ADA Tejas (LCA) News and Discussions

[asianobserve]

I don't know whether IAF will choose LCA as a LIFT though. But the progression to PAKFA and AMCA will be much easier for our pilots.

The Mk1 can be an excellent LIFT while the Mk2 can be a light fighter like Mig21.

 

[p2prada]

The Mk1 can be an excellent LIFT while the Mk2 can be a light fighter like Mig21.

Either will do for LIFT. Mk2 will have more advanced avionics and performance. I suppose the cheaper aircraft will have the overall advantage and Mk1 is obviously the cheaper aircraft. The Mk2 is only slightly superior to the Mk1 in flight profile if we go by ADA's words.

Mk2 is more in the Mirage-2000 class with better A2G capability I suppose. Anyway Mirage-2000 is like the Mig-21 of this era, so no difference in the concept now.

 

[asianobserve]

There's no doubt that the Mk2 will only be slightly superior to the Mk1, their design and dimensions remain the same. But the Mk2 can be vastly improved with the addition of AESA radar like what's being installed in USAF F15s and F16s. This should even out the odds of the Mk2 against newer jets out there.

 

[Defcon 1]

I have a question. Can a fighter plane completely rely on an AWACS for A2A operations without even switching on its radar?

 

[p2prada]

There's no doubt that the Mk2 will only be slightly superior to the Mk1, their design and dimensions remain the same. But the Mk2 can be vastly improved with the addition of AESA radar like what's being installed in USAF F15s and F16s. This should even out the odds of the Mk2 against newer jets out there.

MK2 will be a little bit bigger, with more fuel load.

AESA, I am quite skeptical about an AESA on small fighters even today. Regardless of the electronic advantages. Maybe the forces think the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. For eg: AESA faces a lot of interference at wide angles as compared to mech scanned arrays. So, a fixed 120deg capability may be lesser in the real world. That's why Saab is looking for the swash plate array to remove this disadvantage which will exist on Rafale too. I suppose Gripen NG's nose would be bigger than LCA's, so the space inside may allow greater design potential.

I have a question. Can a fighter plane completely rely on an AWACS for A2A operations without even switching on its radar?

A fighter can survive in AEWC environment without switching on its radar. But if it comes to killing something it will have to rely on its own radar or on the radar of another fighter through datalink.

L band and S band on AWACS are used primarily for volume search. The accuracy of such radars is quite large, ie in the region of 200m to maybe even 1Km. Further degradation occurs in heavy electronic environment and enemy ECM.

A fighter's X band radar will provide accuracy in the region of a few metres. IIRC, the MKI's radar resolution is something like 20mx20m at 400Km for the first version of N011M Bars.

For eg: Let's say there are 2 F-16s is flying at a distance of 100-200m in the same altitude and angle with respect to the radar. The Phalcon will pick up only one single F-16 probably at a distance of 200Km.

Now let's say there are two F-16s flying at a distance of 2m away from each other in the same altitude and angle with respect to the radar. The Bars 2008 version will pick up two different fighters probably at a distance of around 200Km.

You can rely on Phalcons or Bars for sketchy and inaccurate targeting information, but you can see from the above figures which of the two has a larger probability of a kill. But due to other factors like platform limitations of wide body aircraft compared to fighters, AWACS don't try to get into the fight by providing locks for BVR missiles. This will make them a major target.

AEWC is, as the name indicates, an "early warning" system. It provides a better grasp of the situation because there is a very large, difficult to jam flying radar that uses long waves to simply create a larger air picture for the commanders to benefit from They give a general estimate of where an enemy is located for the shooters to pursue and destroy.

Light fighters benefit the most from AEWCs because they are expected to fly inside friendly territory most of the time. Heavy aircraft are meant to do a lot of their flying deep inside enemy territory and hence cannot use AEWC information during penetration missions and hence the requirement for larger radars. Heck heavy fighters actually run CAP missions inside enemy territory.

 

[Defcon 1]

MK2 will be a little bit bigger, with more fuel load.

AESA, I am quite skeptical about an AESA on small fighters even today. Regardless of the electronic advantages. Maybe the forces think the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. For eg: AESA faces a lot of interference at wide angles as compared to mech scanned arrays. So, a fixed 120deg capability may be lesser in the real world. That's why Saab is looking for the swash plate array to remove this disadvantage which will exist on Rafale too. I suppose Gripen NG's nose would be bigger than LCA's, so the space inside may allow greater design potential.



A fighter can survive in AEWC environment without switching on its radar. But if it comes to killing something it will have to rely on its own radar or on the radar of another fighter through datalink.

L band and S band on AWACS are used primarily for volume search. The accuracy of such radars is quite large, ie in the region of 200m to maybe even 1Km. Further degradation occurs in heavy electronic environment and enemy ECM.

A fighter's X band radar will provide accuracy in the region of a few metres. IIRC, the MKI's radar resolution is something like 20mx20m at 400Km for the first version of N011M Bars.

For eg: Let's say there are 2 F-16s is flying at a distance of 100-200m in the same altitude and angle with respect to the radar. The Phalcon will pick up only one single F-16 probably at a distance of 200Km.

Now let's say there are two F-16s flying at a distance of 2m away from each other in the same altitude and angle with respect to the radar. The Bars 2008 version will pick up two different fighters probably at a distance of around 200Km.

You can rely on Phalcons or Bars for sketchy and inaccurate targeting information, but you can see from the above figures which of the two has a larger probability of a kill. But due to other factors like platform limitations of wide body aircraft compared to fighters, AWACS don't try to get into the fight by providing locks for BVR missiles. This will make them a major target.

AEWC is, as the name indicates, an "early warning" system. It provides a better grasp of the situation because there is a very large, difficult to jam flying radar that uses long waves to simply create a larger air picture for the commanders to benefit from They give a general estimate of where an enemy is located for the shooters to pursue and destroy.

Light fighters benefit the most from AEWCs because they are expected to fly inside friendly territory most of the time. Heavy aircraft are meant to do a lot of their flying deep inside enemy territory and hence cannot use AEWC information during penetration missions and hence the requirement for larger radars. Heck heavy fighters actually run CAP missions inside enemy territory.

So that means it is possible to use Tejas in combination with MKI enabling Tejas to carry longer range A2A missiles than its radar will allow. Tejas will use MKI's radar for targeting as you have said that Bars will be much more accurate than a Phalcon. Therefore, Tejas can perform interception even against heavy fighters. It has been already established that Tejas can carry the weight of longer range A2A missiles.

 

[p2prada]

So that means it is possible to use Tejas in combination with MKI enabling Tejas to carry longer range A2A missiles than its radar will allow. Tejas will use MKI's radar for targeting as you have said that Bars will be much more accurate than a Phalcon. Therefore, Tejas can perform interception even against heavy fighters. It has been already established that Tejas can carry the weight of longer range A2A missiles.

Theoretically, yes. Practically, no.

MKI's commanders may not be comfortable with the LCA being the shooter when they are the seekers. As of today, MKI cannot provide targeting information to LCA. After the upgrade, while a datalink is possible, I doubt they would follow up with such a system. Currently MKI can network with 3 other MKIs.

LCA is a point defence fighter and can also provide escort. MKI isn't a point defence fighter, it is an air dominance fighter. The MKI can carry 12 BVR missiles at once compared to the LCA's most realistic 2 or less realistic 4 missiles. So, there is no need for the LCA to be a shooter at all.

If you are referring to long range missiles in my discussions with ersakthivel, then you are mistaken about what I consider long range missile and a medium range missile compared to what he has "assumed" them to be. There are two ranges for the long range missile. The 200Km RVV-BD and the 300-400Km K-100. Similarly there are different classes of medium range missiles. The 50Km class Mica and Derby, 70-80Km R-77, Astra Mk1(speculated) and the 110-160Km Aim-120C-5/7, Aim-120D, RVV-SD, Meteor and Astra Mk2(speculated).

All these above missiles have the potential to see service in the IAF, some already are. As of today, the 50Km Derby has been assigned for the LCA Mk1. If you are expecting it to carry Meteor or Aim-120 C7 after this, then you are mistaken. There is no such plan currently. The Astra Mk1 will see service on LCA Mk1 after that. Of course, there is no information for LCA Mk2. But it shouldn't be vastly different from what you see on Mk1. So, don't expect Meteor on LCA.

During the course of the discussion someone "assumed" that AEWC will magically lock on to heavy aircraft like J-20s and help LCAs take it down. Now you know that it is not realistically possible even with regular 4th gen aircraft. However the discussion actually started with MKI taking down such enemy AEWCs first with long range missiles in the 500-1000Kg class, ie, RVV-BD and K-100 and the assumption that the Chinese will also work on similar AEWC killing missiles. And hence they will take out AEWCs before they can provide the magical locks to LCAs.

Of course, if we replace AEWCs with MKI, then it is possible for LCA to use targeting information from MKIs. But as I said before, this is only theoretical and not practical because the MKI commander will always favour giving this assignment to an aircraft he is familiar with in weight class and tactics. So, that only leaves MKI and FGFA, quite like the F-15E and F-22 combo. Apart from that the LCAs are not expected to carry anything apart from Derbys as a stop gap before the first Astra Mk1 is put into service. The Astra has specifically been made for the LCA. It was quite sometime before a new Astra Mk2 was planned for the MKI.

Joint operations is an entirely different aspect. When the heavy Su-30Ks engaged the F-15s in CI-2004, the Mig-21s provided escort to the strike package. The Mig-21s entered dog fights to fire missiles and leave, but they relied on the "missile seeker" to generate kills and not radar.

 

[ersakthivel]

once again tejas does not need any sukhoi to be effective.it will have it's own dedicated ew aircrafts,with a third of mirage RCS, in squadron, for targeting of long rnge BVRs,that will be twice as effective as RCS elephant called SUKHOI

Already the PV-1 of tejas is being configured for that purpose.So SUKHOI commanders can sleep in peace.
So nobody is assuming anything anywhere.
Still people are living in a stone age is something we cannot help.

During a discussion on grippen a memeber once said that in the sensor fusion age, the grippen radar seemlessly integerates all it's data with AWACS and this full digital picture of the battlefield is available to all the fighters in the battle space,the same kind of sensor fusion nod is being implemented on indian awcas too.


People with not much idea about the powerful sensor fusion nods implemented on awacs need not comment on such complex topics.A member once said that the software package implemented by TCS for canadian stock exchange is less complex than the fly by wire software!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Do they know how many millions of servers and PCs log on to this canadiand stockexchange and execute billions of dollar worth transaction every day all seemlessly?

So people who don't have deep knowledge of stuff like contemproary C4I ,should stop offering simplistic explanations on things more layered and complex.



Does the IAF sukhois fight on the indian side or chinese side?
Or is somebody mentioning the chinese sukhoi commander here?
So no sukhoi commander needs to be displeased in giving BVR lock to fellow IAf tejas pilot.
he need not take his walkie talkie and say,"Roger we have a intruder here so and so,"
If sensor fusion nods are implemented,he wouldn't even know his sukhoi is giving target lock to tejas.

Once he has sensor fusion nods integerated with AWACS, the AWACS can do everything needed with sukhoi radar data.

So nobody needs any favours from sukhoi commanders.

he should be too pleased ,because the tjas with way lower rcs can fly well infront and fire the bvrs with bvr locks from him, with no enemy retaliation risk on his craft, which will be visible 100s of kilometer befrore tejas.


i thought all IAF pilots were flying to safeguard the country's airspace, not to favour one of his peers over another.
Even if this doesnot happen modified EW tejas crafts that accompany the tejas squadron with way lesser RCS will do the job much better than SUKHOI.

where in the world is a strike package of sukhois being escorted by MIG-21s.Once again obfusicating issues and clarifying dubious doubts that doesnot exist.

The meteor is entering service in grippen.So there is no bar on it or a bvr in it's class in entering service in tejas.
I don't think grippen pilot is going to shoot his meteor with no bvr lock.

ASEA has no relation to fighter weight,it is a radar system.

As long as a pylon is rated for a missile's weight there is no bar on any small fighter to fire it in this sensor fusion age.

 

[ersakthivel]

Well this seems to be season-2 all over again.I don't know why people don't understand that what this thread is all about.

The Medium weight rafale is going to have meteor,
The Medium weight eurofighter typhoon is going to have meteor,

The light weight grippen is going to have meteor.
But the light weight tejas cannot have a long range BVR. WHY?

the grippen NG's nose is smallr than the tejas.So it is another misinformed statement .
The grippen Ng is going for swash plate asea only because of this smaller nose dia,attributing other motives is is another misinformed statement.

 

[ersakthivel]

I have a question. Can a fighter plane completely rely on an AWACS for A2A operations without even switching on its radar?

Most fighter planes don't switch on their radars and rely on ew crafts and awacs whenever possible,otherwise their presence will be known and the chances of interdiction is more.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

1. LCA can fire any kind of BVR given its programmed for LCA`s Radar..

2. When there were no radar on Aircraft they follow instructions from Control tower ( Which have a long range radar ) for guidance, Now that control tower is also located in Aircrafts which guide aircrafts..

 

[ersakthivel]

the astra mk 1 will have 80 km range,mk-2 is supposed to have 120 km range,so there is a long range bvr for tejas, astra mk-1 is set for flight tests shortly,after successful ground launches.
So saying that there is no long range bvr for tejas is a misinformed statement as well.
Today's long range bvrs can recieve mid course guidance from
1.the radar of the launching aircraft,
2.From surrogate aircrafts(ew or bigger radar carrying fighter), and sensor fusion node integerated C4I AWACS,
3.IRST system,
Besides their own seekers.
The above statement is not mine.It is on the official website of AIM-120.

these are done with stuff called datalink and sensor fusion of all the fighters in the air with the AEWCS crafts,

 

[ersakthivel]

people who are fixated on bigger fighters going solo are always silent on one point.The 5meter RCS(clean config) 1990s designed SUKHOI is alien to the concept of low RCS times.It was a fighter which was supposed to win it's duels with it's own kinematics and raw power.But nowadays air to air missiles do 60 Gs.SO doing a speed killing cobra may look impressive in YOUTUBE,but it is a laughable tactics against a 60 G turning air to air missile.It may be god in dogfight but not at evading missiles,

SO a near 0.3 sq meter RCS(clean config) tejas flying with 4 long range BVrs infront of the sukhoi is such a vital tactic, that cannot be ignored in any home airspace defence.
Reason----The sukhoi can be seen by modern asea at nearly 300+ kms away,But an LCA can't be seen at less than half the distance of that.

So by the time sukhoi reaches the BVR range and fires it's BVr ,opponent's BVR targeting the SUKHOI can be well on it's way.Then all sukhoi can do is busy devising surviving strategy in self defence rather than guiding BVrs on target.

The reason is twin engined fighters like RAFALE,EUROFIGHTER which were built after sukhoi have way smaller RCS than SUKHOI.

SO it is an open question in a one on one with RAFALE and SUKHOI ,which aircraft will see the enemy first and fire first?

Just set aide the ew crafts and awacs ,even if a group of five tejas amed with 4 BVrs each, flying behind an unarmed LCA ,using it's radar for BVr lock will also be a not so insignificant tactics for tejas.

Since clean config TEJAS can't be seen before 120 km by any airborne radar, armed tejas flying behind them can use it like ew craft for close to 200 km or more BVR engagement with deadly effect.

So a sukhoi detecting and giving BVr locks to LCA's long range missile is a useful ,effective tactic in airwar,
Defending home airspace is no EGO TRIP.
Even the USAFF hopes to use F-22,F-35 and F-15 eagles in combination.

 

[Defcon 1]

@ersakthivel

Do you have any link which throws light on LCA PV-1 being re-configured to perform EW functions?

 

[ersakthivel]

Broadsword: Designers insist Tejas will belie all sceptical questioning

It was posted once wth picture on the BRAODSWORD blog by ajai shukla.
I will post the exact link later after finding it.

 

[ersakthivel]

It is possible for any aircraft to be modified for ew role.

 

[Defcon 1]

Broadsword: Designers insist Tejas will belie all sceptical questioning

It was posted once wth picture on the BRAODSWORD blog by ajai shukla.
I will post the exact link later after finding it.

It is possible for any aircraft to be modified for ew role.

Not the point. You need to post links which prove that there are concrete plans to build EW LCA. Otherwise, everything that you say is just speculation.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Regarding ECM Suits :

------------
------------

LCA Stealth Properties.. :

 

[ersakthivel]

Not the point. You need to post links which prove that there are concrete plans to build EW LCA. Otherwise, everything that you say is just speculation.

just because there is no link to ew conversion of LCA doesnot mean all I posted was wrong.
the aircraft that is going to play the role of ew craft may be,
1.Another modified LCA
2.A RAFALE with lesser RCS than Mirage,
or any other lesser RCs fighter.
See the F-18 is modified into EW craft in the name of GRowler.
But that doesnot mean it should accompany ony other F-18 squadrons only.
it can accompany any other fighter squadron and do the same role.

So the lesser RCS craft may be RAFALE or another LCA tejas adopted for this role.

It doesnot matter as long as it having lesser RCS .

 

[ersakthivel]

New role for TEJAS - Electronic Warfare
www.----------- "º Forum "º Country Watch "º Indian Defence2 Mar 2011 – col ajai shukla posted a quiz in his blog about tejas pv1. now, he says that Tejas pv1 is being ... now, he says that Tejas pv1 is being modified for EW role. ... I never said that this is an "EW suite" being fitted on the LCA. I said ...
D-Day for PV-5: Tejas twin-seat trainer to fly today"Ž - 1 Feb 2012
LCA News & Discussions"Ž - 23 Nov 2009
More results from ----------- »
21 - Bharat Rakshak
forums.bharat-rakshak.com "º ... "º Military Issues & History Forum
40 posts - 23 authors - 2 Mar 2011
now originally LCA was meant as a replcement for A2A fighter like Mig 21 .... Ajai Shukla says this is the PV1 being prepped for an EW role :-o ...
Hot Dog Indian AF News and Discussion Part 17 [Archive] - Page 3 ...
forum.keypublishing.com/archive/index.php?t-109698-p-3.html
100+ posts - 42 authors - 21 Sep 2011
... to read about addition of EW features on Tejas PV1..something Ajai Shukla first mentioned. ...... But for LCA - that is a NAL job done locally.


http://www.-----------/forums/indian-defence/95820-new-role-tejas-electronic-warfare.html
The following is his exact words repeated in the forum.

The above is the photograph posted on his blog to support the post.

I never said that this is an "EW suite" being fitted on the LCA. I said that this was PV-1 being modified for an EW role!

I can't tell you too much about what is actually going into the fighter. The details will have to remain classified for now.

this link has the same phots posted on broadsword website regarding that.

These are some of the google results for ew role of tejas.
But the problem is I cannot find the exact link now.