ADA Tejas (LCA) News and Discussions

[Tolaha]

Nobody sends a light combat aircraft with limited payload and range to do SEAD missions. That is suicidal. You wont see many targets worth hitting close to the border. No idea where you get low RCS from either. It is a 3/4 gen fighter. Just because it is light dosnt means the RCS is better than other comparable fighters.

Are you sure there wont be many targets worth hitting near the Indo-Pak border? Islamabad, Rawalpindi, Lahore.... even Karachi isnt that far away from the border!

 

[DivineHeretic]

Nobody sends a light combat aircraft with limited payload and range to do SEAD missions. That is suicidal. You wont see many targets worth hitting close to the border. No idea where you get low RCS from either. It is a 3/4 gen fighter. Just because it is light dosnt means the RCS is better than other comparable fighters.

Firstly You have completely misunderstood my argument. Nowhere did I say that the LCA should be used as SEAD platform, though it is well within the ability of the lca to do this task, if asked. Secondly, low payload is not a problem for a SEAD platform, it is not going on a carpet bombing mission and neither is one aircraft going to take out all the SAM sites. A couple Anti radiation munitions will suffice for a SAM site which is what the LCA will be asked to do.
Thirdly the low RCS point of mine comes not because of stealth characteristics, but rather is the product of using composite materials on a pretty small aircraft. Remember that the F15s during exercises found it difficult to spot the ancient mig 21, so you get the idea that LCA which should have atleast a similar RCS, if not lower
Will be a bit more difficult to track by ground based radar, particularly if it flies low altitude.
Fourthly un case of Pak, the total width of the country is 300-400 km, with major strategic positions close to the border, meaning that they come within the range of an LCA.

 

[DivineHeretic]

Nobody sends a light combat aircraft with limited payload and range to do SEAD missions. That is suicidal. You wont see many targets worth hitting close to the border. No idea where you get low RCS from either. It is a 3/4 gen fighter. Just because it is light dosnt means the RCS is better than other comparable fighters.

Firstly You have completely misunderstood my argument. Nowhere did I say that the LCA should be used as SEAD platform, though it is well within the ability of the lca to do this task, if asked. Secondly, low payload is not a problem for a SEAD platform, it is not going on a carpet bombing mission and neither is one aircraft going to take out all the SAM sites. A couple Anti radiation munitions will suffice for a SAM site which is what the LCA will be asked to do.
Thirdly the low RCS point of mine comes not because of stealth characteristics, but rather is the product of using composite materials on a pretty small aircraft. Remember that the F15s during exercises found it difficult to spot the ancient mig 21, so you get the idea that LCA which should have atleast a similar RCS, if not lower
Will be a bit more difficult to track by ground based radar, particularly if it flies low altitude.
Fourthly un case of Pak, the total width of the country is 300-400 km, with major strategic positions close to the border, meaning that they come within the range of an LCA.

 

[DivineHeretic]

Imho, its a multirole in that sense ..

I am sure you will remember the famous cope india exercise with the USAF in 2004. What is more important to note than the superiority of the SU over the F15 is the willingness of the IAF to be creative with the different aircraft at its disposal, turning a disadvantage in logistics into an advantage in air combat. In the exercise the IAF had used the mig21s to launch offensives and take out the F15 using the SU as AWACS, using the small RCS of the mig to our advantage. Similarly during the Malabar series of exercise the IAF with the IN used the Jaguar to penetrate the defences of the CBG and bomb it. Note this might not happen against the USN/USAF in real life but it does show thatbthe IAF isnt planning the SU as the sole fighter in the IAF or to use it exclusively for taking out bogies. I suspect the IAF will follow a version of the Napoleon doctrine of using the more powerfull aircraft i.e. SU to crush the weaker aircraft (JFT/F7/Mirage 3-4) while the other aircraft will take on the most capable(F16/J10) aircraft in ratio higher than 1:2 and use sheer numbers and tactics to destroy or stop them from achieving their objectives till their existance is of little relevance to the air war, thus preventing higher losses of the costly frontline combat aircraft. In this way, the smaller snd cheaper aircraft will be as important, if not more to the progression of the air war in our favour.

 

[ice berg]

Firstly You have completely misunderstood my argument. Nowhere did I say that the LCA should be used as SEAD platform, though it is well within the ability of the lca to do this task, if asked. Secondly, low payload is not a problem for a SEAD platform, it is not going on a carpet bombing mission and neither is one aircraft going to take out all the SAM sites. A couple Anti radiation munitions will suffice for a SAM site which is what the LCA will be asked to do.
Thirdly the low RCS point of mine comes not because of stealth characteristics, but rather is the product of using composite materials on a pretty small aircraft. Remember that the F15s during exercises found it difficult to spot the ancient mig 21, so you get the idea that LCA which should have atleast a similar RCS, if not lower
Will be a bit more difficult to track by ground based radar, particularly if it flies low altitude.
Fourthly un case of Pak, the total width of the country is 300-400 km, with major strategic positions close to the border, meaning that they come within the range of an LCA.

Read your own sentences. You are contradicting yourself. Is it for SEAD missions or not?
This is what you said:
Their relatively low RCS comnined with the Elta Jammer pods should provide them with the ability to fly short distance into hostile air space where the SU with its massive RCS might be too expensive to be lost to ground fire, and the Jaguar not being nimble enough to scoot after a payload delivery.
SU-30 MKI are the primary candidates for SEAD missions today even if they are considered as multirole.

And payload is not important in SEAD mission? Who you trying to fool? You gonna ask your pilots to fly into enemy territories just to drop two missiles? And what is the anti-radiation missile that LCA can carry anyway? With the limited payload LCA got, it is not gonna hit very much.
Or you gonna send in a swarm of them? ROFL

If using some composites is all it takes to bring 3/4 gen to 5 gen standards, then all airforces will be using it. You are overestimate the importance of composite materials.
You know all exercises are under certain conditions, right? You are trying to apply that to real world engagements?

 

[DivineHeretic]

Read your own sentences. You are contradicting yourself. Is it for SEAD missions or not?
This is what you said:
Their relatively low RCS comnined with the Elta Jammer pods should provide them with the ability to fly short distance into hostile air space where the SU with its massive RCS might be too expensive to be lost to ground fire, and the Jaguar not being nimble enough to scoot after a payload delivery.
SU-30 MKI are the primary candidates for SEAD missions today even if they are considered as multirole.

And payload is not important in SEAD mission? Who you trying to fool? You gonna ask your pilots to fly into enemy territories just to drop two missiles? And what is the anti-radiation missile that LCA can carry anyway? With the limited payload LCA got, it is not gonna hit very much.
Or you gonna send in a swarm of them? ROFL

If using some composites is all it takes to bring 3/4 gen to 5 gen standards, then all airforces will be using it. You are overestimate the importance of composite materials.
You know all exercises are under certain conditions, right? You are trying to apply that to real world engagements?

What I meant by the line u bolded is that the LCA is more suited to penetrate into enemy airspace over short distance to provide CAS to the IBGs which will be launching penetrating attacks. So how am i contradicting myself?
And as far as payload for SEAD is concerned, you dont need to carry 8 tonnes of munition to take out a couple or three SAM sites. You just need to take out the radar to decommision a SAM system. And you can do that with a single anti radiation munition or even with PGMs. So 4 tonnes of payload is enough. Hell the US used its AH64Cs in SEAD role, maybe you will want to teach Uncle Sam that what they did was wrong. And you need to fly a bomb truck for SEAD..

And when did I say that the LCA has 5th gen stealth, for all I know it could be 2nd gen and still have low rcs, simoly because the fighter is so small. Size actually does matter and the composites do decrease the rcs by a good margin.

Maybe you have comprehension issues.

 

[ice berg]

What I meant by the line u bolded is that the LCA is more suited to penetrate into enemy airspace over short distance to provide CAS to the IBGs which will be launching penetrating attacks. So how am i contradicting myself?
And as far as payload for SEAD is concerned, you dont need to carry 8 tonnes of munition to take out a couple or three SAM sites. You just need to take out the radar to decommision a SAM system. And you can do that with a single anti radiation munition or even with PGMs. So 4 tonnes of payload is enough. Hell the US used its AH64Cs in SEAD role, maybe you will want to teach Uncle Sam that what they did was wrong. And you need to fly a bomb truck for SEAD..

And when did I say that the LCA has 5th gen stealth, for all I know it could be 2nd gen and still have low rcs, simoly because the fighter is so small. Size actually does matter and the composites do decrease the rcs by a good margin.

Maybe you have comprehension issues.

From your description it was clear that you were talking about SEAD. You mentioned MKI in the same sentence as LCA. Since MKI is meant for SEAD missions,then obviously you were thinking in the same role.
So now you change it to CAS? Do you even know what CAS is? LCA is an interceptor. It is ill suited for CAS missions.
And from LCA to AH64? Wtf. Try to stick to topic.

You do not conduct SEAD missions without a risk assesment. Only in your imaginary world will IAF send fighters with limited payload into enemy territories. The less payload you got, the less bomb you can drop on the enemies. Between a fighter with 8 tonnes of munitions and LCA with 2/3 tonnes, who you think they will choose? LCA?? ROFL.

And it is your own assumptions that composites decrease the rcs by a good margin. RSC is about signature management. It is about the whole package. Slap some composites is not gonna change the fact it has no internal weapons bay and never designed in the same way as 5 gen fighters. You noticed IAF never hyped the use of composites. It is fanboys like you who like to think it reduces RCS by a good margin, what ever that means.

My understanding is just fine. You , on the other hand have troubles understanding the role of LCA and started to linking it with SEAD and CAS.
None of them suitable for LCA.

 

[sathya]

What happened to the LSP-6?

you know its devoted to EXPERIMENTAL purpose (i guess for development of MK2)

 

[Defcon 1]

From your description it was clear that you were talking about SEAD. You mentioned MKI in the same sentence as LCA. Since MKI is meant for SEAD missions,then obviously you were thinking in the same role.
So now you change it to CAS? Do you even know what CAS is? LCA is an interceptor. It is ill suited for CAS missions.
And from LCA to AH64? Wtf. Try to stick to topic.

You do not conduct SEAD missions without a risk assesment. Only in your imaginary world will IAF send fighters with limited payload into enemy territories. The less payload you got, the less bomb you can drop on the enemies. Between a fighter with 8 tonnes of munitions and LCA with 2/3 tonnes, who you think they will choose? LCA?? ROFL.

And it is your own assumptions that composites decrease the rcs by a good margin. RSC is about signature management. It is about the whole package. Slap some composites is not gonna change the fact it has no internal weapons bay and never designed in the same way as 5 gen fighters. You noticed IAF never hyped the use of composites. It is fanboys like you who like to think it reduces RCS by a good margin, what ever that means.

My understanding is just fine. You , on the other hand have troubles understanding the role of LCA and started to linking it with SEAD and CAS.
None of them suitable for LCA.

Tell me one good reason why an aircraft with low payload can't be used for SEAD missions? Tell me what do you know about SEAD missions. First of all, bombs are not used for that purpose. Anti radiation missiles are, and LCA can carry about three of Kh-29. Payload is hardly an issue because aircraft safety is of paramount importance. LCA has higher chance of returning back safely after a SEAD mission, so there is no reason one will not use LCA. Your "risk assessment" will favor LCA, and not MKI.

You again fail to comprehend the RCS issue. LCA will have significantly lower RCS as compared to MKI since MKI is a heavy weight class fighter, while LCA is a light interceptor.

 

[ersakthivel]

From your description it was clear that you were talking about SEAD. You mentioned MKI in the same sentence as LCA. Since MKI is meant for SEAD missions,then obviously you were thinking in the same role.
So now you change it to CAS? Do you even know what CAS is? LCA is an interceptor. It is ill suited for CAS missions.
And from LCA to AH64? Wtf. Try to stick to topic.

You do not conduct SEAD missions without a risk assesment. Only in your imaginary world will IAF send fighters with limited payload into enemy territories. The less payload you got, the less bomb you can drop on the enemies. Between a fighter with 8 tonnes of munitions and LCA with 2/3 tonnes, who you think they will choose? LCA?? ROFL.

And it is your own assumptions that composites decrease the rcs by a good margin. RSC is about signature management. It is about the whole package. Slap some composites is not gonna change the fact it has no internal weapons bay and never designed in the same way as 5 gen fighters. You noticed IAF never hyped the use of composites. It is fanboys like you who like to think it reduces RCS by a good margin, what ever that means.

My understanding is just fine. You , on the other hand have troubles understanding the role of LCA and started to linking it with SEAD and CAS.
None of them suitable for LCA.

1.Tejas is going to have 5 tons of munitions in mk-2,if the payload is less more number of fighters will be deployed that's all.
An aircraft with lesser RCS is always preferrable for any mission over enemy territory, you can make up the shortfall in weapon store by having more number of fighters.
2.All fighters face the same risk in SEAD Mission or any other mission,
3.With least RCS tejas has no shortcommings for any mission compared to sukhoi within it's range,
4.I already told you this signature manangemnet and composite feature WHICH IS NOT DONE FOR SUKHOI is done for tejas from design phase itself.
5.Tejas was designed as the least RCS 4.5th gen fighter,
6.Any so called 5th gen too will be detected by L band ASEAs and stealth uCAVS in future.

 

[Sakal Gharelu Ustad]

Are there any plans to sell it to other countries?

It should cost significantly less(almost 18%) when compared to peers like Grippen.

 

[Defcon 1]

Are there any plans to sell it to other countries?

It should cost significantly less(almost 18%) when compared to peers like Grippen.

It will be atleast 2022 before our own demand can be met. After that, if market is left for 4th gen light fighters, perhaps.

 

[p2prada]

Tell me one good reason why an aircraft with low payload can't be used for SEAD missions? Tell me what do you know about SEAD missions. First of all, bombs are not used for that purpose. Anti radiation missiles are, and LCA can carry about three of Kh-29. Payload is hardly an issue because aircraft safety is of paramount importance. LCA has higher chance of returning back safely after a SEAD mission, so there is no reason one will not use LCA. Your "risk assessment" will favor LCA, and not MKI.

You again fail to comprehend the RCS issue. LCA will have significantly lower RCS as compared to MKI since MKI is a heavy weight class fighter, while LCA is a light interceptor.

Heavy aircraft are used for SEAD. Light aircraft do not have the electronics or the payload to be effective. That's because heavy aircraft have the endurance and payload to take multiple shots at radars and stay over the battlefield before the radar system vanishes again.

Rafales conducted 6 to 7 hour missions for the same over Libya. Bombs and ARMs are used. Actually ARMs have a very low probability of success. Rafales don't even have ARMs, they used AASM against Libyan SAM sites.

The risk assessment will always favor a heavier aircraft irrespective of RCS. That's because once weapons like ARMs and bombs are added the RCS measurements will see massive spikes in readings. While low RCS is good to have, it doesn't really affect strike aircraft like people assume. That's because strike aircraft already fly very low and and ground clutter and flying below the radar guarantee higher results.

If we assume LCA will also fly very low for strike missions in such mission profiles, then the combat radius of the aircraft will be extremely low, too low to be effective. At the same time, an aircraft like Jaguar will perform admirably well due to it's design.

Primary SEAD operations in Iraq were carried out by aircraft like F-15E and F-117. F-16s came in much later.

 

[p2prada]

Are there any plans to sell it to other countries?

It should cost significantly less(almost 18%) when compared to peers like Grippen.

No such plan as of today. We will be hard pressed to achieve IAF and IN targets by the middle of next decade.

It will be atleast 2022 before our own demand can be met. After that, if market is left for 4th gen light fighters, perhaps.

There will be a market in Africa and South America for light 4.5th gen fighters.

Gripen NG, JF-17 B3 and maybe even KF-X will be competitors in such an environment.

 

[ersakthivel]

Heavy aircraft with their massive RCS attract enemy fighters like magnet.

They can be detected at longer range and defending fighters will have more time for reaction which goes against the very essence of discreet sead missions.

Mrcas like tejas mk-2 can fly more in number , detectable at only half the distance of heavier fighters ,are as good as a candidate as any other fighter,

Rafale has to fly for 6 hours because of not of the mission's demand, only due to their faraway home bases.

For TEJAS all it's targets are located well within this range, Typically SEAD targets are stationary , and no long time on station is required,

What is more important for SEAD mission is dedicated ew craft support more than anything else.

Regards export for tejsas

Once TEJAS MK-2 completes the FOC , if export interest come in all it needs to be done is to ramp up the production line for the projected demand.

With private sector eagerly waiting to participate and if engine supplies are negotiated in advance there is no bar on production of TEJAS to the so called magical number of 8.

The attraction of tejas in export market is very good,if only the GTRE finishes the proposed JV and gathers steam on K-10 engine,

If there is some guarantee of K-10 delivery is indicated ,TEJAS will be the only 4.5 th gen single engined fighter with asea and long range BVRs ,not controlled by US strings.The grippen NG is going to have US engines so can't have this USP..

For Nations buying TEJAS , some guaranty of replacement of the original US engine with home grown engine in first engine change is definitely an alluring prospect.

Because Grippen NG can't give this free of US influence tag to potential customers, which is now the exclusive trump card of JF-17.

What more TEJAS willl have full support in future upgrades because many of the advanced systems and longer range missiles and specialized ground attack stand off weapons to be developed for AMCA will be available for TEJAS mk-2 along with indian engines in first MLU itself.

All countries all over the world will need modern 4.5 th gen fighters in huge numbers to replace their obsolete mig-21s.

By no stretch of imagination you can argue that they will be lining up to buy 5th gen fighters at 100s of millions of dollars per piece.

 

[SATISH]

Well I accept that Tejas can go and bomb the targets in an SEAD mission but will it have enough Bingo fuel to return safely back home? What will happen if it is intercepted by any other enemy aircraft on its way? What when flying low is targeted by some MANPAD can it shake it off and still complete the mission and get back home? So by adding a heavy ARM and LGB which I think atleast 2 must be carried for a guaranteed mission success, won't the range decrease? What about the EW capability of Tejas compared to the SU 30/Rafale which have higher electrical output? But I think heavier aircrafts are more suited for the role or dedicated DPSA is a better call compared to using the Tejas.

I dont deny that the Tejas cant do an SEAD but I think the Su 30 and the Rafale or Jaguar will be a much better choice.

 

[DivineHeretic]

Well I accept that Tejas can go and bomb the targets in an SEAD mission but will it have enough Bingo fuel to return safely back home? What will happen if it is intercepted by any other enemy aircraft on its way? What when flying low is targeted by some MANPAD can it shake it off and still complete the mission and get back home? So by adding a heavy ARM and LGB which I think atleast 2 must be carried for a guaranteed mission success, won't the range decrease? What about the EW capability of Tejas compared to the SU 30/Rafale which have higher electrical output? But I think heavier aircrafts are more suited for the role or dedicated DPSA is a better call compared to using the Tejas.

I dont deny that the Tejas cant do an SEAD but I think the Su 30 and the Rafale or Jaguar will be a much better choice.

I'd also agree that aircraft with high payload and range make better candidates for SEAD missions, particularly when the aircraft has low RCS. My statements in the past weren't in opposition to this fact. I believe that LCA could be used as a SEAD platform in the Indo Pak context because of the fact that majority of pak SAM and radar systems are very close to the border and are at best medium range medium altitude systems i.e. The Spada 2000. The LCA can infact fly over the envelope of the SAM protection and conduct SEAD missions, guided by SU or AWACS platform identifying and locating the position of the AD system.

There is also the added advantage of spoofing the PAF air defence grid setup by the fighters. A SU or a Rafale will instantaneously draw more attention and assets of the PAF than a LCA. Using the two in combination it is possible to allow the SU to be the escort with the LCA conducting the strike delivery.

 

[SATISH]

I'd also agree that aircraft with high payload and range make better candidates for SEAD missions, particularly when the aircraft has low RCS. My statements in the past weren't in opposition to this fact. I believe that LCA could be used as a SEAD platform in the Indo Pak context because of the fact that majority of pak SAM and radar systems are very close to the border and are at best medium range medium altitude systems i.e. The Spada 2000. The LCA can infact fly over the envelope of the SAM protection and conduct SEAD missions, guided by SU or AWACS platform identifying and locating the position of the AD system.

There is also the added advantage of spoofing the PAF air defence grid setup by the fighters. A SU or a Rafale will instantaneously draw more attention and assets of the PAF than a LCA. Using the two in combination it is possible to allow the SU to be the escort with the LCA conducting the strike delivery.

Yes it is going to draw more attention but adding external payload is going to spike the RCS manifold and I think you know what I am talking about...a 1m^2 RCS is going to increase to atleast 3-4m^2 RCS which is going to negate all the advantage wven if it is going to fly low. and our opponents also have AWACS in their fleet. LCA will do the work of an interceptor far better than going and doing an SEAD. The Combat radius is very less compared to the medium and heavy class fighter and as most of the SEAD missions require flying low the air density being higher in the low altitude flight regimen there will be reduced ranges.

Above all the main thing is the On-station time of heavier aircraft is very high so they can engage and disengage at will and again re-engage the whole fight keeping the enemy on their toes. LCA might be used in SEAD role as a last ditch effort or as a surprise but not as a dedicated aircraft.

 

[ersakthivel]

TEJAS mk-2 can do sead missions in the forward area, which places no restrictions on it's time on station,

Most of the enemy airdefence installations will be concentrated here and are well within the unrefuelled range of tejas,

And the lower RCS of tejas will help in shortening the reaction time of enemy air defense is my opinion,

If it carries only stremlined missiles , I don't think the increase in RCs will be 10 times or 20 times,

If conformal fuel tanks are added it won't contribute much to RCS,

If it carries non streamlined heavy RCS unfriendly external stores it's RCs will increase heavily,

Agreed it's RCS will increase, but the proportionate increase for other heavy fighters like SUKHOI will still be many fold,



If you want to do it deep inside enemy territory Rafale is the candidate,
It's lower RCs will contribute to it's advantage,

There are talk of minimal RCS external weapon bays which will drastically reduce the RCS of clean configuration lower RCS 4.5 th gen fighters like RAFALe and TEJAS mk-2,

Otherwise risks are the same

All fighters on SEAD mission need Ew craft support is my assumption, their own radar and jamming abilities won''t do, however superior compared to enemy fighters,

Because these are the first missions carried into well defended enemy airspace in the first day of the battle,

So they will have to rely on EW support besides their own ew suite is my opinion.

Sukhoi is best suited for heavy ground strike with highly accurate BRAHMOS missile and going to be the main stay of STRIKE arm of IAF,

Agreed it can be as good an air dominance fighter, But it is a key asset that will help india to dominate the indian ocean with it's vast range and heavy guided munition, In fact it will effectively cordon off the ocean in sea denial mode in combination with NAVY,

In these roles it's higher RCS won't place any penalties on it's mission as there won''t be any worth while enemy challenge,

And if long range BVrs are added it will make a mincemeat of any opposition fighter formation entering Indian airspace with it's heavy missile load and unparalleled close combat abilities,

 

[DivineHeretic]

Yes it is going to draw more attention but adding external payload is going to spike the RCS manifold and I think you know what I am talking about...a 1m^2 RCS is going to increase to atleast 3-4m^2 RCS which is going to negate all the advantage wven if it is going to fly low. and our opponents also have AWACS in their fleet. LCA will do the work of an interceptor far better than going and doing an SEAD. The Combat radius is very less compared to the medium and heavy class fighter and as most of the SEAD missions require flying low the air density being higher in the low altitude flight regimen there will be reduced ranges.

Above all the main thing is the On-station time of heavier aircraft is very high so they can engage and disengage at will and again re-engage the whole fight keeping the enemy on their toes. LCA might be used in SEAD role as a last ditch effort or as a surprise but not as a dedicated aircraft.

I agree with you totally that the LCA cannot be used as a dedicated SEAD pkatform, what I can expect it to do is an unexpected series of unexpected initial strikes at the beginning to stun the enemy. Also one thing I will repeat is that the Pak SAM envelope is rather limited, both in range and more importantly in altitude. It is possible to simply fly over this envelope and conduct SEAD strikes to the targets using the KH series of Anti radiation missiles, which unfortunately the PAF cannot replicate on our SAM sites. Note that this will not work on the Chinese.