ADA Tejas (LCA) News and Discussions

[ersakthivel]

http://-----------------------/threads/indigenous-aesa-radars-for-tejas-mark-2-saraswat.3508/

News regarding asea development for tejas.

At low altitudes, the Ge404F2J3 had less thrust and the LCA's top speed was limited at sea level. Even so, it went supersonic with the IN20, and the Ge404IN20 comes with 90 kn thrust.

GE-414 weighs 1110 kg giving it a thrust to weight ratio of 5.72/9 (again dry/wet).

So for a proper replacement of 414 in Mk2, the GTRE_SNECMA engine would have to give 60kN/90kN dry/wet thrust with a weight of about 990 kg.

IM88 gives of 50/75 kN while weighing only 897 kg at a twr of 5.7:1/8.5:1 (dry/wet) which is comparable to f414
The f404 which is in LSPs gives twr of 4.8:1/8.3:1, which is much less than any of the three engine we talked about.
That's the reason for the small shortfall in sea level top speed from 1.2 mach, which will be overcome with much higher TWr engines.
The airframe as such is capable of mach 1.2 at sea level, as it was achieved in a dive from 4 km altitude to sea level.So no drag issues because of larger low wing loading wing is there.

 

[Abhi9]

Somethings to clear things up.

LPI AESA is very possible to intercept. The things difficult are its difficult to employ on a smaller aircraft and it comes with a penalty of power hungry processing power and its difficult to employ in the same size as a normal RWR. A AESA radar Tr/Rx cluster( maybe four to five operates in a particular frequency which is programmed to hop as designed by the algorithm. The reflected energy of a target is much smaller than already low power signal of LPI AESA but still is detected by the Rx module of the AESA and developed in airspace picture as seen by the pilot. The LPI signal will be detected if the threat libraries are designed to not negate the low power signal as noise and the same time as the frequency is hopping this information is to classified in pico to nanseconds by RWR processor, which ask for more processing power

F-22 may be already be flying with this technology as to get RWR information if its being targeting by another LPI AESA.

The limitation is cost, power and how much technology you want to put in light size fighter.

 

[p2prada]

It can behigh power consumption with less range can only be less efficient radar which its specs shows..

(2KW*0.6m*0.6m*pi) if this so where i can found the needed link ?,

Technically both are different radars and power-consumptions are different..

It's called mathematics. Power aperture product = Power*area. You can take a 10log to calculate in dB.

Ok, with the specs you posted,

it would be 2.5*0.65*0.65*pi = 3.3KW/m2 - LCA Mk1

It is still smaller than 5*0.5*0.5*pi = 3.9KW/m2 -Bison

For a 4KW radar, LCA would have a PA of 5.3KW/m2. But that is a Mirage-2000-5 Mk2 level radar. The Mk1s radar is not as powerful. The Mk2 could have a more powerful radar though. I suppose you will find this level of a radar on F-16/J-10. Apart from that software matters, and LCA has the advantage over Bison.

Btw, that's not exactly LCA radar specs, which haven't yet been released. Those are Israeli radar specs and are actually old figures, at the level of the first Kopyo with detection ranges between 32.4Km and 45Km. You can say the one on Mk1 is in between 2032 and 2035.

If you compare radar specs alone, MKI tops the chart followed by Bison. Then comes the Mig-29's Topaz and the Mirage-2000's RDY. This is for IAF. LCA tops the Bison in radar specs, but outside of MKI all other radars we have are of the same class. Until M-2000 and Mig-29 are upgraded, LCA will have our next best radar. But, then Bison will still have the next best radar after LCA.

Rafale's radar is in the same class as LCA too, rather in the same class as the upgraded Mig or Migrage-2000. The new AESA will double specs though. But that's an entirely different aspect.

 

[Abhi9]

An LPI is designed for silent kill but its 5th gen technology. A 4th gen aircraft will always be at disadvantage because even if the F-22 radar is intercepted its still has the advantage of stealth(VLO) and its radar will not be on for the prolonged time (but real time scenario includes a lot of factors as BVR missile is not 100 percent effective, if the VLO aircraft is detected and it may very well turn into a dog fight). VLO aircraft job is to do it quickly, silently and not be noticed. IAF may have had already designed the tactics to deal with 5thgen" just a speculation"

 

[p2prada]

I any official source regarding the price of the EPE ,not your simple math.Development cost of EPE will be shared by multiple users ,not only IAF.

Like who? The F-414 alone costs 6mil. EPE will cost as much as the K-10. With just 100+100 engines, it is a worthless venture for India.

Fact is no matter how many new users come up, India will have to cough up the development fee, because we want the engine ASAP.

So it does exist for tejas,That's what I am saying throughout this thread, A bigger RCS bigger RADAR tracking range seeker aircraft and tejas as shooter aircraft.As we can have tejas more in number for the same price.The IAF will combine sukhoi or rafale or anyother bigger radar craft with tejas to achieve this.However harder you deny it. It is the fact face it.

This is the thing you are not able to understand. Why will the MKI commander give targeting info to an aircraft carrying 2 BVRs. In that way even the LCA is at risk. The MKI commander will provide targeting intercept to another MKI.

You are unable to comprehend.

EPE is not exclusively manufactured for LCA like french made engine for ALH, This shows the length to which you can go to write any bullshit to bolster your non existing truths, countering official press release as if EPE is developed exclusively for TEJAS.

EPE is on offer to anybody who will pay the price for it. Nobody will. Saab cannot afford it and IAF orders are too less. All others have their own development programs. USN has already chosen the EDE.

Further weight reduction in mk-1 is possible as pointed out by CEMILAC report itself.

CEMILAC report is very old. It was not implemented, that's why you are reading it. It is declassified. That's what Twinblade and I were stating. Instead LCA Mk2 development was chosen.

So if you cannot find any link regarding regarding EPE in the closed tejas -III thread then admit you don't know what it is and wait for oficial announcement.

You made the claim, so you prove it. I want 50 engines with 50000 hours of testing.

I have been there and read all the bull shit.So don't pretend to be a BBBBBBBIIIIIIIIIIIGGGGGGGGGGGG expert on every thing under the sun.

But it would seem you never learnt anything. Yes. He is a retired officer, has over 20 years of experience. You are just a nut job. There is a huge difference between what I knew then and what I know now. But your ego won't allow you to learn new things.

1.Detecting electronic emissions from enemy enemy fighter called ELINT,
2.Passive IRST tracking,
3.Ridind the radar waves emitted by the enemy radar craft using ESM suit as offensive defence aid,
Every one knows that.So don't try to side track the issue.
The real issue is if seeker -shooter combination exists for all planes, not just F-22.

seeker -shooter combination exists for all type of aircrafts, not just for F-22

It's funny how you only believe what is convenient to you.

 

[p2prada]

An LPI is designed for silent kill but its 5th gen technology.

No, it is just a software upgrade. Every aircraft since the 90s have had them, but not as extensively as what's on more modern aircraft like Rafale, EF and the pinnacle, F-22.

AESA is the best for LPI due to the changes we can make in power and frequency.

BVR missile is not 100 percent effective,

F-22 has consistently detected older aircraft and engaged these aircraft from outside of their radar cones. 100% kill guaranteed. It could be at BVR range or WVR range.

 

[Abhi9]

No, it is just a software upgrade. Every aircraft since the 90s have had them, but not as extensively as what's on more modern aircraft like Rafale, EF and the pinnacle, F-22.

Its just not software its hardware too

AESA is the best for LPI due to the changes we can make in power and frequency.



F-22 has consistently detected older aircraft and engaged these aircraft from outside of their radar cones. 100% kill guaranteed. It could be at BVR range or WVR range.

It has detected and tracked but that doesn't mean 100% kill. It means 100 detection with missile fire. Even in simulation the kill is registered if you have a radar lock and electronically fire a missile.

 

[p2prada]

It has detected and tracked but that doesn't mean 100% kill. It means 100 detection with missile fire. Even in simulation the kill is registered if you have a radar lock and electronically fire a missile.

I am not just talking of detected and tracked. I am talking about detected, tracked, engaged and killed without the enemy knowing.

F-22 does not have an actual kill as of today. But pilots know very well, when and how a kill is made.

Btw, I am talking about F-22s sneaking up behind F-15s, to extremely close ranges. When I said extremely, I mean extremely. If you did that, then what's a radar lock, the missile seeker is plenty for the job.

Most BVR kills happen silently. F-22 can make WVR kills silently. That's the difference.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Some how those inputs are not over the poster, If you are correct why range of kOPYO-M just have 75kms ? and according to you it can have greater..

It is also possible its a inefficient power consuming radar ? compare to LCA whose range is +120km with lesser power input..

It's called mathematics. Power aperture product = Power*area. You can take a 10log to calculate in dB.

Ok, with the specs you posted,

it would be 2.5*0.65*0.65*pi = 3.3KW/m2 - LCA Mk1

It is still smaller than 5*0.5*0.5*pi = 3.9KW/m2 -Bison

 

[p2prada]

Some how those inputs are not over the poster, If you are correct why range of kOPYO-M just have 75kms ? and according to you it can have greater..

That's because of upgrades.

Check what is known officially about the Bars radar. Double it, that's IAF's Bars capability on new MKIs. Stuff like this goes unreported.

It is also possible its a inefficient power consuming radar ? compare to LCA whose range is +120km with lesser power input..

The duty cycle of the Kopyo-M is above 25%, the same as what's on LCA. So, it is not inefficient. It has a smaller radar array, and hence requires greater power to match LCA's range. That's because the gain is smaller on the Kopyo-M.

It was the Bison which made USAF say that inferior platforms fitted with BVR will be a major threat to superior American platforms. This applies to LCA too. Overall the Mig-21 is an inferior aircraft. But it has far higher speed as compared to LCA so it does not have to stay in the fight after firing its missile. It has the option of running, the same as what it did after killing F-15s in CI-2004. Come within 10Km of the fighter, fire BVR missiles and run. Add a superior breed of pilots already flying the Mig-21 compared to LCA, the man always beats the machine.

Having a 10 or 15 Km range advantage does nothing. If you remember what I posted before, an aircraft only carries weapons that it itself is capable of using. Mig-21 carries the 70Km R-77, LCA will carry the 50Km Derby. So, Mig-21 has the BVR advantage too. 20 whole seconds of advantage. Once the 70Km Astra Mk1 is fitted on the LCA, it will be time for Mig-21s retirement.

Anyway, read this.
Mig-21

Scroll to the bottom and you will notice the specs for the Kopyo (a radar version inferior to the one Bison was first upgraded with) was far superior to the EL/M 2032(Mig-21 Lancer). And the 2032 did not even come with BVR capability, with lesser targets tracked and only a one target capability.

Upgrades happen in a cycle. You don't deliver 5KW of power now and say your range is 75Km. So, what is consistent with EL/M 2032 today, will be the same for Kopyo-M. Even Bars has undergone 4 upgrades over the last 10 years with the biggest one being in 2008-09. Specs double every few years. The 130Km range on Bars-1 (Pune squadrons) was upgraded to 200Km on Bars-2 and will now see a 400Km range upgrade with the AESA version of Bars(or Phazatron). While Bison wouldn't have seen such major upgrades, it is enough to state there would have been enough upgrades to fire the R-77 effectively. It's been a decade after all.

Same for Rafale's RBE-2 which will see a 200Km range, up from 100Km range today.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Check what is known officially about the Bars radar. Double it, that's IAF's Bars capability on new MKIs. Stuff like this goes unreported.

So if bars get updated supposedly Kopyo-M also get updated, << This is pure assumption..

Then there no worth debating, When Something goes unreported people make assumption just like above, There are no mention of official upgrade of Kopyo-M radar except there were plans for an AESA one, Which is nowhere in market in 2011-12..

The duty cycle of the Kopyo-M is above 25%, the same as what's on LCA. So, it is not inefficient. It has a smaller radar array, and hence requires greater power to match LCA's range. That's because the gain is smaller on the Kopyo-M.

Do you know each unit of both radar power consumption, I bet they are not the same..

I am saying this more power input doesn't have to mean greater range otherwise there should be news of uprated version coz many nation want to have such radars..

Anyway, read this.Mig-21

This is very old data, New specs of IAI radar are different, you can check that..

Also I wont be comparing LCA MMR with IAI much, there are significant differences..

 

[ersakthivel]

I am not just talking of detected and tracked. I am talking about detected, tracked, engaged and killed without the enemy knowing.

F-22 does not have an actual kill as of today. But pilots know very well, when and how a kill is made.

Btw, I am talking about F-22s sneaking up behind F-15s, to extremely close ranges. When I said extremely, I mean extremely. If you did that, then what's a radar lock, the missile seeker is plenty for the job.

Most BVR kills happen silently. F-22 can make WVR kills silently. That's the difference.

this sneaking up behind, firing stealthily without the enemy knowing it ,are only possible in simulation after decades.

1.Once stealth UCAVS with IRST sensors becomes part of the 4th gen fighter squadron like awcas and tankers,Nobody can sneak up on any tejas squadron or 4th gen fighter squadron.That's why simulation You posted on YOUTUBE doesnot feature STEALTH UCAVS.

2.Even if 5th gen fires a 120 km missile, missile warning sensor alerts the numerically superior 4th gen fleet with more BVR weapon load.

Since L band asea can locate a 5th gen stealth within a few kms accuracy (on today's tech level), they can fire an IRST seeker BVR against 5th gens guided by L band ASEA on the 5th gens.

Once the missile reaches within 10 kms of L BAND asea radar's tracking co ordinates all the 5th gen has to do is to run for cover.STAELTH UCAVS with IRST seekers flying 40 km before 4th gen fleet will play a vital role , but I have not included it here.

Silent kills against 4th gen tejas by 5th gens are possible if the future IAF fleet is like serbian or iraqi airfleet with next to nothing AWACS or UCAV capability, sadly for the fifth gens it is not.

 

[ersakthivel]

That's because of upgrades.

Check what is known officially about the Bars radar. Double it, that's IAF's Bars capability on new MKIs. Stuff like this goes unreported.



The duty cycle of the Kopyo-M is above 25%, the same as what's on LCA. So, it is not inefficient. It has a smaller radar array, and hence requires greater power to match LCA's range. That's because the gain is smaller on the Kopyo-M.

It was the Bison which made USAF say that inferior platforms fitted with BVR will be a major threat to superior American platforms. This applies to LCA too. Overall the Mig-21 is an inferior aircraft. But it has far higher speed as compared to LCA so it does not have to stay in the fight after firing its missile. It has the option of running, the same as what it did after killing F-15s in CI-2004. Come within 10Km of the fighter, fire BVR missiles and run. Add a superior breed of pilots already flying the Mig-21 compared to LCA, the man always beats the machine.

Only BVrs fired from bisons hit the F-15 not the experience of bison pilots .Speeds won't matter much,because once the ge-414 engined mk-2 comes it will have much better top speed than mig-21.

Even the mk-1's 90 kn engine can be upgraded with HIGHER TWR k-10 in future ,so they too will have much better top speeds post upgrades after 10 years.So every single LCA tejas inducted into IAF is worth it's place.No debate about it. First IAF ordered 20 mk-1, and then it increased the order to a total of 40 mk-1s,voluntarily.

The machines capacity enables man to beat the enemy, experience won't make up for inferior radar detection and tracking range.Any rookie pilot on LCA will use this excess radar detection and tracking range. And LCAA is the most modern fly by wire aircraft in IAF , so flying it won't be as risky as MIG-21 s it is a universal truth.FBW will ensure carefree operation even for rookie pilots, opposed to mig-21 which is an unforgiving aircraft to fly.


Superio breed of mig-21 pilots will do a much superior job in tejas, So people dont need to worry on that count.

Having a 10 or 15 Km range advantage does nothing. If you remember what I posted before, an aircraft only carries weapons that it itself is capable of using. Mig-21 carries the 70Km R-77, LCA will carry the 50Km Derby. So, Mig-21 has the BVR advantage too. 20 whole seconds of advantage. Once the 70Km Astra Mk1 is fitted on the LCA, it will be time for Mig-21s retirement.

This is the main problem with your argument. You don't understand modern fighters are weapon platforms.The present tejas can fire a 120 km meteor if it is mated with it.No new hardware addition is needed.Let me say how,

1. Once tejas detects an aircraft at 120 km it does not have to worry about tracking range either. AS modern BVRs have active seekers which will finish the enemy once they reach within 18 kms . This is your statement.So tejas can fire at will. The mig-21 with 80 km detection range cannot do that.

If people argue against it as I expect, The first thing I am going to ask from them is,
WHAT IS GRIPPEN GOING TO DO WITH METEOR AS IT TOO HAS SIMILAR PYLON LOADS, RADAR RANGES AND SAME AS TEJAS IN ALL ASPECT. If they are not ready to clarify this point then they must do the decent thing and keep SHUT UP

2. It's tracking range is also given as 120 kms officially. Then it can give mid course guidance as well,

3.Even if it has a 80 km tracking range , if it flies another 30 km straighter it will start guiding the missile accurately.In this job it is as good as any other fighter.

4.SO it is unfair to compare mig-21s to LCA.For people saying that lca can carry only 2 long range bvrs , they can go to rafale thread here and see" MULTIPLE BVR LAUNCHER RACKS " on rafale and clear their doubts. I won't elaborate on this matter.

5.If they are not convinced after that they can go to GRIPPEN sites and see how many BVRs it carries.

Anyway, read this.
Mig-21

Scroll to the bottom and you will notice the specs for the Kopyo (a radar version inferior to the one Bison was first upgraded with) was far superior to the EL/M 2032(Mig-21 Lancer). And the 2032 did not even come with BVR capability, with lesser targets tracked and only a one target capability.

Upgrades happen in a cycle. You don't deliver 5KW of power now and say your range is 75Km. So, what is consistent with EL/M 2032 today, will be the same for Kopyo-M. Even Bars has undergone 4 upgrades over the last 10 years with the biggest one being in 2008-09. Specs double every few years. The 130Km range on Bars-1 (Pune squadrons) was upgraded to 200Km on Bars-2 and will now see a 400Km range upgrade with the AESA version of Bars(or Phazatron). While Bison wouldn't have seen such major upgrades, it is enough to state there would have been enough upgrades to fire the R-77 effectively. It's been a decade after all.

Same for Rafale's RBE-2 which will see a 200Km range, up from 100Km range today.

There is no 2032 on LCA.The antena and other stuff is from LRDE.Only the ISRAELI SIGNAL processor from 2032 is used , that too mainly due to the inability of LRDE to resolve the complex air to ground mode as it is a delicate job of filtering ground clutter.
The 2032 signal processor has no relation to tejas radar range .It is a new radar from LRDE with 2032's signal processor.

The asea by DRDO LRDE lab has 1400 TRP modules capacity, it is a truly world class radar. All mk-1s will get it as upgrade and mk-2 will start off with this radar,

Note the entire power of this radar will be used as jamming aid .SO comparing tejas to mig-21 is really a waste of time.
Every one compare it with grippen NG.

Once ACM naik made the mig-21 ++ statement , as if waiting for the cue all and the sundry have jumped into the band wagon to take a snipe at tejas.

What went unreported is the same ACM NAIK went to sweeden took a ride in grippen and said it was an excellent fighter.
The NG version of grippen was sheduled for first development flight only in 2017!!!!!!!!!

The grippen C/D is for all practical purpose same as mk-1. Once again there is no point in saying tejas yet to reach mach 1.2 at sea level.because with SP's higher thrust engine it will reach it.

The NG and tejas also will have the same engine , same composite content, same radar ranges (mk-2 has a bigger radom dia here) same BVR missile ranges, same service ceiling,same top speeds.

Thats why ACM naik issued another statement clarifying that after FOC it will be a truly 4th gen!!!!!!!!!!
strange statement in the first place and even stranger clarification later.Is ADA going to add a second engine between IOC and FOC?

 

[p2prada]

So if bars get updated supposedly Kopyo-M also get updated, << This is pure assumption..

Then there no worth debating, When Something goes unreported people make assumption just like above, There are no mention of official upgrade of Kopyo-M radar except there were plans for an AESA one, Which is nowhere in market in 2011-12..

There are no real official news for Bars too. It is just from one tea fellow to another. You won't find official confirmation about this.

Radar being upgraded every few years is guaranteed. When radar are not upgraded, that's when questions are asked.

Do you know each unit of both radar power consumption, I bet they are not the same..

I have no idea what you mean.

I am saying this more power input doesn't have to mean greater range otherwise there should be news of uprated version coz many nation want to have such radars..

Of course, that's what MLUs are for. Many nations already have such radars. Mig-29 and Mirage-2000 are also getting such radar upgrades.

Power is directly related to range. If you want more range, you want more power. Period. Let's not change physics laws here.

This is very old data, New specs of IAI radar are different, you can check that..

Note that the data you are referring to and the data for Kopyo are the same as what you are quoting today. Even Kopyo specs are old.

The picture you posted for EL/M 2035 and 2032 are also old, with detection ranges of 37 and 45Km.

Also I wont be comparing LCA MMR with IAI much, there are significant differences..

A class of radar is all the same. It's not like Samsung's smartphone is completely different from LG's. They all use the same technology and same design. It is the same for every other system out there.

 

[ersakthivel]

There are no real official news for Bars too. It is just from one tea fellow to another. You won't find official confirmation about this.

Radar being upgraded every few years is guaranteed. When radar are not upgraded, that's when questions are asked.



I have no idea what you mean.



Of course, that's what MLUs are for. Many nations already have such radars. Mig-29 and Mirage-2000 are also getting such radar upgrades.

Power is directly related to range. If you want more range, you want more power. Period. Let's not change physics laws here.



Note that the data you are referring to and the data for Kopyo are the same as what you are quoting today. Even Kopyo specs are old.

The picture you posted for EL/M 2035 and 2032 are also old, with detection ranges of 37 and 45Km.



A class of radar is all the same. It's not like Samsung's smartphone is completely different from LG's. They all use the same technology and same design. It is the same for every other system out there.

There is no 2032 on LCA.The antena and other stuff is from LRDE.Only the ISRAELI SIGNAL processor from 2032 is used , that too mainly due to the inability of LRDE to resolve the complex air to ground mode as it is a delicate job of filtering ground clutter.
The 2032 signal processor has no relation to tejas radar range .It is a new radar from LRDE with 2032's signal processor.

The asea by DRDO LRDE lab has 1400 TRP modules capacity, it is a truly world class radar. All mk-1s will get it as upgrade and mk-2 will start off with this radar,

Note the entire power of this radar will be used as jamming aid .SO comparing tejas to mig-21 is really a waste of time.
Every one compare it with grippen NG.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

In one sentence you have no clue, In other you just repeating your own words, You also admit that you have no proof that Radar were updated but you guaranteed that to me..

You work in HAL / ADA / IRKUT / sukhoi ?

I have no idea what you mean.

Power is directly related to range. If you want more range, you want more power. Period. Let's not change physics laws here.

 

[ersakthivel]

Somethings to clear things up.

LPI AESA is very possible to intercept. The things difficult are its difficult to employ on a smaller aircraft and it comes with a penalty of power hungry processing power and its difficult to employ in the same size as a normal RWR. A AESA radar Tr/Rx cluster( maybe four to five operates in a particular frequency which is programmed to hop as designed by the algorithm. The reflected energy of a target is much smaller than already low power signal of LPI AESA but still is detected by the Rx module of the AESA and developed in airspace picture as seen by the pilot. The LPI signal will be detected if the threat libraries are designed to not negate the low power signal as noise and the same time as the frequency is hopping this information is to classified in pico to nanseconds by RWR processor, which ask for more processing power

F-22 may be already be flying with this technology as to get RWR information if its being targeting by another LPI AESA.

The limitation is cost, power and how much technology you want to put in light size fighter.

The processor is never power hungry ,they always use a small amount of power , So processing the signal is by RWR comparing it to library is not power hungry app.

What is power hungry app is jamming the processed signal with equally powerful radar eam. That's why ew aircrafts like prowler and FA-18 growler is used in combination with fighter planes.

Their job is denying the use of electro magnetic frequency for the enemy aircraft.

So there is no disadvantge here for tejas. Even the twin engined hornets fly in combination with FA-18 growler for jamming purpose, so why single out TEJAS's inability in this area?

So jamming aids are available to all crafts whether they are single or twin engined.

 

[p2prada]

this sneaking up behind, firing stealthily without the enemy knowing it ,are only possible in simulation after decades.

1.Once stealth UCAVS with IRST sensors becomes part of the 4th gen fighter squadron like awcas and tankers,Nobody can sneak up on any tejas squadron or 4th gen fighter squadron.That's why simulation You posted on YOUTUBE doesnot feature STEALTH UCAVS.

2.Even if 5th gen fires a 120 km missile, missile warning sensor alerts the numerically superior 4th gen fleet with more BVR weapon load.

Since L band asea can locate a 5th gen stealth within a few kms accuracy (on today's tech level), they can fire an IRST seeker BVR against 5th gens guided by L band ASEA on the 5th gens.

Once the missile reaches within 10 kms of L BAND asea radar's tracking co ordinates all the 5th gen has to do is to run for cover.STAELTH UCAVS with IRST seekers flying 40 km before 4th gen fleet will play a vital role , but I have not included it here.

Silent kills against 4th gen tejas by 5th gens are possible if the future IAF fleet is like serbian or iraqi airfleet with next to nothing AWACS or UCAV capability, sadly for the fifth gens it is not.

bs

Only BVrs fired from bisons hit the F-15 not the experience of bison pilots .Speeds won't matter much,because once the ge-414 engined mk-2 comes it will have much better top speed than mig-21.

Even the mk-1's 90 kn engine can be upgraded with HIGHER TWR k-10 in future ,so they too will have much better top speeds post upgrades after 10 years.So every single LCA tejas inducted into IAF is worth it's place.No debate about it. First IAF ordered 20 mk-1, and then it increased the order to a total of 40 mk-1s,voluntarily.

The machines capacity enables man to beat the enemy, experience won't make up for inferior radar detection and tracking range.Any rookie pilot on LCA will use this excess radar detection and tracking range. And LCAA is the most modern fly by wire aircraft in IAF , so flying it won't be as risky as MIG-21 s it is a universal truth.FBW will ensure carefree operation even for rookie pilots, opposed to mig-21 which is an unforgiving aircraft to fly.

bs

You are the first I heard where pilot experience doesn't matter.

This is the main problem with your argument. You don't understand modern fighters are weapon platforms.The present tejas can fire a 120 km meteor if it is mated with it.No new hardware addition is needed.Let me say how,

1. Once tejas detects an aircraft at 120 km it does not have to worry about tracking range either. AS modern BVRs have active seekers which will finish the enemy once they reach within 18 kms . This is your statement.So tejas can fire at will. The mig-21 with 80 km detection range cannot do that.

If people argue against it as I expect, The first thing I am going to ask from them is,
WHAT IS GRIPPEN GOING TO DO WITH METEOR AS IT TOO HAS SIMILAR PYLON LOADS, RADAR RANGES AND SAME AS TEJAS IN ALL ASPECT. If they are not ready to clarify this point then they must do the decent thing and keep SHUT UP

2. It's tracking range is also given as 120 kms officially. Then it can give mid course guidance as well,

3.Even if it has a 80 km tracking range , if it flies another 30 km straighter it will start guiding the missile accurately.In this job it is as good as any other fighter.

4.SO it is unfair to compare mig-21s to LCA.For people saying that lca can carry only 2 long range bvrs , they can go to rafale thread here and see"
MULTIPLE BVR LAUNCHER RACKS " on rafale and clear their doubts. I won't elaborate on this matter.

bs

You won't elaborate on it because you can't elaborate on it.

We don't have multi ejector racks and the drag penalty will be too high anyway. Leave this circus to the Pakistanis. We don't need it.

Rafale is a different class of aircraft. Even Rafale's official tracking range is 100Km for a fighter sized target.

Gripen is somewhere else, beyond the Mirage-2000. We are trying to reach Mirage-2000 with the LCA Mk2. HUGE difference. So, no comparison.

5.If they are not convinced after that they can go to GRIPPEN sites and see how many BVRs it carries.

Show me even one picture for LCA with this configuration,

Don't compare better aircraft with LCA, especially in something so obvious.

Korean, FA-50. Count the number of hardpoints.

There is no 2032 on LCA.The antena and other stuff is from LRDE.Only the ISRAELI SIGNAL processor from 2032 is used , that too mainly due to the inability of LRDE to resolve the complex air to ground mode as it is a delicate job of filtering ground clutter.
The 2032 signal processor has no relation to tejas radar range .It is a new radar from LRDE with 2032's signal processor.

It's obvious you have comprehension issues.

You don't need to keep repeating things I have already said, especially back at me.

The asea for tejas will take it to the level of afale.

bs

Well, this ends the discussion.

 

[p2prada]

In one sentence you have no clue, In other you just repeating your own words, You also admit that you have no proof that Radar were updated but you guaranteed that to me..

You work in HAL / ADA / IRKUT / sukhoi ?

Kunal, I can't discuss with you. You know nothing about what I'm talking about.

Such obvious things don't even need discussing. Even a simple thing as changing the radar processor and a software update will do wonders to a radar. Software is everything for a radar.

It's like asking for proof whether IAF upgraded their Windows based computer OSs with the latest Windows update. Simply because you can't see official news doesn't mean it does not happen. IAF will look like fools if they reveal every little thing to the media.

You don't need to work in Microsoft to figure out people are updating their Windows OS with the latest update.

Even LCA has so many upgradable components that upgrades can be made every few weeks, with majors upgrades every few months, let alone years.
Line-replaceable unit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is as simple as replacing your sim card from your phone or changing the batteries on your laptop.

Mig-21 is a bit more complex and less upgradable than LCA, but an air force cannot live without radar upgrades and is one of the most critical requirements for ToT. During war, radar upgrades, calibration and re-calibration will happen on a daily or weekly basis because more information is available on the enemy as the fight ensues.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Where is recce / laser pod ? without it those LGB are useless..

If there are plans to put a pod, something from there have to go..

Kunal, I can't discuss with you. You know nothing about what I'm talking about.

I cannot go on with some comment have no proof but just self assumed facts..

I gently asked for Proof, you were unable to provide, discussion over..