Do you have actual test results of the use of a chute on the aircraft we are talking about? No? So, no need to be so sure about it.
What data?
Nevertheless, fact is, BRS recovery chute is attached to top of fuselage (around CG in four point attachment) and this is the point around which an aircraft spins like a TOP after entering flat spin. The string in case of chute deployment will twist twist and twist more than enough to discard any lift parachute could generate if aircraft is in flat spin"¦"¦That's simple physics.
Is the HPT-32 imported? So, what's up with this import mania claim? Go buy Micromax and Akas tablet. If you don't have an imported phone or a tablet, then fine. If you do that makes you a hypocrite.
Buy only Indian. If you have even one foreign object in your home, like a LG TV, Samsung washing machine etc then you still are a hypocrite because all these have Indian equivalents.
No need to talk bad about the Armed forces importing if Indian equipment comes by reducing their quality standards.
Oh Ho Oh Ho. Ouch! Logical fallacy I see!
IAF is import manic because it never given importance to foreseeing requirements and working with designers to get product ready before or in due time. As provided earlier HTT-35 is one such example. This trainer was proposed as future replacement for HTP-32 back in 80s. If IAF had been such future seeing it would have well anticipated that some point early in next century they will need to replace HPT-32s. Provided the proposal, it was IAFs fault to not initiate HTT-35 program.
They just kept they face of any proposal for building replacements for HTP-32s and keep on waiting for HTP-32s to gray out? Why? Because when need will arise they could say oh we don't have any indigenous program for replacing HTP-32 so we go shopping.
Yeah! Right only CAG knows everything. How about IAF wanted to import even basic trainer but were shot down due to HAL's veto? Ever thought about that?
They just bought Pilatus-7. Never heard of any veto!
India is the only country where the DPSU can veto Armed forces decisions.
Not necessarily I support veto but yeah everybody will have to answer 'why' and 'why not'. After all this country is running on taxpayer's money not on
Kuber ka Khzana.
No need to get all philosophical. 400 pilots dying is more important than 1 pilot dying, regardless of consequences and reasons. When you sign up for the armed forces it is not for a picnic.
USAF did not ground F-22s because a pilot died. They grounded the F-22s because the problems became public.
What i need to is i what i decide, not any tom dick and harry.
And grieving doesn't get less if your neighbor had met same fate.
Not even close. Mirage-2000s were expected to replace Mig-27s. Who the heck told you MRCA will replace Mig-21s? That is LCA's job.
IAF had some 400 Mig-21s (that's 50 percent of IAF's sanctioned strength); if LCA were to replace all of them (especially after IAF adopted new doctrine) then it means 50% percent of IAF was supposed to be LCA and nothing else. Oxymoronic! No? But math, simple math!
Oh! Please. The need always arises 10 years in advance before actual work is carried out. This has been the same for every armed forces for decades. The Navy pitched for a MRCA a few years ago. They will realistically get their own aircraft at the end of the decade. SFC is the same too and they may never even get it.
Oh please! The need was felt far back and need was needed to be fulfilled starting immediately that is why MKI deal was signed so far back in 90s amidst economic and political chaos.
And FYI for greater period Mig-21s constituted something like half the combat force of IAF and quite a number of squadron operating it was to be replaced by M-MRCA to start the transformation according to new doctrine.
Navy's M-MRCA need is for a carrier whose basic configuration is yet to be finalized let alone air group which by projected timelines will most certainly be comprising of 5th gen, so they can wait. This, as opposed to IAF's M-MRCA requirements which was to consolidate and maintain its fighting ability by replacing its ailing and out dated jets like Mig-21/23/27 and Jaguars and also to transform IAF from defensive force to capability based.
It may come as quite surprise to someone that changed requirement (asking LCA to now be a L-MRCA) asks LCA to replace part of Mig-23,27 and Jaguras as well, in addition to part of Mig-21.
Actually, it's the 'role' that these three jets in three different weight classes are fitting themselves into by replacing regardless of whatsoever Type was in charge earlier. For example part of Jaguar fleet is assigned for DPS, part of it for Maritime Strike and part of it is also for SEAD/DEAD at border level. The SEAD/DEAD role (at border level) is something which is to be taken over by L-MRCA , Maritime Strikes is something which is to be by MKIs and DPS (on target to target and sector to sector basis) will be taken over by MKIs as well as M-MRCAs and in some case even by LCA MK-2 . It is like, entire Jagaur fleet assigned various different roles will be replaced by proper and most suitable of H-MRCA , M-MRCA and L-MRCA in terms of assigned role and pre- assessed mission requirements, not necessarily that whole Jagaur fleet will see what is called type replacement, all and alone by M-MRCAs.
Capability based transformations asks for multirole platforms in three different weight class in order to let IAF fulfill its duties cost effectively. Theoretically, while Peshawar based PAF stations will be targeted by MKI, Karachi based by M-MRCA, the short range border level attack requirement will be meet by L-MRCA class LCA. And in air to air mode. While MKIs will fight for air superiority over enemy air space, LCA MK-2 will defend homeland airspace and M-MRCA will play as plug-in between these two.
Bit into history: It was actually F-16 purchase by PAF that initiated though process for transforming IAF from just a defensive and reactionary force to capability based one in most cost effective manner"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦.Mirage-2000 being first truly multirole platform exemplified advantages of having and benefits of operating multirole platforms and experiences with maintaining Mig-23s, Mig-29s and Mirages 2000Hs (all of which were bought in extreme rush to counter PAF's newly acquired capability in the form of F-16s) taught them about importance of operating common platform in greater number over operating many types with crisscrossed* capability in small numbers.
* IAF bought both Mig-27s and Jaguars. Both air crafts are optimized for low level high speed air interdiction and ground attack missions and are equally capable unprepared airstrip operators, that apart from other similarities. Yet both were bought!
Vegetables right? Go buy what you want in a second?
What the IAF did, nobody else has done ever. Period.
Now Vegetables, Earlier plastic Chair, wonder what next? Logical fallacy going wild!
Like I said earlier it was very easy to buy more Mirages to replace older Mig-21s and save good percentage of lives of 400 blamed on LCA.
Right. And you think if we only pitted EF and Rafale do you think 5th gen avionics would have come cheap? It was Boeing which brought in the AESA, not the others.
This will be the cheapest way to buy Rafale and this has been done many times. Did oyu know about the controversy surrounding the one of our earliest tenders involving Mirage-3s, Jaguars and Viggen. Sanjay Gandhi's interference after Jag was selected because Viggen was the supposedly superior platform. But IAF insisted they always wanted the Jag and after that Sanjay backed off. Well, same case.
Ok then, cheapest way is justified over death of good percentage of 400 pilots.
Point was 'this' and always 'this'. And I always knew what. No need to be told by any tom dick and harry.
BTW that waiting will now cost taxpayers some 15 rupees more for every US dollar spent. For 10 billion US dollars it's like some 150 billion rupees, which is some 2.5 billion US dollars that of course if 10 billion dollar is considered as ultimate price for M-MRCA disregarding inflation.
* From what I know IAF preferred choice was Viggen but deal could not fructify because of US pressure and objection prohibiting re-sale of P&W JT8D to India.
Super MKIs and PAKFA... what now?
Super Duper MKI is not Fifth Gen, neither is Rafale nor were any contenders, they are no match for fifth gen fighter. In face of threats like J-20 and J-31 they are just 4.5 gen fighters.
And point was and is, if LCA is obsolete then what they are? Someone can say, at least money spent on LCA comes home but where does on M-MRCAs go?
Most probably Navy, not PLAAF.
How about as PLAAF's J-10 replacement? And also as PAF future jet bought on credit? Why would not China give J-31 in quite a number to PAF and ask them to harass us from their side during any Chinese aggression?
IAF wanted that. But we don't know why GoI interfered. But it happened for the good.
Oh! it happened for good!
Lives of quite many Mig-21 pilots were lost which could otherwise have been saved if Mirage-2000s had replaced their part of Mig-21 squadron (now poised for transformation to M-MRCA type) in due time. And people who cry ocean over death of IAF pilots (but only to blame LCA) says it happened for good?
Secondly if Mirages had been bought in time IAF could have operated with good strength for what is now called era of depleting strength. {Thank god, we were not attacked in between}
Also what 'good' is to buy 4.5 jets at such huge expenditure when enemy will be fielding 5 gen soon, may be just after first example will get inducted?
Kaveri was well funded even before 1989. The 1991 thing was LCA's issue.
Its platform that comes first, not sub-systems.
That's why dates were pushed to 1999 induction from 1996. Instead is became 2006 with first flight in 1999, then 2009, then 2011. What about now? Money is there, infrastructure is there. Even then there is that extra 6 years of delay.
Before LCA actually flew on 4th Jan 2001 people used to say "Damn thing won't even fly""¦"¦..
When Test pilot is most important link between designer and user and most important part of test-development period, the IAF test pilots were getting oriented and leaving.
Actually, not before ACM FH Major took charge, the LCA program received any coordination and active support by and from its prime user. It was in his tenure when IAF actually embedded a senior officer whose task was to report work progress back to AHQ ACM office every month and coordinate between ADA/HAL and AHQ.
You are talking about things that happened 20 years ago. Remember that. Only technology stopped LCA's progress after funding was approved. There was no FBW until 1999 even after Dassault offered an Analog one. DRDO pushed LCA's specs up, not IAF.
If funding had been made available even couple of years before it was made, the CLAW team would have got their FBW/DFCC/FCS testing completed before 1998 (Pokhran-2), that's before US sanctions hit. Need I mention how severely did FBW/DFCC/FCS rework hit in terms of time and money?
First flight was delayed which delayed completion of Phase-1, delay in completion of phase-1 delayed sanctioning of Phase-2 and list goes on.
Just another example.
Wrong. Digital FCS was ADA's decision. Every Tom, Dick and Harry who knows LCA's history knows this aspect. IAF merely laughed and rightly so.
Proving Digital FCS was mandatory part of Phase-1 after project was sanctioned on condition. And that condition was condition for getting clearance for phase-2. It not necessary means, it was IAF which actually demanded for Digital FCS for LCA. It just means DRDO was given clearance for LCA phase-1 on condition that it will demonstrate it can develop Digital FCS for which it claims it can"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦.. And any tom dick and harry who knows even bit of LCA history will ever need this much clarification to understand what is being said?
And Digital FBW not analog, yes quite typical of scientist to look future. But why did not IAF mandated imported analog for first batch? Apparently IAF thought, they have been handed over death nerve (they were sure that DRDO will fail on this account and phase-1 will never be successful) and it will let them get rid of LCA, once DRDO fails at phase-1. Isn't their laughing reflective of their thinking?
But did DRDO failed in developing digital FCS? We all know what happened and how 'laughing asses' of IAF were replied too? So what would have happened instead if IAF had mandated imported FCS for first batch and indigenous starting next? Who after all was natural party for holding the job of 'Project Management' among IAF (User) and a Lab based newly born design and development agency (with no experience about how things work in real world)? Need i answer?
May I repeat say, if IAF had mandated imported FCS for first batch then LCA would have got in air (much before it did) in addition to country developing digital FCS, all almost simultaneously?
I don't blame scientist community for being ambitious and thinking beyond practically achievable targets because it is this very attitude which drives them towards future.
No R-60 now, but R-73, no more custom avionic architecture but open one"¦"¦"¦"¦ Oh yeas ADA was damn right on Digital FCS, they probably sensed future and rightly stepped towards.
From what i understand from P Rajkumars write up in FORCE and his book the LCA was actually a fighter which IAF specd it to something which DRDO could develop like JF-17 types but then* DRDO over speced it adding all bells and whistles* that the best was available and not available *having zero experience in developing those* in to a *smallest and lightest fighter* in the world all this complication led to almost the project going on for almost 25 years
Of course it was, LCA in most early form is brain child of Idris Latif. But why question DRDO? Did they display an attitude any different from what a good scientist community shall and always do? How hard it is understand that Scientist do think far beyond what it is at present? Isn't this very attitude which let them jump into unknown to come up with what is called 'futuristic'?
But then when matter of concern is some product for particular user things are managed differently. Since last thing you want is ask scientist to limit their thinking, you choose mid path, which is, you draw things on the 'priority' list; starting from easily achievable to end up with achievable but in time. That's how 'Block-XYZ' development style came into existence and it is for a reason why it is standard practice since then?
Having said all, question arises, back then who should have taken charge of drawing clear Road- Map and enforcing it strictly? I mean who had the top authority?
Obvious hint comes in form of Builder-Landlord relationship. Every builder explains his potential in widest form he can to a landlord looking to get his house build. However no matter what builder says, an intelligent landlord always gets what he wants where he wants and how he wants.
Also, this. A very important point that everybody *"conveniently"* forgets.
IAF is not entirely happy with LCA but as user its still supporting the program while operationally its keeping MMRCA as hedge should it get more delayed and *ofcourse its their primary job as well to protect the country.*
That since ACM FHM took charge and officers like PK Barbora came to prominence, that's whole 6 years after first flight and 16 years after first funding starting coming in.
Yes IAF has been supporting LCA program since last 5-6 years and without it LCA MK-2 would not have been possible. But alas! IAF never had officers like FHM, PK Barbora and like at top after ACM Idris Latif retired and before ACM FHM took charge.
Much better than your 50% figure. So, I was correcting your mistake. All the extras not necessary.
Nothing better even when your figure of 30 percent is true (which is not) when it is related to most important aspect of combat flying. 30 % of 400 is 120, wonder who you are fighting?
Now, am I questioning professionalism of IAF? Hell no. But am I questioning its futile practices? Oh yes and will continue?
Correcting a mistake is providing a link when proclaimer is no horse-mouth but just another Tom Dick and Harry.
Good. Now you are thinking along the lines of a critic. However you forget that most of this was already mandated. Just that DRDO took it a notch further and complicated it. We will develop radar, we will develop FCS, we will develop 4th gen avionics, we will develop this, that etc. Afterall how will they justify their budget and work if everything was imported.
Always did, not just now. But do i need acknowledgement for it? Hell no!
Mandating is forcing not giving options. A concurrent development of otherwise never being attempted consequently shall be imported sub-systems for initial batches was probably the best way though which IAF would have got their jets and DRDO community would have got their opportunity towards venturing into futuristic aviation tech and country would have got what it is still dreaming of.
Scientist always thinks beyond the horizon and user thinks practically, so it was IAF's job to make both happen. After all IAF together with national air carriers are indirectly responsible for nurturing countrie's aero-space industry.
fft: Ok...
fft: Ok...
No, actually I don't. It is just that IAF is criticized for the wrong things not where they need to be criticized.
If ADA is criticized for death of Mig-21 pilots then IAF will also criticized for foot dribbling M-MRCA which had its fare share in the death of pilots.
Again. Idiotic assumptions without knowing facts. IAF bought a lot of Maruts if you have forgotten. Isn't that enough? Nobody offered a better engine and hence the project died. India couldn't build one engine on it's own.
Again, idiotic sense of understanding. Re-read what I had written to which you replied, especially underlined part.
Quote 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 ( in the form of TD) on various critical technological fronts like development of Turbofan tech, Airborne fighter class MMR, INS, futuristic airframe materials etc.
unquote
Btw, Mig-21s crashes attributed to human error were primarily due to training inadequacies. This was due to the lack of an advanced trainer. Whatever HPT-32s faults, it had nothing to do with Mig-21 crashes. The absence of Hawk or equivalent was, something IAF sorely needed since the 80s but was denied for any number of reasons.
Non availability of AJT is just prevarication, ISKARA as AJT was with IAF since long time and this fact needs to be re-mentioned.
BTW who said HTP-32s have anything to do with Mig-21 crashes? HPT-32 example is just to show IAF's madness towards shopping discarding the importance of indigenous development? And yeah, to some extent towards their saying "unavailability of BFT won't affect training" (referring to present form of training being conducted at AFA where rookies are being sent directly to HJT-16 or IJT stage)
Ok. Your opinion, something I don't share. Neither do many economists.
PM referred to 1991, many economist saying presently we are passing through 1991 like situation. Our credit being junked, PM (the Economist and supposed hero of 1991) being referred to as useless and it's only my opinion! Wow!
And another FYI, economy can be brought on track after selling entire country but population growth can't be checked so dynamically. And large population nullifies economic growth. So no, FM won't have enough money to buy and equip IAF with 1000 30 ton jet fighters by 2025 and beyond (as you predicted in earlier post) if population is not checked. And like I said earlier, population growth doesn't fluctuate as dynamically as economic growth figure.
Unless country pulls up its industrial and agricultural production to help bring production-consumption deficit to normal (at least), we are dead. Let alone we be a trillion economy with any meaningful significance which can buy 1000 plus jet fighter with over 150 million a piece.
BTW I am dreaming of US dropping anchor for letting us surpass.
I always know they can't, but you surely can like you did previously.
The battlespace isn't large enough for such a large number. We an probably fit 80-100MKIs in the NE and the same in the North. Nothing more. Attrition based warfare, we will see.
You mean stretch form From Nalia to Twang is not large (long) enough? Wow"¦"¦"¦.May I again add two front war! BTW who's stopping PLAAF from entering through Nepalese and Bhutanese airspace? BTW need I mention some 2000 fighter strong enemy also?
More pilots dead. Also that talk of LCA being low RCS is plain nonsense. It is a regular aircraft with a RCS like that of a truck. Been repeating the same thing all over the forum.
LCA is small like very small, uses carbon composite by the highest percentage, Y shaped engine intake conceals much of engine blades, and tailless delta wing configuration gives it smaller span, include RAM as well. And saying "LCA has small RCS" is plain nonsense? Wow!
AWACS don't give target lock information. They only vector aircraft to targets. Only missile "blind" shots may work and those shots don't kill. They only have a tactical significance.
Read this small passage and see if you understand. Page 69.
Flying Magazine - Google Books
If you have doubts from the above I will explain what happened.
It did not surprise me at all after to you posted a link talking about 1996. Huh 1996, the time when AWACS was nothing but airborne cousin of GCI. The time when it used to see airborne object as a dot over a circular CRT display marked with hard painted compass marking. Had radio beam projecting dish/plates under a swollen
Roti shaped radome constantly on swivel (rotodome) with bullock-cart age revisit time. And when data transfer was just voice communication.
Come back to present age of AESA based AEW&C which has thousands of Transmitter Receiver, computer controlled electronically steered agile beams, advanced processing units, advanced algorithms based computers which can plot a flying object accurately in 3D space and keep updating it with interval as less as nano seconds.
But it doesn't ends here, they can Track as many as (-,+)60 flying targets while scanning required piece of airspace constantly thanks to thousands on Transmitter and Receivers and powerful computers enabling 'Track while Scan'. Furthermore, these modern days AESA platforms are equipped with SATLINKS and tactical wideband DATA Links using which it can pass all the data its receiving client needs in what is called 'real time'. But is it all? No! These modern day AESA based AEW&C can be linked with numerous many sensors lying quite a distance apart to produce fused information or common picture of very wide area, something which can be distributed to anyone and everyone in necessity.
Now since we are talking about AEW&C providing firing solution for Active BVRAAM shoot, let me start by asking, what information does an Active BVRAAM (which at least has one way date link) needs for its initial phase and midcourse guidance? Is it anything more than continuously updated 3D coordinates of its moving target? How about carrier aircraft receiving tracking information from AEW&C (which is tracking a particular target) and passing/relaying it to its missile in real time? Need i remind that almost all active BVRAAM are equipped with one way data link using which it continuously receives updated 3D coordinated about its target and corrects its flight path accordingly (in nano seconds) and continuously in order to reach to a point (in least possible time) where its own radar can lock on that particular target?
Now, here, am I talking of alien era? BTW who is ignorant enough to not be aware of US Navy Cooperative Engagement Capability and its demonstration with live firing?
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2009/06/mil-090605-nns01.htm Integrated Live-Fire Test Demonstrates Future Weapons System Capability
[/url]
Navy NewsStand
StoryNumber:NNS090605-32
Release Date: 6/5/2009 11:05:00 PM
From Office of Naval Research Corporate Communications
ARLINGTON, Va. (NNS) -- The Office of Naval Research (ONR) conducted a live-fire test, demonstrating the ability to execute an overland integrated fire control (IFC) capability against a cruise missile target May 29.
The Navy's efforts in IFC reached a milestone by achieving a successful live-fire mission at White Sands Missile Range, N.M., utilizing an air-directed surface-to-air missile architecture. ONR coordinated this event through a future naval capabilities project called Advance Area Defense Interceptor. The objective was to demonstrate the ability to execute an overland IFC capability against a cruise missile target.
This test utilized a family of systems, comprising representative components of the following Navy programs of record:
E-2D Advanced Hawkeye (PMA-231 & Northrop Grumman Integrated Systems, Bethpage, N.Y.), Cooperative Engagement Capability (Program Executive Office Integrated Warfare Systems 6 & Raytheon Network Centric Systems, St. Petersburg, Fla.), Aegis Weapon Control System (PEO IWS 1 & Lockheed Martin Maritime Systems and Sensors, Moorestown, N.J.) and Standard Missile 6 (PEO IWS 3& Raytheon Missile Systems, Tucson, Ariz.).
All systems performed as expected for a successful demonstration of this future weapon system capability.
That's your small RCS, but to a radar, LCA is a flying truck. LCA's small size is useful in only one place, dog fights and that's only if the other aircraft does not have a 360degree IRST.
Who knows if LCA is like TATA LPTA truck or TATA NANO to a RADAR? At least LCA tech and design is indicative of something.
4 J-11s will be equal to a formation of 12 LCA Mk2s and 2 tankers. That's the math.
12 LCA MK-2 operating from AFS 80-100 kms inside border intercepting intruding formation of 4 J-11 with equally capable BVRAAM, descent MMR and featuring smaller RCS and for most of time under guidance from AEW&C. Not to forget most important point, regardless of J-11 MMR's detection range they will be firing only at same range (maximum range of BVRAAM) as LCA's BVRAAM. Do the math.
On RCS issue:
There one time USAF F-16s went against IAF Mig-21s during a friendly duel and Mig-21 sneaked all way through without detection until they were at advantage position. USAF said F-16 MMRs were operating at retarded range. But it did never discount the fact that Mig-21's smaller size induced smaller RCS helped it happen. Now add to it carbon-composite airframe by highest percentage and where we are?
LCA's RCS is 3 times smaller than Mirage-2000. Rafale's RCS is 10 times smaller. F-22 is 10000 times smaller. Difference?
Of course Rafale has electronics which confuses enemy's radar about its RCS or actively makes it appear smaller, F-22 is different deal all together and LCA is defiantly smaller (RCS wise and size wise) than all metal Mirage-2000. But is it only 3 times smaller (RCS wise) or more, who knows?
Yeah, I noticed. But I believe that could be emergency thrust. But I guess it is fine, and it still makes the aircraft underpowered though. This is only counting T/W ratio and not a whole host of other reasons like inlet design, drag, unnecessary weight etc.
Original requirement for LCA MK-2 is 90 KN, and MK-1's engine can provide that much in Combat Thrust mode, doesn't that says all?
But that's F-404IN20 and MK-1 only, MK-2 is getting way over that is 98 KN. But even that's of baseline F-414 only. I remember GE saying F-414 INS6 will be most powerful version of F-414 produced so far. Was GE talking in air? I don't think so.
Ok. That's cute. Do you see me believing it? No.
Does it any matter? That's the question.
Anyway following is pic of PV-1 undergoing transformation to EW prototype. Interested people shall focus on spine.
BROADSWORD says: THIS AIRCRAFT --- PV1 --- IS BEING MODIFIED FOR THE ELECTRONIC WARFARE ROLE
That's in effect a new aircraft. Let's talk about Tejas Mk3 after Mk2 is flying shall we
To me, it's just a block upgrade, even MLU. Sometime ago Italians tried what can be called modular upgrade approach towards reducing RCS of an existing platform significantly on Alenia Aermacchi M-346 Master. They tested by putting reshaped nose cone, new intake, rest of minor modification etc over existing airframe. I believe similar modifications can also be carried out on LCA MK-2 due for MLU. As for weapons, LCA has option for BVRAAM specific (conformal) weapon bay at wing root cavity (one on each) apart from option for podded weapon bay mounted on regular pylons. Further, there is high possibility that in future, weapons with reduced RCS will become reality, which naturally will do away with requirement of podded weapon bay in some cases.
BTW whole point behind bringing this issue is to point towards level of flexibility LCA has over M-MRCA when it comes to future upgrades (necessitating structural changes) in wake of increase threat"¦.. Of course there is TOT but will it allow us to make structural changes without roping in original designer?
BTW Future talk, yeah future talk who doesn't do?
Well! Best of luck to them. But they will die.
Considering disadvantage PAF has over IAF it is not out of world thought to say PAF might be working to get such capability (talking about AEW&C passing on firing solutions to linked up fighters). And from what I know Pakistanis are already in process of networking their sensors.
Same back to you matey. At least let's get some LCA history straight instead of making assumptions.
Same again returned to you matey, never accepted in first place"¦. No expert but i know enough of LCA history at least for you!
Also, as a FYI, the MKI will be locking on to the LCA at 180km while the LCA will be locking on to the MKI at, say, 120 or 130Km. And that is only considering the MKI maneuvers himself within the LCA's radar cone, like a moron, which won't happen.
Just so you know, to reduce radar detection range by 50% you will need to reduce RCS by 15 times. Also, The MKIs new upgrade will allow LCA detection at max possible range of ~400Km(like AWACS) even if the LCA is flying low. Just so we get the math right
Current Irbis-E specs call for a LCA detection at 400Km and a lock at probably 70% of the range.
FYI it's the 'Engagement Range' (the maximum possible range of any BVRAAM) which will eventually matter in any such engagement, not detection range of any platform. An AEW&C will easily make up for shorter detection range of LCA's MMR, an equally capable BVRAAM being carried by LCA will take care of engagement range, operations close to its base will take care of combat endurance and flying in formation (having number advantage) will take care of combat load, that all while intercepting any formation of Chinese J-11 and J-10s. Do the math.
Another FYI, in a recent simulation conducted by USAF when selling the F-35 to a customer, they determined that even the F-35 stands no chance against the Su-35 if support aircraft like tankers and AWACS are taken out. So, you decide where LCA (a Mirage-2000 equivalent) stands as of today.
Plenty many rumors and news quoting unnamed sources. May be true may be not. USAF is still going along with its plan to have F-35A as its backbone for future and they are not idiot bunch.
BTW hard to believe that SU-35 which exposes its turbine blades (frontal assets as much as it will ashame Mallika Sehrawat) actually holds upper hand to a fighter which conceals its blades like a
Ghunghat Clad cultured lady!
And what other advantage apart from more radar power and relatively higher volume of fuel and load weapon SU-35 has over F-35? Does SU-35 carriers weapons which can engage F-35 before its APG-81 and 120D can engage SU-35?
It is nice to know the basics before jumping to conclusions, no?
Yeah rightly said, good for you!
