20 years after Deepak failed.
Yeah 20 years after HAL proposed next gen BFT named HTT-35.
They don't need your valuable inputs for it.
Did not knew IAF had appointed Tom Dick and Harry as spokesperson.
That was the initial plan. Not anymore.
Exactly! Now new plan calls for equipping good part of that 400 with M-MRCA. So glad you yourself accepted!
Mig-27s needed replacement. Of course.
Only needed replacement was older defensive IAF with new capability based IAF. ................I need a new wardrobe this automatically includes i need new set of lowers.
pfft: ok!
All stuff for LCA Mk2. And depending on orders. 4 squadrons of LCA Mk2 won't do anything.
4 squadron is 80 jets that's 10% IAF and still just minimum projected volume.
Not at a cost we can afford. US engines are coming at twice the cost as what USN pays. Same for C-17s. French are bigger ripoffs than the Americans.
And still we could buy Rafale! Oh yes larger Foreign Currency Reserve now.....what about comparatively smaller price tag then?
You are confusing the two. Rafale will replace Mig-27s not Mig-21s. MKI replace Mig-21s. LCA is just the sore thumb in the force.
Sanctioned strength of IAF = 800 fighter. 400 Migs = 50% IAF. After new doctrine maximum space for L-MRCA is 1/3rd. 1/3 of 800 = 267 (rounded). 400 -minus- 276 = 133. Wonder was to fill into these 133.
This deal is over 15 years. Go learn economics properly. Learn what will happen when the currency strengthens against the Dollar over a 15 year period.
Ever wondered why before any major economic reform or open invitation for FDI national currency takes a plunge? Do you have any idea why after 1992 reforms INR to USD shoot from 20s to 40s?
Atleast get basics of economy, Indian economic conditions, trends and future prospects before talking about currency strengthening.
Oh yes 15 years -- the time in which INR could drop twice to it has so far.
Only an idiot could say under-powered, under-equipped, under-armed and under-developed Jaguar was superior to near multi-role Viggen. I don't think IAF is one such.
They have the payload and endurance to match 5th gen aircraft. They will have better success when working together with PAKFA and AMCA. We have MKI now, we will have Rafale in 3 years.
In other words they will lose front-line status before they will even get fully operational with user.
Oh yes when working together with 5th gen..... why can't LCA?
LCA is being tested by IAF, documented by IAF as consequently will take far lesser time to get FOC with IAF then Rafale.
That said, during last AI-11 Capt Maolankar clearly said "we want ADA to demonstrate flight characteristics like AOA, STR, ROC etc at very beginning of test program and we will order". That means if LCA MK-2 bites through iron feast (scheduled very early in program) then production will go concurrently to testing"¦"¦"¦"¦
Sure enough it will take time but not 8 years.
LCA Mk2 is a Mirage-2000. Rafale and MKI are far superior to the Mirage-2000.
But still 4th gen in face J-20 and J-31 that all after spending such huge sum.
High risk is it not. But F-35 is not ready. The only medium 5th gen aircraft available by 2015 is "nothing." Rafale is the next best option.
But still F-35 delivery to USAF and Rafale to IAF will coincide. And considering the speed at which Chinese operate, also counting huge support they have in form of flock of ex-Soviet scientist, it shall not surprise anybody if they get their J-20 and J-31 done much before 2020.
Anyway F-35 was equated to PAKFA by IAF. IAF supposedly chose PAKFA in 2007 after evaluating F-35 back in 2004-05, according to a recent article.
Absurd at least. F-35 and PAK-FA are in two different weight classes and IAF's support to both FGFA/PFMA and AMCA speaks of as how IAF sees them (F-35 and FGFA) face to face.
Are you another person with poor comprehension skills? Rafale is a replacement for Mig-27s, not Mig-21s.
Are you another person with poor comprehension skills? M-MRCA is to fit into mid weight class category carved out according to new doctrine that all irrespective of whosoever was and is the occupant.
The 400 pilots killed is ADA's forte for not delivering on the LCA.
Sanctioned strength of IAF = 800 fighter. 400 Migs = 50% IAF. After new doctrine maximum space for L-MRCA is 1/3rd. 1/3 of 800 = 267 (rounded). 400 -minus- 276 = 133. Wonder what was to fill into these 133? And who killed these 133 pilots?
Speculation. CLAW team did not even exist before 1992. Couple of years is in your dream.
Like I said, get LCA's history right.
Oh crap!!!!!! So what stopped team from being formed prior to 1992? May be delayed birth of its proposed members? ............Did i not say earlier that delayed funding delayed entire program and specifically mentioned about pooling of resources etc?
First flight was delayed because there was no FBW available. Structural defects were also found in TD-1 and 2.
In holistic terms, first flight was delayed because entire program itself commenced late because of delayed funding.
Silly reasoning. ADA wasted time with digital FBW. IAF was right when they said ADA is not capable.
Stupid understanding and poor fact digesting ability, i see.
The digital FCS could have come on the Mk2.
Exactly, something what IAF should have mandated but did not.
Would have been good for the entire program. 20 years later, LCA will be fully inducted only in 2020, when actual specs will be met in a full squadron.
For which IAF shares bigger share for failing to realize its role as natural project manager.
Realism? Being realistic goes to the dogs then.
You need to be a really slow to still believe in LCA's 2020 timeframe.
Who the idiot says scientists are realist?
Token man of IAF.....Step-child handling of LCA program by IAF is well known especially after ACM Idris Latif's departure.
And not necessarily only that which gets wrapped under glossy cover finds credibility.
There is one firsthand account of an incident where onetime ACM AY Tipnis was on visit to Bangalore where he had refused to oversee LCA hanger saying it will speak of IAF's support to LCA, which was followed by emotional reminder by close by official that LCA is being developed for nobody but IAF"¦..Oh yes these types of stories have no creditably because poor scientists neither have name nor stature to write under beautiful cover and convince publishers that it would earn them money.
Go learn LCA's proper history. I haven't read it and even I know LCA's history.
I just don't believe it, you are actually quoting him without having read him. My god such persons lectures others about such-such!
GoI delayed MRCA, not IAF. IAF needs MoD clearance don't you know? If they were asking for clearance since 1999, then IAF isn't at fault.
GoI delayed MRCA a second time by withdrawing the first RFP. Not IAF. Learn history properly.
Oh Crap! Isn't you who said
"A year to get approvals" while blaming ADA. At least grow enough to stick to context.
Don't weave fairy tales here.
Lethal combination of poor understanding and stupid ego taking effect, i see!
You don't understand, it is the design bureau to provide the right technologies and chart out a development path, not IAF's job. GoI did setup all the industries and provided money to both HAL and GTRE in engine development. We did not have any good scientists at the time who could get the job done.
Don't mix IAF's work with DRDO's. You are the one who don't understand.
When USN issued a RFI to Boeing for a 6th gen fighter, the Admiral said they don't know what Boeing can provide for them and they are only looking for information. Based on the information the USN will make a RFP. That's how it works the world over. USN, IAF etc are not expected to know everything. Boeing, DRDO etc is supposed to.
ADA was as new as one could be at designing 4th gen fighter in 80s. GOI had nothing to offer other than approvals. Only authority that had experience and wealth of knowledge was IAF. So yes it was IAF's responsibility to show path and even draw it.
Talking of examples, IN is operating design authority manned with top notch naval architects since long time (despite country having such huge PSU Shipyards) and has released designs of ships as complex as of Aircraft Carrier? Is IN an idiot?
You are comparing a Pakistan like situation to India's economic problems which is nowhere related to the two situations. Earlier we did not have any money to pay off debt. Today we have so much money that Congress decided to spend a little more than they should have.
Yeah we have money and also have ever growing economic deficit. Once country sells it all and licks last bit of dust of taxpayer's pocket India will again have nothing left in deposits to pay debts. Like I said before 1992 is looming and many economists agree to it even PM does!
Our population is fine. It is growing at a decent rate. Even a 6% growth would mean we will be as big as the US by 2025. Remember I talked about currency strengthening too.
And you lecture others about getting economic understanding? Try calculating 2nd largest population over 7th largest land area!
Yeah we will grow past USA only to become like a family whose monthly income is 100K and has 20 mouth to feed against a family which earns 90K per month but has only 5 mouths.
Digging deeper into tax payer's pocket and sealing whatever country owns are short term and more importantly exhausting measures and for a country which is soon to become most populated these measure are every bit inadequate.
I got this from an actual IAF guy. We have 3 bases there and will eventually 5-6 squadrons of MKIs in the region apart from Rafales. That's more than enough and that is supposedly a lot anyway. Even during Red Flag there are no more than 40 or 50 aircraft in a 20000sqKm area and that is in a highly controlled situation with proper RoEs.
I got it from actual sensible guy. One SU-30MKI in every 1000 KM radius is adequately sufficient when talking in absolute sense. But against enemy's strength of 20 squadrons, putting 5 squadrons only means fighting at disadvantage of 1:4.
Yes it is nonsense because stealth needs to be designed into the aircraft. Low RCS on LCA is like saying a baby elephant weighs less than an adult elephant. When we talk about LCA's RCS it is 2 or 3 times bigger than Rafale. An aircraft which stands no chance against a F-22. LCA's RCS is 0.3m[SUP]2[/SUP] if we go by ADA's claims of it being 3 times smaller than a Mirage-2000. Dassault claims 10 times smaller than Mirage-2000 for Rafale. LM claims 1000 to 10000 times smaller for F-35 and F-22. Do you get the point? I have repeated this so many times on this thread that it is becoming meaningless repeating the same thing over and over.
Nothing more nonsense than making such claims and statements without reading overly restated fact that a degree of LO has been designed into LCA from very first day. Carbon composite skin by highest percentage, delta wing, Y-duct(air intake), internal EW suit, smaller size apart from host of classified stuffs gives it way too smaller RCS.. That not all, increase in internal volume in MK-2 will allow inclusion of sophisticated EW suit and rest of sensors making LCA MK-2 smaller(RCS wise) than MK-1.
LCA is being tested by IAF documented by IAF consequently will take far lesser time to get FOC with IAF than Rafale.
That said during AI-11 Capt Maolankar clearly said "we want ADA to demonstrate flight characteristics like AOA STR ROC etc at very beginning of test program and we will order". That means if LCA MK-2 bites through iron feast then production will go concurrent to testing. Sure enough it will take time but not 8 years.
First flight was delayed because there was no FBW available. Structural defects were also found in TD-1 and 2.
In holistic terms, first flight delayed because entire program was itself delayed because of delayed funding.
Would have been good for the entire program. 20 years later, LCA will be fully inducted only in 2020, when actual specs will be met in a full squadron.
For which IAF shares bigger share for failing to realize its role as natural project manager.
LCA's RCS is fine if it was flying clean. Add weapons and you will see a flying truck.
External load does affects RCS and this applies equally for Rafale.
In A2A engagement LCA won't carry large weapons and even in multirole configuration it is customary to jettison tanks and A2G loads before curling tail up.
So no LCA is not flying truck with load, LCA is very small RCS wise and this is its key advantage.
Even today's AWACS follow the same Physics laws. They did not change in time. AWACS are restricted by design because of the shape of the array.
First of all physics never changes, it's uses which does.
And no, Air borne Early Warning and Control system has changed a lot from mere airborne GCI to a flying C4I. That's lot in short.
What is the full form of AEW&C. It is Airborne Early Warning and Control. Now can you tell me why an Early Warning system will provide actual combat specific information?
What is the full form of AEW&C. It is Airborne Early Warning and
Control. And this word 'CONTROL' covers entire spectrum around it.
The word 'CONTROL' for C of AEW&C which earlier used to stand for Mission Control followed by Battle Control followed by Arena Control to now in days of C4i stands for also for Fire Control.
You posted links about AWACS giving tracking information. Of course AWACS can track. But the tracking information is not accurate. You tell me which will give a more accurate reading, a 30cm wave or a 3cm wave. Do the math.
Also there is such a thing called beamwidth. A radar like Bars has beamwidth values at 2-3degrees. A LCA radar will have a beamwidth of 5-6degrees. An AWACS has a beamwidth that is 1degree in azimuth and 8-9degrees in elevation. As an example, at 150Km a MKI can pick up a formation of 4 F-16s and identify each of them separately. A LCA will pick up a formation of 4 MKIs and assume it is just one MKI. An AWACS will pick up the formation of 4 MKIs at a larger distance and can identify the 4 aircraft individually, but the altitude information will be vague and vastly off from actual figures. So, you see the difference in accuracy between Bars, 2032 and Phalcon? That's how it works. Beyond that both 2032 and Bars work in X band while Phalcon works in the L band. So, the Phalcon will need the MKI or LCA to identify the aircraft at an acceptable distance and engage it. Here the MKI has the advantage because of the larger and more powerful system. The MKI will be able to identify targets from a much higher distance and can carry weapons that can engage aircraft at large distances.
From "AEW&Cs don't provide lock information" to now it provides but less accurately"¦"¦"¦Quantum shift in stand I see.
So question is now boiling on what is level of accuracy with present day AESA based L/S band AEW&C form earlier stand of No-No?
What if inaccurate tracks calculated by AEW&C is related and processed in real time with those from various other sensor like ground based long range radars, fire control radars and various other flying MMRs? Is it alien tech?
What if BVRAAM being launched has two way data link (already reality with Meteor) using which a selected target in locked on after BVRAAM enters terminal phase?
Heck even SAM like LR-SAM can be fired at intruders using tracks form AEW&Cs.
Oh yes X-Band. Yes god did not made X band as accurate as L or S band. But today's AEW&C are not mere Radar carrier but a complete C4I platform which speaks all about why it uses 'C' designation for CONTROL.
As for E-2D detecting and tracking missiles. Missiles follow a very unique flight path and have a small RCS(same as LCA or Rafale). So, S or L band can pick up the missile at a large distance and cue(or provide mid course guidance) to interceptor missiles at long ranges. The final kill is made by the SAM's(like AEGIS's SM-3) using a very powerful active seeker at greater distances as compared to Active BVR missiles which require much more accurate information from X band arrays.
This is from fas.org for BMD systems,
Key Missile Defense Radar Planned for Remote Island
About AWACS providing mid course updates to missiles during BVR engagements. This is done for 3 major tactical reasons that I can thing of.
1. The missile was fired to keep the enemy fighters engaged. The less than accurate information from AWACS is enough to provide ground for a second BVR engagement for a better kill rate.
2. The fire control radar on the fighter was jammed.
3. The fighter disengaged from the engagement because the enemy fired his own missile while having a better advantage, so the fighter decided to back off. Instead of wasting the missile the AWACS provides mid course guidance at "less accurate information" where a kill is less than guaranteed which brings this scenario back to the point I made in 1.
Most important thing that distinguishes E-2D from E-2C is former's primary role in USN quest (already realized) for CMD. And cruise missile don't follow unique or predictable path, they fly more like stealthy DPSA.
BTW your article dates to time of E-2C and I am talking E-2D. There is huge difference between two.
J-11s would have picked up the LCA at 400Km... do the math.
Firstly J-11 don't have IRBIS-E. Secondly you yourself said (in earlier post) that LCA has RCS of 0.3 m2.. And
IRBIS-E's stated capability puts detection range at 350-400 Kms for 3 m2 target, not 0.3 m2 targets like LCA. So ow come J-11 would have LCA at 400KM?
Oxymoronism at its sheer best
Cute attempt but F-16s have smaller RCS than Mig-21.
Exercises have RoEs which inhibit the superior aircraft's capabilities, in this case the F-16.
F-16s failed to detect attacking Migs that was whole point.
BTW ever heard of BISON upgrade? Israeli Jammer, RAM coating etc get the idea.
Original requirement also included am empty weight of 5.5 tons, not 6.5 tons.
Does it any matter? That's the question.
And original requirement for LCA with empty weight of 5.5 tons was 83 KN F-404 F2J not +85 KN F-404 IN20 which as we now know can provide upto 90Kn. Which brings to another fact that original requirement for highly modified even longer MK-2 is 90Kn.
So does F-404 IN20 delivering 90Kn any matter? Oh yes very much everything.
Hahahah Ok!
They can take inaccurate shots or defy physics by claiming X band capability for AEWCs. Their choice.
Someone is stuck to days when Mobile Phone was mere for voice communication. Welcome to days of I-PAD!
Speaking of L,S Band AEW&C, people often forget that these systems are not mere RADAR carrier but a complete C4I system.
They still have a network advantage.
USN isn't happy with the F-35. They reduced order numbers from 700 to 400 to replace F-18s, not SHs. SH is set to be replaced by a new 6th gen fighter from 2030 onwards. F-35 was deemed inferior to their needs.
How about for fitting into re-scaled defense expenditure? Recently IAF sized down PFMA orders by quite a size what does that say? May be IAF is unhappy with PMFA! Is that it?
Try massive AEWC equivalent radar advantage along with massive kinematic advantage.
AEW&C like radar, with detection range of 350-400 KM against a target with 3m2 target! Since, when 5th gen fighters started exhibiting such large RCS? BTW what to do with massive kinematic advantage when you can't lock target at advantageous range?
Try a 200-400Km AWACS killing weapon to boot,
Which will itself become target for AEW&C escorts.
...I enjoy these debates actually...They are very informative the only problem is that the debaters are taking each others comments personally and getting irritated...All that the debaters have to do is not to take the comments against them personally and realize that there is no prize in the end for the winner and no debater will be judged in a negative way if the they "lose" the debate...
