engine capable of powering even fourth gen fighters, but they are flight testing J-20 and another small 5th jen fighter. No one waits for the ASEA and postpone the induction of fighters. Eurofighter typhoon still doesn't have ASEA. RAFALEs in fench airforce doesn't have asea till now.Grippen NG's aeas radar is still not certain,ARE they all waiting for it? Only now the first rafale with RBE ASEA is getting ready. The platform is always different from weapon systems. People test the capacity of platform to the limit.And validate it. Weapon system always follows later.

It is not a god given rule that all systems must be ready before the FOC.

Air marshal (Ret) P.V.Naik 's contention that the services could not use foreign radars over which they have no control is questionable,and motivated like his MIG-21++ comments. Are the radars on MMRCA INDIAN? No single aircraft in IAF uses INDIAN radar till date. So why he is setting a new rule for LCA alone?

Slippages in high tech programs like these are common all over the world.And trying to find a substitue for the delay is also accepted norm.Gripppen's engines,avionics,radar all don't belong to SAAB. Then why did IAF allowed it in the MMRCA?

 

[Rahul Singh]

Right, and you think that is done overnight. It isn't a plastic chair that you replace once it breaks.

IAF took a better method by installing a crash recovery chute to save the whole aircraft and is used was a stop gap measure.

Btw, how many do you think crashed? Out of 75 procured, 17 have crashed. While it is high, it is not as high as you think that it requires immediate replacement. It has been in service since 1984 afterall.

Despite the problems on Deepak, do you think HAL would have allowed the IAF to go for a basic trainer when it was being flight tested or undergoing production. If there is an equivalent available, the armed forces aren't allowed import of the same by law unless the DPSU allows imports due to delays. It is by law. Heck it is far easier to bring down Govts in India than force DRDO to allow imports.

What do you think is happening now? Where is the follow on BFT to the Deepak from HAL? Funny why IAF is importing now...

Recovery chute isn't what you put in a tight & high maneuvering (loop, split S, high G turns etc) air craft, recovery chute is best suited to light maneuvering 'Cessna' kind for which it was first developed. In case of horizontal spin aka Flat Spin only thing that can save pilots (in case of filed recovery) is ejection seat. And flat spin is some thing which is like part and parcel of 'Loop' especially when hands at 'stick & throttle' is of a rookie.

And BTW you think development of a jet from scratch without having any facility is an overnight job? Guess what that was whole point behind raising this issue.

Besides, like you acknowledged, it's not like replacing plastic chair that is why planning should have begun well before trouble started to surface, not after situation became critical. Kind of testimony to IAF's import mania.

Today world has already moved on to ejection seat equipped BFTs and amusingly and it took CAG report to discover, Deepaks are now outdated and unsafe apparently because of lack of ejection seat in a maneuvering piston engine powered aircraft.

Secondly HAL had proposed HTT-35 long time ago in 80s. Around same time it had completed development of HTT-34 (an improved turboprop version of HTP-32). Had IAF taken initiative then, forget HTT-34 even HTT-35 would have been available as replacement quite a time ago, perhaps even in service. Needless to say, had this happened HPT-32s have had their engines frozen by now.


Regardless of whatever, IAF could have ventured in foreign market given the fact that Deepak started signs of trouble long ago and also that after HTT-35, HAL had no plans for building replacement. After rejecting HTT-35 proposal IAF was free as it always is.

And please don't talk of statistics when you cry ocean over death of pilots. Death of single pilot is as grieving as death of 400. Ask people who lost their loved ones. Are they happier because their loved one died in Deepak crash not in Mig-21s? Please!

2007 to 2012 is not 7, it is 5. IAF did send out RFPs in 2004 and that was withdrawn upon the govt's insistence and not done byIAF. Then again, the flight tests conducted by IAF was the most comprehensive tests in a tender ever carried out. So, are you blaming the IAF to be overly professional? 6 years to validate and sign on the dotted line is a big deal, especially with our bureaucracy.

Actually the RFP was sent in Aug 2007 and the companies responded only in April 2008. So, taking April 2008 to Jan 2012, when the preferred bidder was chosen the actual time elapsed was just 45 months. That's 3.75 years. Even better, the time IAF took to send out the RFP, test the aircraft and select the two best birds was completed in July 2010. So, from the time the companies answered the RFPs to IAF announced the two aircraft it was just 26 months or 2.17 years. That's barely anything for a deal so large. The rest of the time was merely the time taken to settle the offsets and hand over the files to the MoF for final price breakdown. So, a lot of that had to do more with the companies deciding how they want to satisfy the offset, industrial and ToT clause than anything to do with IAF or MoD.

So, look at that, I brought down the claimed 7 years to 2.17 years. Only recently was the IAF allowed to resume negotiation of the contract. Without any more political delays like our dear MP did, we will see the deal signed soon, as soon as the specs and configuration are finalized.

With the adoption of new doctrine, need for M-MRCA started to float far back in around 1996. And this doctrine started seeing its implementation with signing of Sukhoi deal back. Despite that process for M-MRCA got on roll with eye on Mirage 2000-5 as suitable option only in 2004. {And people blame only ADA for being slow despite all odds against it}. Actually, MMRCA process started to pick adequate pace with Mirage in eye only in late 2004. But just after, it got confusing with inclusion of Mig-29M2 followed by F-16s and F-18s as option in 2005.

It was IAF together with government who first found their love in more Mirages then in Mig-29M2s then in American fighters and then in competitive trials. Given the dire need and death of Mig pilots, why is that IAF opted for this ridiculously lengthy or so called professional approach? Why did not they select Mirages when Dassault was offering shifting entire line to India? Why not Mig-29M2s which was on offer? American jets could have also been bought through FMS like their transport and their speedy delivery was almost guaranteed. Even Rafale was also on offer. Why this competitive trail approach despite dire situation and especially when you have signed so many single vendor deals in past and still buying military stuffs thought FMS and single vendor deal?

And by the way, competitive trails approach? Did not we always know what will happen at end, how funny it is that? Let me break it.

Mig-35: Not even actual design, a repacked Mig-29M2, designers had no intention of building actual prototype unless deal is signed. Maintenance and availability of spare are usual associated drawbacks like any other Russian product. And after buying MKIs, Mig-35 never had much chance. Needless to say, always a looser.

F-16: Excellent platform, battle proven, technological marvel, and almost guaranteed speedy delivery. But Made in USA, we always knew they won't ToT in requisite percentage. Always a looser.

F-18: Same as F-16, despite all, always a looser.

Gripen NG: Though new and fresh but underperformer, not exactly upto MMRCA specs in terms of combat load, in addition whole lot of American parts were obvious drawback. Sweden's neutrality and relation with pakis were drawbacks. At the end, considerable as an option but only to increase count needless to say at the of day always a looser.

EF: Overkill specs wise, but technological marvel. Excellent in Air 2 Air but Air 2 Ground not fully developed. AESA not delivered. Costly maintenance. Always in last two with Rafale but clearly short legged.

Rafale: Overkill specs wise, but fully developed. Good legacy to bank upon. Always front runner after Mirage option faded.

Now, did not last two always known? And furthermore what's the point in buying something through this so lengthy process when whole requirement is just to fill voids. Even more considering the fact that these MRCA were always going to stay cutting edge for maximum of 5-7 years after first induction. Do I need tor mention J-20? Did not we always knew China was doing something on 5th gen front?

Now they even have J-31. Some say LCA is obsolete then what about these 4.5 gen MMRCAs whose over all procurement cost will definitely cross 20 billion? Sometime ago when Retd Col. Ajai Shukla asked for throwing these 4.5 gen (calling them Air Show fighter) options of basket in favor of 5th gen fighters (for which he referred to F-35 which unmistakably was only suitable option available then, even as of today), he was called American agent. Now i wonder how will IAF explain feasibility of the 4.5 gen jets and such large spending in wake of threats like J-20 and J-31? At least money spend on LCA can be regarded as TD in case IAF scraps plans for all 4.5 gen procurement in wake of new threats but what about MMRCA spending?

Secondly, Mirage part among whole MMRCA saga is a bloody big annoyance, a bus missed. Back then Mirage-2000-5 was an excellent front line fighter with 6.5 ton weapon load. Further Dassault had offered to shift entire Mirage line to India. Quite acceptable to say, if deal had been signed by 2005, production would have begun by late 2006. Production could have started at quite a pace from word 'go' given ready made already perfected jigs. Perhaps, by now the entire order would have been completed and production would have ceased. But no, IAF now wanted Mig-29M2s. And when Americans jumped in race love found its way to F-16s or F-18s. Furthermore when Dassault pitched for Rafale and its European competitors followed in, all of sudden people discovered how good competitive trail affair is? That all despite the fact that preceding deal was a single vendor affair and succeeding deal will also be no different despite JV tag.

How forgetful here to not mention fact that sizable part of Mig-21s was supposed to be replaced by M-MRCAs according to Air Force Air Warfare doctrine which stated emphasis on equipping IAF with three different weight class of combat aircraft for meeting entire range of operational requirements starting from Massive Attack to Homeland defense and everything in between...........{And people blame ADA and LCA for the death of 400 odd mig pilots}.

How I not add that this doctrine based transformation traces its beginning with signing of Sukhoi deal which was to equip heavier 30 ton division, LCA was always there to equip lighter 12-14 ton division because its specs are unmatched by any and advanced version Mirage 2000 was perfect solution for equipping middle 18-22-24 ton weight division and a sizable number of it was already present with IAF. Now if someone says MMRCA was delayed because of LCA then he can't be any more ignorant.

Needless to say, given the political stability starting 1998 buying Mirages-2000-H/5s for replacing 200 odd Mig-21s was just a matter of 'will'.

But what happened"¦"¦.Oh wait 'this and that' could not have been accomplished because of such-such socio-political environment"¦"¦"¦..But what the hell, ADA is responsible for death of 400 pilots. After all unlike us, they have their own PMO, FM, MOD – a separate socially, politically and economically perfect India.

Hahahahaha! We have seen their roadblocks. A year to get approvals, after they get it they cannot make it. Nice roadblock. When the first model was made there were structural deficiencies making TD-1 unflyable. Let's blame the roadblocks. When a FBW was needed, Dassault offered an analog FBW. But no!!! ADA wanted to develop one on it's own, a Digitial one. And they take 6 years making one. Who do we blame? Let's blame IAF. Engine was a disaster. Approvals were given in 1989, in 2001 the blades were flying around trying to kill the test team. Let's blame GoI for not twisting laws of Physics here like they twist public opinion.

Hahahahaha ! Someone pretending possessing a Patent over how Road-Block shall be defined, how funny?............... When project is sanctioned in 1983 and you don't get first funding by even 1991 it's called road block. When funding is received late and the process of infrastructure building gets delayed then it's called road block. When infrastructure could not be erected in time and project could not start on time then it's called road block. Due to absence of funding when pooling of resource could not be completed by time project begins then its called road block. When you seek user's opinion and user is far away in Delhi so-called overseeing project then it's called road block. When political situation of country is fragile and nobody actually cares about most ambitious project, then its called road block.

Dassault had offered analog FCC and ADA could not accept it because it had compulsion as a part of TD phase/Phase-1 to prove digital FCS; a compulsion which was mandated upon it by joint of Gov. and IAF, a compulsion which was necessarily to be met to get sanction for actual project development phase called Phase-2.

Secondly there was no guarantee that IAF would have accepted analog FBWs as part of first production batch and not have gone on to demand digital version as must have"¦"¦"¦.

Like a magical ~30%. What about the other ~70%. Let's blame IAF for pushing an aircraft beyond it's life, maintain whatever they managed without any credible spares supplies and at the same time blame rookie pilots because ADA was dillydallying on a promise made back in 1983 when DRDO suggested they will make LCA while IAF was laughing their asses off on that suggestion. Little did the IAF know they will spend the the first decade of the new millennium crying.

Do you really think 30% is a small or inconsiderable figure when related to most important aspect of combat flying?

Please get access to some Flight Safety* magazines published by concerned cell of IAF. You will read a lot about why so many Mig-21s crashed and what part of it was because of pilot error, what part because of maintenance practices and what part because of jet? And important of all, how they managed to bring rate of crash down so dramatically?

*Official magazine meant for staff only, so contact someone if you are interested. And its old like 5-7 year old I am talking about.

IAF was laughing their asses off on that suggestion. Little did the IAF know they will spend the the first decade of the new millennium crying.

Instead of laughing their ass if IAF had selected to get proactive, things would not have escalated to this much. As a prime user, IAF could have easily mandated imported engine, imported MMR, analog FCS and rest of other never attempted technology for first batch of LCA while stressing on concurrent development of indigenous substitutes for next batches. But what happened, ahh forget it, people used to say "who cares, damn thing won't even fly" and what not.

.

There is a difference between roadblocks and making substandard equipment. Gates removing funding for the Zimwault is a roadblock. Unavailability of IL-76 platforms for Phalcon AWACS is a roadblock. The F-35 having multiple issues regardless of removing political hurdles and reducing requirements is not a roadblock. It means the F-35's issues make it substandard and has nothing to do with USAF requirements or DoDs red tape. Similarly, the LCA is a substandard aircraft, regardless of the roadblocks. You can say Physics is the roadblock for LCA. It is funny why I don't see the US media blaming the USAF for the F-35 delays. Actually we saw heads roll at Lockheed Martin for the F-35 delays. In India, ADA is enjoying more work instead..

Firstly, LCA is not substandard equipment and rest has already been replied to.

Maybe that's how a developed country works and that's how we work. Oh! well. Nobody to blame but the IAF

India is not US, we did not complete building our defense industry before WW2, nor did we propelled it to Himalayan heights by 1942. We are behind much of the developed world and that's why we are referred to as third world country. Things as we see must change and if we want to make it sooner then whole country will have to be part of painful hike and forces are no exception.

Do you actually believe that the only reason ADA delayed LCA is because of IAF. That's fart the media has been feeding to the ignorant masses since years. Too much patriotism and too little realism.

No i don't. But apparently you think IAF is as holy as cow and ADA is Satan's prized demon. May i add, too much image blindness and no realism? But then ignorant masses, who can help?

Let's face it, LCA fiasco is product of premeditated mentality induced lack of cooperation and later self induced negatively factored emotional dilemma on part of user, emotional calculation/miscalculation on part ADA and lack of futuristic thinking on part of Government.

But then, at least ADA's miscalculation gave birth to an aviation industry that has initials (MMR and flyable turbofan is first but without LCA we would have been nowhere from what we were in 80s) in every field, question is, what did IAF and GOIs pessimism gave to the country?

Country should have never let experience gained through HF-24 project go wasted, no matter what, work should have continued. Unfortunately after HF-24, neither Government nor IAF showed any interest in perusing expertize in the domain of at least power plant let alone in any new proposal for follow on fighter projects. Least could IAF have done was to ask DRDO and Gov for starting serious work on in the form of TD on various critical technological fronts like development of Turbofan tech, Airborne fighter class MMR, INS, futuristic airframe materials etc.

But nothing happened, why? Because they were happy, settled and at peace after shopping for Jagaur? Quite in contrast to USAF whose weapons are always born at Nellis (now called Nevada Test and Training Range) no matter where get nurtured thereafter.

Our so called economic conditions are not as bad as you think. We will have greater liabilities, but can still manage higher growth. With better reforms we can sustain growth and once the economic crises subsides, our foundation will be stronger for even more impressive growth. We are in a growth phase regardless of the inflation.

While we need more aircraft, LCA simply won't do anymore. The potential for LCA is 6 squadrons as of today, not 25 or 30 as was the plan in 1988. Instead we have plans for 30-35 squadrons of 30 ton aircraft like MKI and PAKFA. You see where I am going now? We have gone far beyond LCA.

By 2018, when LCA will actually be ready if delays are not considered, then our economy will be more than enough to handle the larger influx of heavy aircraft more rapidly than we can today. We can potentially be the same size as today's China by then.

In the 2020-30 period we can even aim at doubling or even tripling the IAF's size from today's strength. Why do I say so? Heck by that time we will potentially have crossed today's American GDP. And you still want LCAs?

This isn't about loving or hating the LCA. This is about being realistic to the threats we face. Regardless of numbers we will be foolish to send LCA class aircraft against PLAAF J-20s, J-11s and J-10s. Don't forget we aren't playing games. It is more useful to waste the life of a pilot on PAKFA rather than LCA when facing something like the J-20.

It is about time people grow brains. Or you can act like how the Pakis do and sit talking about how the JF-17 will engage MKIs and Phalcons simply because they know magic.

There is this overly stupid, retarded belief that an aircraft like LCA can take out a more capable enemy simply because he is connected to the AWACS.

Comparatively the LCA was built to engage incoming strike aircraft. Meaning these are aircraft which can barely support themselves, are carrying heavy loads of bombs and other equipment. So, the LCA is meant to disrupt the formation and send it back, heck it is not even meant to take out enemy fighters. The purpose is to keep the enemy occupied to the point where it has become too risky try again. By then heavy fighters would come in and kill any lurkers. That's what a point defence aircraft does. It defends a point in the sky, nothing else.

In the IAF squadrons are at a premium. There is a fixed number of squadrons specified by the MoD which the IAF cannot cross. So, it is IAF's decision on how best to use this premium space. If IAF is allowed 40 squadrons and they have decided on 500 LCA, then good bye India. The current plan is 14-15 squadrons of MKIs followed by 7 squadrons of Rafales. That's potentially 22 squadrons of high end aircraft. 2 squadrons of Mirages and 3 squadrons of Mig-29s bring it to 27. Add 7 squadrons of Jaguars we have 34. So, we have 8 squadrons empty, to deal with LCA and the newly inducted PAKFA by 2022. All the Migs save the -29 are gone by then. Even the 29s will be very old since the MLUs wont take long.

Now if MoD suddenly decides to increase the IAF's squadron cap of 42 to 50 by 2030. Do you actually think IAF will want to fill all that up with LCAs or FGFAs/AMCAs . Think. That's 8 squadrons. The plans are for 166 PAKFAs and 48 FGFAs. That's 10 squadrons. Follow that up with 4 squadrons of Rafale and an X number(say 4) of AMCA by 2030. 18 squadrons filled. The extra squadrons will be replacements for Mig-29s/Jags/Mirage-2000s that make up 12 squadrons currently.

Think logically, where is the space for hundreds of LCA? We can manage 20 LCA Mk1s followed by a potential 83 Mk2s. That's about it. IAF did talk about 6 squadrons of LCA in total. Nothing more, potentially something lesser

On economic condition:

Firstly, so far especially since last four years i am hearing about 9 % growth and as per recent] resent estimates we will grow under 6% for sometime. Long term economic growth predictions, huh! To hell with it.

Secondly, you say "IAF can triple its strength with FGFA class fighters based on assumption that our GDP will grow past of US in sometime". Wow! Sorry for being a rude shaker but to me it's nothing but a pipe dream considering what we are seeing today and also where we will be in terms of total population and consequent rise in need by 2025-30.

Thirdly, there is limit to which you can keep earning riding on cheap labor (as a by product of large population), keep regarding large population as a market and keep making money by selling whatever country still owns, not to mention by ever digging deeper into tax payers pocket. Sooner our population will swell up to such size that much of our earnings and resources will go towards fulfilling basic needs, let alone others.

Forget crossing cross US GDP, think about present rate of population growth (which doesn't fluctuate as dynamically as economic growth). Tell you, one thing is sure prediction; we will be crossing PRC very soon.

On structure of IAF:

So far what we can afford 300 MKIs some 250 FGFAs, 200 M-MRCAs and upgraded versions various types which will be replaced by AMCAs starting 2025. Here not to forget that FGFA is not only coming as add-on but also as replacement for older MKIs. AMCA too will replace some of M-MRCAs at later date. Given the fact that production of FGFA is not to start before 2020 and AMCA's not certainly before 2025, there is greater chance that IAF will have to manage with 650-700 aircrafts till 2022.

I am not going beyond 2025 to predict as how IAF will look (size wise) because a lot depends on how our economic condition will be in that time?

IAF can most certainly buy 500 FGFAs, 500 AMCAs and 500 XYZ planes if our economy starts to run like nobody but 'if' and only 'if'. And till this 'if' sees light of the day it's only cheaper solution which is feasible.

On LCA:

Like to repeat that in case of two front war IAF will need well over 1000 aircrafts for fulfilling various needs like Limited offence, Ground Support, Air defense (point, area and home defense). Towards fulfilling these, apart from other assets, IAF will need huge numbers of fighter-interceptors for blocking every possible corridor suspected of being used by enemy for inland attacks.

Here LCA comes handy because currently it is very cost effective BVR platform and very suitable for point air defense and area defense. LCA presently carries descent weapon suit and Radar and its RCS is very small thanks to sheer amount of composite used.

Furthermore, a LCA working in conjunction with AEW&C (given the fact that later has capability to provide track and lock solutions in data link mode) will be even more effective because it will be able to track enemy and even fire at it without using its own MMR which otherwise would give away its position thanks to RWR.

Features like smaller RCS, decently powerful MMR and matching BVRAAM gives LCA everything interceptors will need to take on intruding formation comprising of fighters like J-11 and J-10s. Add to it its capability to intercept intruders in silent mode while working in conjunction with AEW&C and you have well protected home airspace.

Furthermore, an intruding formation of J-11 and J-10 might have powerful radar, heavier weapon load and more fuel but against LCA (featuring smaller RCS, carrying decently capable MMR and matching BVRAAM and operating close to its base) it may not come as any advantage because it doesn't really matters how powerful your radar is or how heavier load you are carrying when you can't engage LCA at advantageous distance (J-11 and J-10 might have long range radar but missile it carries will almost always have same or inferior range to what LCA will carry) . There is even a greater possibility that LCA might always engage J-11s and J-10s at same distance (at which later would seek a lock on LCA), if not at advantageous range in a classic air intercept mission because LCA's smaller RCS would be retarding factor for J-11's and J-10's powerful radar. And when LCA will operate in conjunction with AEW&C for an intercept mission, advantage will further tilt towards LCA because of longer detection and tracking range of AEW&C.

Even in classic close-in-fight /Dog Fight, LCA equipped with missiles like R-73 (may be even Python-5 someday) coupled with HMSD will hold its own. In today's world there is no longer a need to get behind foe's six, because with HMDS even a six o'clock holder is not safe. That said, MK-2 is coming up with IRST apart from powerful engine and much refined aerodynamics. Top of all, in dog fight first and last thing that matters is Pilot Training and Israelis with classic tail-less delta winged Mirage-3s and Mirage -5s/Neshers answered why?

I feel LCA's RCS point needs to restated and clarified. Let me clear it by reminding very fact that it's smaller RCS, which primarily differentiates a fifth generation fighter from preceding generations. Furthermore RCS plays a big role in any air to air combat. Actually, its enemy's RCS which matters while blue tries to get a positive lock. And a powerful RADAR do gets retarded if a foe is smaller (RCS wise).

Like to add that since day one ADA has given emphasis on reducing LCA's RCS considerably and apart from use of composites, it was for reason why ADA's designers implanted there symmetrically placed RAM intakes around engine bay, which is RAM air from these intakes are used to cool down engine bay area, thereby considerably reducing IR signature of that rather red hot region (a retarding factor for enemy's IRST trying get lock from long range). Sometime ago they even started pursuing way to reduce engine exhaust trail signature.

One important thing, LCA does produces smaller power but in air combat there exists term called 'Combat Thrust', 'Full Military Power' (very recently it was known through Tejas web-site that 'IN20' version of F-404 can produce 90 KN, that's 5 KN extra power for combat thrust if not any better) which is reserve power a turbofan can produce at cost of endurance (center-line drop tank can quite easily manage for reduced endurance) and engine life. So in normal case LCA's MMR and EW might not have enough power to work at brim of their potential but during combat while acting as air defence fighter LCA can muster all the required power for its electronics for a period which in no case would be more than 5-10 minutes considering the fact that LCA is bought in huge numbers and always sent against intruders at number advantage of 1.5 to 1.

Furthermore BROADSWORD reported back in 2011 that PV-1 is being converted to EW prototype. Wonder what that news was referring towards?

By the way whole point behind inducting more LCA (given that Government allows increase in number of squadron considering dire situation country would face during any PRC attack) is to provide descent fighter-interceptors in adequate numbers at cheaper cost for blocking every possible corridor starting from Nalia to Twang which is possibly the longest stretch an air force might be assigned to defend anywhere in the world. A stretch which in every possibility will go hostile during what is vaguely spoken as 'two front war'.

In future when J-20 will arrive, these interceptors can be upgraded with LO materials, reshaped nose, conformal weapon bays (wing root cavity is perfect spot for conformal weapon bay), podded weapon bays etc. to keep them capable according to changing threat scenario. Also by that time our ground based surveillance radars will also have capability to detect LO aircrafts.

Regarding JF-17 and pakis view. Since this issue has been raised, let me clearly say that stated situation (in stand-alone and AWACS linked mode) also applies to JF-17s defending Pakistani airspace against intruding MKIs, although less effectively because of lack of descent BVRAAM (may be even Radar) and lack of composite airframe or comparatively larger RCS .

Last but not least, be it AEW&C scenario or case related to smaller RCS or anything etcetera nothing necessarily relates to what pakis have to say regarding JF-17 intercepting MKIs. But if you think so in your brain then it's your problem. May I throw back, it's about time people grow brain and get rid of retarded thinking.

 

[Rahul Singh]

Last night i did bit of search to know about LCA MK-2 specs, using what i discovered i tried my hand in photo editing to see what MK-2 might look up as. In almost everything i came onto, point of emphasis remained on aerodynamic improvements using structural changes while focusing on longer fuselage. And apart from rest i came onto 'Trident BLOG' (although not very reliable source which PS Gupta is) had information about longer nose and vertical tail fin (rudder) and larger wing (by area) with no increase in wing span. Interesting as it can get, how you increase wing area without increasing span especially when original design is being retained? Only two possibility to best of my knowledge are:-

a. Increase in value of 'P' and 'H' of LCA's delta wing( LCA is not perfect delta so P and H are just for reference to wing root and leading edge respectively). Increase in numerical value P and H however means increase in sweep angle which means increase in take off and landing speeds or in one word higher stall speed. And increase in stall speed is something which negatively affects Turn radius, Low level Low speed performance and combat load. Stated is something which can not be considered as good for a fighter as it negatively affects A2G performance.

b. Redesigned Wing"¦"¦"¦"¦. options are just plenty.

After ruling out option 'a' and considering option 'b', simplest option that i could zero on is placing enlarged LEVCON(deflectable) or LERX (fixed) of the shape of LEVCON (NP-1) on same old wing but as much as 2-2.5 times the size of NP-1's LEVCON. Reason behind choosing this option is following graph chart published as a part of study which looked for possible drag reduction measure in LCA. This graph clearly shows, use of LEVCON positively affects Lift / Drag characteristics of LCA's flight profile. That added to increase in requirement for more life due increase in length of fugelage.

 

[ersakthivel]

P2 prada
While we need more aircraft, LCA simply won't do anymore. The potential for LCA is 6 squadrons as of today, not 25 or 30 as was the plan in 1988. Instead we have plans for 30-35 squadrons of 30 ton aircraft like MKI and PAKFA. You see where I am going now? We have gone far beyond LCA.

The potential number for LCA is not what ait combat "EXPERTS" like you bluff.It depends on the combined number of PAF and PLAF in a two front war.

By 2018, when LCA will actually be ready if delays are not considered, then our economy will be more than enough to handle the larger influx of heavy aircraft more rapidly than we can today. We can potentially be the same size as today's China by then.

However more our economy is advanced we wil be spending tons of money on AMCA and PAKFA. SO for actual increase in squadron numbers we have to depend on LCAs till 2030.2030 is the time by which we will recieve any meaning full number of PAKFAs.And russian offers on tech transfer dont count a shit. The KORAPUT engine division is yet to master single crystal tech even after the promised,"100% TOT FROM RAW MATERIAL TO ENGINE".

And HAL will be simply a by stander as far as PAKFA is considered,since the russians have already completely designed the aircraft and we are on board because the chinese declined and russians needed source of funding.It will be a bit more glorified version of SUKHOI-30 MKI co-operation,like we will be integerating mission computers and avionics and integerating some indigenous weapons,all these expertise is now in india THANKS to LCA.

In the 2020-30 period we can even aim at doubling or even tripling the IAF's size from today's strength. Why do I say so? Heck by that time we will potentially have crossed today's American GDP. And you still want LCAs?

You are hoping americans will be sleeping till 2020-30.Btw there will be thousands of F-16s flying with AMERICANs 5 or 8 times more than the famed white elephants called F-22.They are not arguing mad dogs like many so called experts in india like all f-16s are irrelevant and we should replace them with F-22.Why?

This isn't about loving or hating the LCA. This is about being realistic to the threats we face. Regardless of numbers we will be foolish to send LCA class aircraft against PLAAF J-20s, J-11s and J-10s. Don't forget we aren't playing games. It is more useful to waste the life of a pilot on PAKFA rather than LCA when facing something like the J-20.

Even if all the experts in aviation world will stand up and suggest in one voice that facing J-20 can be done only with the help of EW and VHF radar, and multi receiver transmitters and receiver environment, Irst stealth UCAVS, You will keep on saying only one 5th gen can take down another 5th gen,belying reality.

The fact is both the 5th gen are blind to each other. How will they take out each other?At best having equal number of PAKFAS TO J-20 is only for deterent effect.sf
It is about time people grow brains. Or you can act like how the Pakis do and sit talking about how the JF-17 will engage MKIs and Phalcons simply because they know magic.

There is this overly stupid, retarded belief that an aircraft like LCA can take out a more capable enemy simply because he is connected to the AWACS.

T his is the same retard critque of yours through out the thread.With out the ew support no aircaft from IAF will launch a single missile on any 5th gen J-20 without the support of EW crafts and other VHF radar support or stealth ucav support whether it be PAKFA or AMCA of RAFAle as they dont have the EW capability to smoke out any 5th gen J-20..

Comparatively the LCA was built to engage incoming strike aircraft. Meaning these are aircraft which can barely support themselves, are carrying heavy loads of bombs and other equipment. So, the LCA is meant to disrupt the formation and send it back, heck it is not even meant to take out enemy fighters. The purpose is to keep the enemy occupied to the point where it has become too risky try again. By then heavy fighters would come in and kill any lurkers. That's what a point defence aircraft does. It defends a point in the sky, nothing else.

This scenario will exist as long as airwarefare exist.Once again your retard critque that LCA wont have the BVR to take out enemy fighter. The grippen NG people say they can integerate METEOR with it. This is done to take out enemy aircraft or doing airshow displays.Fools like you never change.

The total life cycle cost of LCA will be a third or fourth of the MMRCA contenders. SO we can field at least 3 or 4 LCas for each of MMRCA contenders. As no future BVRs are going to be immune to future EW capabilities, the 5th gen will shoot and scoot.
In the IAF squadrons are at a premium. There is a fixed number of squadrons specified by the MoD which the IAF cannot cross. So, it is IAF's decision on how best to use this premium space. If IAF is allowed 40 squadrons and they have decided on 500 LCA, then good bye India. The current plan is 14-15 squadrons of MKIs followed by 7 squadrons of Rafales. That's potentially 22 squadrons of high end aircraft. 2 squadrons of Mirages and 3 squadrons of Mig-29s bring it to 27. Add 7 squadrons of Jaguars we have 34. So, we have 8 squadrons empty, to deal with LCA and the newly inducted PAKFA by 2022. All the Migs save the -29 are gone by then. Even the 29s will be very old since the MLUs wont take long.

Now if MoD suddenly decides to increase the IAF's squadron cap of 42 to 50 by 2030. Do you actually think IAF will want to fill all that up with LCAs or FGFAs/AMCAs . Think. That's 8 squadrons. The plans are for 166 PAKFAs and 48 FGFAs. That's 10 squadrons. Follow that up with 4 squadrons of Rafale and an X number(say 4) of AMCA by 2030. 18 squadrons filled. The extra squadrons will be replacements for Mig-29s/Jags/Mirage-2000s that make up 12 squadrons currently.

Think logically, where is the space for hundreds of LCA? We can manage 20 LCA Mk1s followed by a potential 83 Mk2s. That's about it. IAF did talk about 6 squadrons of LCA in total. Nothing more, potentially something lesser

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Good Work, Rahul..

 

[ersakthivel]

P2PRADA says.
In the IAF squadrons are at a premium. There is a fixed number of squadrons specified by the MoD which the IAF cannot cross. So, it is IAF's decision on how best to use this premium space. If IAF is allowed 40 squadrons and they have decided on 500 LCA, then good bye India. The current plan is 14-15 squadrons of MKIs followed by 7 squadrons of Rafales. That's potentially 22 squadrons of high end aircraft. 2 squadrons of Mirages and 3 squadrons of Mig-29s bring it to 27. Add 7 squadrons of Jaguars we have 34. So, we have 8 squadrons empty, to deal with LCA and the newly inducted PAKFA by 2022. All the Migs save the -29 are gone by then. Even the 29s will be very old since the MLUs wont take long.

Now if MoD suddenly decides to increase the IAF's squadron cap of 42 to 50 by 2030. Do you actually think IAF will want to fill all that up with LCAs or FGFAs/AMCAs . Think. That's 8 squadrons. The plans are for 166 PAKFAs and 48 FGFAs. That's 10 squadrons. Follow that up with 4 squadrons of Rafale and an X number(say 4) of AMCA by 2030. 18 squadrons filled. The extra squadrons will be replacements for Mig-29s/Jags/Mirage-2000s that make up 12 squadrons currently.

Think logically, where is the space for hundreds of LCA? We can manage 20 LCA Mk1s followed by a potential 83 Mk2s. That's about it. IAF did talk about 6 squadrons of LCA in total. Nothing more, potentially something lesser

The IAF is governed by budget constraints,not squadron constraints as you are once again making it out to be. These squadron numbers were fixed with an eye on chinese and pak fighters a long time ago.

Now with exponential increse in chinese squadrons the IAF sqdn nos will be increased.That is the job of IAF and MOD and not that of ADAA and DRDO.


And you haven't explained to the readers what will the 7 squadrons of JAGUARS do?But you will claim they are all superior to LCA Mk-1 with a twr of 0.61!!!!!!!!! and with same weapon load and their next to nil ability to survive modern warfare,since they are 60s birds.However much you upgrade them they wont have even half the agility of LCA-MK-1s with their 92 kn GE engines.And as usual you will keep on arguing that inducting these 40 LCAMk-1s(OH I FORGOT YOUR FAVOURITE WORDS i.e. IOC BIRDS) will destroy the warfighting capability of IAF which are being upheld by these glorious 60s tech JAGYARS(upgraded to DDDDDDAAAAAARRRRRRRIIIINNNNN standards, ofcourse).

LCA mk-II will be almost on par with MMRCA contenders in twr and armaments and aesa and ew capabilities, and all mk-1 s can be upgraded with SNECMA-GTRE engine and LCA-mk-II's asea and astra ramjet bvrs. Once these are done these 40 LCA MK-1s too will be better than 80% of IAf fleet. Within their unrefuelled range of point defense with these superior thrust to weight ratios the upgraded mk-1s and modern mk-2s with asea and ramjet bvrs like ASTRa and other long range BVRs from russia or europe will be as good as MMRCA fighters with their high agility in vertical plane with lowest wing loading.

With these 7 squadrond of jaguars we can say 'GOOD BYE PAF and PLAAF" and they will turn turtle, But these IOC LC MK-1 birds are useless and IAf pilots will shudder at the possibility of taking these(fly by wire ,TWR of 1.07 ,super agility in vertical plane due to the lower wing loading and superior air to air capabilities once their ground bombs are released) 40 LCA MK-1s to combat.This is always your pet airwarfare tactics you keep recommending to IAF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. We should hone the ability of JAGUAR and mig-27 pilots that are to be discarded in 10 years. But we shouldnot allow 40 of them into the cockpit of LC-MK-1s.Hell with them. for this you will bring out another pet thesis of yours,that"DELTAS BOMBING AT SEA LEVEL ,NOT HAPPENING". If it is true then where will RAFALE bomb,the swiss alps and himalayas only perhaps.What are they doing on french carriers?


The total life cycle cost of LCA will be a third or fourth of the MMRCA contenders. SO we can field at least 3 or 4 LCas for each of MMRCA contenders. As no future BVRs are going to be immune to future EW capabilities, the 5th gen will shoot and scoot.No airforce will risk it's most prized fighter in a merge with higher number of capable fighters,where 5th gens unique advantage of steaalth wont hold any more.

So if an invading chinese airfleet comes across himalayas the 5th gen J-20s in them wont be switching on their radars.Because it will result in their easy detection. Any rookie IAf pilot can kill it then and there in close combat if group tactics including sufficient number of aircrafts are applied.

The invading J-20s will rely on their EW (stealth or non stealth crafts) for targetting it's BVRs. The INDIAN PAKFAs will go after them. The pakfas are decidedly superior than J-20s considering their engine advantage and Russian AEAS and advanced jamming capabilities along with sukhoi.Then indian EW capability should take over the guidanceand BVR lock support of LCA or MMRCA against the invading J-20s.

This a win win situation,However hard the invading EW(stealth or non stealth craft) try they wont escape pakfas.Once this support is gone the J-20 fleet is sitting duck for all generation of IAF fighters with long range bvrs and anti stealth ew support. This scenario will deny the massive airwarfare opton for PAf and PLAf fleet. For this we need huge number of aircrafts. 5th gen PAKFAs and AMCAS wont arrive in numbers before 2025.

Untill then LCA mk_II's role will be irreplaceable for IAF. Even in 2025 we may not have more than 300 5th gens. For IAF to go into full 5th gen fleet it will take till 2040 or so. The same goes for PLAF. The j-20 still has no asea and no worthwhile engine options. So ther is no possibility of them becomming all 5th gen by 2040.
Till this time LCA will along with MMRCA and SUKHOi will be the mainstay of IAF. Many people are glossing over this important reality.
And by 2025 there will be no 5th gen stealth left in the world. The detection technologies will be so far advanced the LCA pilot will have the exact co ordinates of every single 5th gen J-20 on his MFDs thanks to IRST UCAVs and VHF radars that will be placed on the indian AWACS. Not to mention multiple transmitter and recievers which will easily triangulate any 5th gen stealth.

That is why after F-22 the next big thing americans are developing is MACh 20 speed capable WAVE RIDER cruise missile,not another fancy 5th gen, or 6th gen. They know once the stealth cover is blown there is no point in building these 400 million dollar white elephants, Which incidently spends 3 hours in the hanger for everey one hour on the mission.

So if any airforce becomes all 5th gen after the end of first sortie all the 5th gens will huddle into the hanger for 3 hours and enemy's 4th gens or 5th gens or cruise missiles like WAVERIDERS will pepper them in their hangers.

So please stop using your "DEVADAS" type losing arguent like "ARE YOU GOING TO SEND LCAs AGAINST J-20?",like a genius.

 

[Pandora]

Good Work, Rahul..

Kunal ji!! Can we put Water Mark over Pics here or some sort of logo that shows,it's DFI copyright material.

 

[ersakthivel]

New & emerging fighters from Asia. - Page 9 - Key Publishing Ltd Aviation Forums

The debate between ABHIMANYU and MIG-23 MLD is very complex and engaging. I will try to post the real meaning of the argument sometime later. Are LEVCONS to be implemented on IAF LCA -MK-IIs are going to be restricted to NAVAL LCA. SInce levcons improve AOA and low speed handling charecteristics of LCA as per the vigyan paper discussed in the above thread, will they be added on LCA-mk-IIs?

If LCA mk-II is perfected it will become the bedrock of 5th gen single engine stealth like F-35.This point is often disregarded in all discussions about LCA. Even the F-22 has a diamond shaped compound delta only. Once ADAA masters compound delta it will help in development of 5th gen single engined stealth from LCAA TEJAS platform.Since most other parameters are will be validated in LCA mk_2 ,Will ADA go for 5th gen stealth LCA mk-II?