ADA Tejas (LCA) News and Discussions

[p2prada]

@p2prada, @Twinblade @ersakthivel @Kunal Biswas sir. The mirage 2000s we have must have gone up gainst the mkis. WHat were the results? There must be some comments by the IAF pilots on the matter. Because however it fared, the tejas is supposed to fare better according to the test pilots who say the tejas is better than the mirage 2000 in essential parameters and because of its lesser rcs and visual stealth in the WVR. It will give s an idea as to how the a sqaudron of tejas can tackle the sukhoi clones of PLAAF.

According to IAF pilots, the Mirage-2000s got hammered. MKIs achieved kills without being spotted. The same with Mig-29. But the radars on Mirage-2000 and Mig-29 are older.

However it is also important to note that the MKIs were configured a few years later compared to Mirage-2000 and Mig-29 deliveries and there is no significant difference in timeline.

Anyway, some observations posted on Vayu Sena.

Vayu Sena - Su-30MK versus Mirage 2000: Capability analysis

Yet in the interceptor role Sukhoi is more preferable, as its 3000-km flight range (40 per cent greater than that of the Mirage 2000) allows it to cover the territory of virtually any Asian country.

In terms of weapon load delivered on ground attack missions, Sukhoi surpasses Mirage by 25-40 per cent. This feature enables the Russian fighter to considerably reduce time (by 30 per cent) required to destroy ground targets, particularly with air bombs.

All Russian modern fighters, including Su-30MK, are equipped with an optical locating station (OLS) designed to search, detect, lock on, automatically track aerial targets, and determine target coordinates and range.

The Russian fighter features high survivability, provided by a wide range of assets, in addition to those provided by its two-engine configuration. Systems protecting from fuel loss and hydro-shock, as well as the fire fighting system (which also protects airframe compartments) improve survivability by 20 per cent compared to that of Mirage class fighters.

With their high power and ballistic parameters, Su-30MK 's long-range air-to-air missiles allow it to deliver preventive attacks. In terms of range, these missiles surpass French AAMs of a similar class by 20-30 per cent (for example, Mirage's Super Matra) and can maintain large advantage zones in long-range air combat.

One should also consider a 2-3 time advantage of the Su-30MK in the number of simultaneously carried air-to-ground guided weapons and their higher efficiency.

Compared to Mirage, the Russian aircraft the advantages include greater tactical range and weapon load (guided weapons) and better survivability, which all result in the overwhelming superiority of the Russian aircraft. For example, Sukhoi is 2-3 times more effective than the Mirage 2000-5 when employed against airfields and infrastructural targets; it is two times more effective against armored vehicles and three times more effective against sea targets. In all, the Su-30MK vs. Mirage 2000-5 combat capability ratio stands at 2:1 (in combat actions against a totality of ground and surface targets).

These are snippets from the article that highlight Su-30MK's advantage over Mirage-2000-5. In the end, the LCA Mk1 will be inferior to a Mirage-2000-5 and the difference will only increase when we consider MKI is far more advanced (including radar) compared to Su-30MK and will be upgraded to incredibly greater heights after the Super 30 upgrade program is completed. Also note that the basic Su-30MK is actually inferior in terms of avionics and radar compared to a fully upgraded Mirage-2000-5 and still has inherent advantages listed above that are only amplified by the MKI significantly.

LCA Mk2 will be a bit more advanced, reaching Gripen/Gripen NG standards, but by the time LCA Mk2 begins induction MKI production will have ended and FGFA production would have begin, which is considered to be at least 200% superior to the MKI.

FYI, Sukhoi claims a 40% superiority of the Su-35BM in air to air missions against Rafales and EF-2000s. They even boast a TVC maneuver which allows the BM to turn the aircraft 360 degrees and still maintain speed without slowing down called the Pancake.

In terms of costs, MKIs are actually extremely cheap to operate. In the Malaysian competition, the competition was between F/A-18 Super Hornet and MKI to replace F/A-18 Hornet. MKI won because it was found to be superior to the Super Hornet in pretty much every parameter except for ground attack. In terms of flight hour costs, MKI was three times cheaper than the Super Hornet.

PS: LCA will never handle Chinese Su-27 clones simply because LCAs won't see service against PLAAF. All our Jaguar and LCA squadrons will be deployed against PAF.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Tejas are ninjas, they are small stealthy armed with 90 off-bore sight with R-73 with a good radar and BVR ..

There detection is lowest compare to any fighter in IAF presently, Tejas can take on any 4th gen fighter..

It will give s an idea as to how the a sqaudron of tejas can tackle the sukhoi clones of PLAAF.

 

[ersakthivel]

@p2prada, @Twinblade @ersakthivel @Kunal Biswas sir. The mirage 2000s we have must have gone up gainst the mkis. WHat were the results? There must be some comments by the IAF pilots on the matter. Because however it fared, the tejas is supposed to fare better according to the test pilots who say the tejas is better than the mirage 2000 in essential parameters and because of its lesser rcs and visual stealth in the WVR. It will give s an idea as to how the a sqaudron of tejas can tackle the sukhoi clones of PLAAF.

Mirage 2000s with the IAF have a clean config RCS of 1.2 meters or more,

What is the radar detection range of IAF Mirage-2000 and the range of long range BVRs?

So even after launching all BVRs Mirage-2000 with it's 1.2 sq meter RCS will present a big enough target for the powerful PLAF SU-30 radars to track and launch.

But after the lunch of all long range BVRs Tejas will have a much smaller 0.2 meter RCS .

So it will not be visible to the PLAF SU-30 's radars from from even medium BVR range forget about long range BVR s.

SO While Sukhoi with a 5 meter clean config RCS will be visible to the Tejas fire control radars even in clean config, tejas won't be be visible to the Su-30 fire control radars even in clean config,

SO the BVRs fired by PLAF SU-30s won't be given mid course update by PLAF fire control radars,

And if PLAF SU-30 tries to jam tejas mk-1s radar using ESM this jamming alone would be used by tejas to guide the BVR on Su-30 without even using it's radars.

So PLAF Su-30 vs IAF Mirage-2000 and PAF F-16 blk 52 Vs Mirage 2000

will be very different cup of tea compared to

PLAF Su-30 vs IAF tejas and PAF F-16 blk 52 VsTejas

Even Tejas mk-1 has 10 percent more TWR than the Mirage-2000 and a more powerful MMR radar with 150 km tracking range,

But Tejas mk-2 will have a difficult to locate and jam ASEA radar along with 20 percent more TWR than the Tejas mk-1, So it will be unbeatable by any legacy fighter on PLAF and PAF fleet , if we strictly use the specs as guidance.

So the following analogy applies ,

1.A clean config RCS of 0.3 (not really known , but lets take the statement that it will have a third of Mirage -2000 RCS at face value),

2. Six air to air missiles with 0.5 (as said by Decklander)X 6 = 3 sq meters will give an RCS of 3.5 meter max to LCA mk-1 in lightly loaded quick response air to air interception role .

If you do the same calculation for PLAF Su-30 then it's clean config RCS of 5 sq meters + 3 sq meters(same 6 X 0.5 sq meter load out) will give a cumulative RCS of minimum 8 sq meters for SU-30.

So even if PLAF SU-30 has 30 percent more radome dia giving it a more powerful radar it will present 2.5 times more RCS to the 30 percent smaller dia radar of the LCA Tejas, So in practical terms the big radome dia of PLAF Su-30 will hold no significant advantage over much smaller RCS of tejas.


So tracking by both the radars may happen simultaneously in real time with no significant advantage for either one of them,

But what happens after tracking is very interesting,

Say a squadron of 20 tejas fighters fire all their 0.5 sq meter BVRs on a squadron of 20 PLAF SU-30, and both start evading maneuvers ,

What happens after that?

The RCS for tejas will reduce ten fold to just 0.3 sq meter , but for SU-30 it will reduce by just 40 percent to 5 sq meters,

So in theory 20 tejas fighters will vanish from the big powerful radar of PLAF Su-30 because no PLAF su-30 radar can pick up a sub 0.5 meter Tejas target from any distance greater than say 50 Km.

So how will the Su-30 give mid course guidance to it's BVRs to home in on Tejas ?

The 120 KM range BVrs have their own active seekers , but they can detect tejas only from a closer distance of say 18 Km.

Simply there is no way PLAF Su-30 can guide it's 120 Km or 240 Km BVR on tejas in this circumstances.

But still all the 20 tejas will see the big 5 sq meter clean config PLAF SU-30 on their radar screen as big as foot ball. So with their discreet ASEA radars(in MK-2 , and will definitely come in as MLU in MK-1 as well) they will continue to guide them on the much bigger RCS PLAF SU-30.

So there is no guarantee that PLAF SU-30 radar will look first, fire first, fill first at all times when it comes to air to air BVR combat?

That is the reason 4.5th gen fighters are designed with lower RCS , to minimize tracking by opposing fighter fleet's X band fire control radars.

If you use lifecycle costing and MLU costing along with maintanenace cost we can field two or three tejas mk-2 for every single PLAF SU-30. SO on the first day fleet vs fleet battles each Su-30 will have an unenviable job of jamming all the difficult to jam ASEA radars while continuing to be visible to Tejas ASEA radars as targets,

But Tejas mk-2 in clean config can not be tracked and targeted by PLAF su-30 X band fire control radars from any distance greater than 50 Km, But tejas mk-2 will detect any PLAF SU-30 in clean config from distances in excess of 150 Km.

it is an undeniable physical fact.

If stealth external weapon bays are introduced on Tejas mk-2(it is being done in Hornets and F-15 and it can be done on all other fighters) then any SU-30 X band fire control radar won't see Tejas mk-2 from any distance greater than 50 Km

 

[brahmastra11]

what difference does it makes with PLAF Su-35 ?

 

[Kunal Biswas]

There is no plaaf su-35, ..

what difference does it makes with PLAF Su-35 ?

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Keep tejas thread till tejas ..

 

[ersakthivel]

I consider him to be an idiot not worth responding to. Complete waste of time. He severely lacks in comprehending what I am saying too and the discussion goes nowhere. He is on my ignore list, so I ignore all of his posts and have never replied to a single post of his in the two years he's been here.

I don't want to say what I think about you, because everyone around here knows it,

I know why you won't reply to my posts because you have no replies.

400 LCAs is beyond sanctioned strength. Children like those numbers. Even 6 squadrons is asking for much. I have explained a bit of that in post #71. Anyway, at planned capacity, it would take 25 years at 16/year or 50 years at 8/year to get to 400.

Russians are planning to produce around 1000 FGFA s including exports.

So at 16 a year Sukhoi will take 50 years for FGFA

and

at 25 a year Sukhoi will take 40 years

to produce all those FGFAs by your logic,

If you turn around and say no no Sukhoi will produce them at faster rate, You have to answer if firm orders are given what stops HAl from increasing production capacity to 30 or 40 fighters a year.

Thats why most of your comments are crap AFAIk.

For the entire LCA project, 200 LCAs is the best number shared between IAF, IN and exports if possible. The current official numbers is 178 as mentioned by HAL. 123 (40 Mk1 + 83 Mk2) for IAF, 53 (8 + 45) for IN. The remaining 2, I don't know where that fits, but 178 is the official figure today.

If Rupee touches 70 0r 80 a dollar then there will be no justification in going for 200 rafales at the same cost of 500 Tejas mk-2s which will have same Thrust to weight ratio and higher top speeds with same radome dia when compared to RAFALE

And in those circumstances orders for tejas mk-2 will increase many fold if stuff like external stealth weapon bays are added to much more powerful tejas mk-2 then there will be no justification for the rip off called RAFALE deal.

Since most of the long range strike roles will be split between the 270 odd SU-30 MKIs and long range cruise missiles like Nirbhay there is no justification for going for the extremely costly RAFALE buy.

And since you have already posted that you write without even knowing full specs of Tejas mk-2 which will be in the same class as Grippen Ng, you are even more ill equipped to calculate your at the most export numbers as well.

I believe 2 LCAs in April next year was planned. Currently the plan is to just get the IOC certificate as soon as possible. First LCA will be out 6 months after IOC is given. 2 more will follow after a year. Then 4 the next year, followed by 4 more after that and then 8 and 8 and 8 for a total of 40 aircraft. Production time period would be 6 years for the first 40. That's 2018. I suppose Mk2 production will commence after that. I don't know how the Naval requirement will be filled. I suppose their aircraft will be ready for induction only next decade. Event the lone Naval prototype is grounded as of today.

Obviously you have neither read the Avinash Chander interview which clearly states that all bottle necks for serial production are cleared and a few serial production tejas Mk-1 will arrive on this year end,

And already plans are afoot to ramp up capacity to produce 25 an year,

So this 2 this year , 2 next year, 4 the year next production shedule of yours is fit for lalal land.

Since there is no rocket science involved in tejas mk-2 modification which will simply keep the same wing loading which means most of the testing points can be shortened .

Also most of the teething troubles were licked in Mk-1 itself

[like 250 IAF request for Actions which were all cleared in tejas mk-1 itself from 2006 when it came on board,
leaking fuel lines, pilot helmet getting higher than the seat after the new HMDS addition, ]


with no big problems remaining in MK-2 it will get it's IOC very quickly like the Sukhoi PAKFA which is about to be delivered to Russian airforce next year (but it has finished just 500 odd test flights till date.)

So the time for navel gazing has long gone for tejas biters.

 

[ersakthivel]

India Expects Tejas Induction by Late 2013, Early 2014 | Defense News | defensenews.com

India's defense minister says his country's Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) program should be inducted into the Indian Air Force by the end of this year or early next year. The program is 15 years behind schedule.

After reviewing the schedule for the plane's development, Defence Minister A.K. Antony told Parliament in an Aug. 5 letter that he has asked the Defence Research and Development Organisation and Aeronautical Development Agency to adhere to the schedule of obtaining initial operational clearance (IOC) for the plane at the end of this year, followed by final operational clearance (FOC) at the end of 2014. Induction is likely after IOC, he wrote.

An official with Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL), which will produce the LCA, said HAL can produce four planes per year, but added that HAL could bring that number to eight within a year after IOC clearance.

"HAL also has plans to augment the production capacity to 16 aircraft within three years after IOC clearance based on the firm orders to be received," the HAL official said.

The Indian Air Force has already contracted 40 LCA Mark 1 aircraft, while the the requirement for Mark 2 aircraft is 83.

However, the Air Force ultimately wants 124 Mark 2 LCAs, the first of which is expected to be inducted in 2017-18.

India is also developing the naval version of the LCA, which is scheduled to be inducted in the Indian Navy in 2015.

Designed by Bangalore-based Aeronautical Development Agency and state-owned HAL, the naval version will be equipped to operate from an aircraft carrier with ski-jump take-off and arrested recovery capability. The naval version has been designed with structural and landing gear modifications to the existing Air Force version to cater to larger loads and arrested recovery.

The Indian Navy has already ordered six LCA naval versions and has committed around US $30 million for each aircraft.

The LCA's naval version is a small, lightweight, tailless, multi-role, supersonic fighter aircraft and will be deployed on India's new indigenous aircraft carrier, which is now expected to be commissioned by 2018.

People saying 2 next year, 4 in 2015, 8 in 2016 and never more than 8 an year can read the above quote to know that production capacity is directly related to orders for the fighter.

HAL also has plans to augment the production capacity to 16 aircraft within three years after IOC clearance based on the firm orders to be received," the HAL official said.


SO if in future if export orders are received like in the case of HAL ALH-Dhurv production can go up according to the orders,

Keep in mind a bare bone Tejas with K-9 engine can meet the LIFT requirement of most airforces of the world at a much cheaper cost. If this export potential is exploited, it is plain to see that the tejas production line capacity will be dependant upon nothing but the orders from IAF, export orders and bare bone LIFT version orders.

So tarot card reading like none this year, 4 next year, 4 next year and never more than 8 an year are simply not facts.

 

[Defcon 1]

Tejas are ninjas, they are small stealthy armed with 90 off-bore sight with R-73 with a good radar and BVR ..

There detection is lowest compare to any fighter in IAF presently, Tejas can take on any 4th gen fighter..

Where did you get the 90 degree angle from?

 

[p2prada]

Where did you get the 90 degree angle from?

R-73 has a 60 deg off bore sight. R-74 and RVV-MD have it higher at 75 deg.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Arent you following the thread ?, It was mentioned many times about DASH 3 HMDS integrated with Tejas ..

Next time read the thread, Before making knee jerking questions ..

Where did you get the 90 degree angle from?

 

[Defcon 1]

R-73 has a 60 deg off bore sight. R-74 and RVV-MD have it higher at 75 deg.

That was my knowledge as well.

 

[p2prada]

That was my knowledge as well.

Apparently, missiles specs increase if they are on LCA.

 

[Defcon 1]

Apparently, missiles specs increase if they are on LCA.

Well people believe what they want to. Do you any info about what version of R73 we are going to see on Tejas? Will it be R74m or an older version?

 

[ersakthivel]

Well people believe what they want to. Do you any info about what version of R73 we are going to see on Tejas? Will it be R74m or an older version?

Python (missile) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Python-5 is currently the most capable AAM in Israel's inventory and one of the most advanced AAMs in the world. As a beyond-visual-range missile, it is capable of "lock-on after launch" (LOAL), and has all-aspect/all-direction (including rearward) attack ability. The missile features an advanced electro-optical imaging infrared seeker (IIR or ImIR) which scans the target area for hostile aircraft, then locks-on for terminal chase. With a total of eighteen control surfaces and careful design, the resulting missile is supposed to be as maneuverable as any other air-to-air missiles with thrust vectoring nozzles.[7] The Python-5 was first used in combat during the 2006 Lebanon War, when it was used by F-16 Fighting Falcons to destroy two Iranian-made Ababil UAVs used by the Hezbollah.[1]
Length: 310 cm
Span: 64 cm
Diameter: 16 cm
Weight: 105 kg
Guidance: IR + electro-optical imaging
Warhead: 11 kg
Range: >20 km
Speed: Mach 4

The Python-5 is said to have full sphere launch ability or is an all-aspect missile, meaning it can be launched at a target regardless of the target's location relative to the direction of the launching aircraft. It can lock on to targets after launch, even when they are up to 100 degrees off the boresight of the launching aircraft.

Derby[edit source | editbeta]


The Derby missile


SPYDER - Missiles Firing Unit
Also known as the Alto, the Derby missile is a BVR, medium-range (~50 km) active-radar seeker missile. Though technically not part of the "Python" family, the missile is basically an enlarged Python-4 with an active-radar seeker.[10]
Length: 362 cm
Span: 64 cm
Diameter: 16 cm
Weight: 118 kg
Guidance: Active Radar
Warhead: 23 kg
Range: 50 km
Speed: Mach 4

AFAIK Python and derby are selected for integration with tejas,

SO no cobras and butt wrenching Thrust vectoring tactics will save any fighter from a python fired from tejas.

 

[p2prada]

Well people believe what they want to. Do you any info about what version of R73 we are going to see on Tejas? Will it be R74m or an older version?

I don't think they will spend a lot of money on upgrading Mk1. So it will be R-73 for the time being. We have thousands of those missiles. RVV-MD is a heavier missile with greater range, so no point getting that on Mk1. LCA won't have IRST, so that's a drawback for longer range missiles.

Mk2 would be equipped with Python-V which is a logical option. It is a short range missile, so it will manage without IRST.

 

[ersakthivel]

I don't know when IAF delegated the authority to arm the tejas mk-1 with Python , Derby or R-73 to certain "very knowledgeable posters " here!?!?!?!?


When IAF spends 40 million dollar for upgrading every 20 year old Mirage-2000, it is stupid to say that IAF will not waste money in arming tejas mk-1 with Python and Derby,

ADA did not design tejas mk-1 so that thousands of R-73s lying in IAF IAF inventory can be strapped on to them with a glorious aim of curtailing the high off bore sight air to air missile firing to 60 degrees,

Even for naval harriers are to be fitted with Derby,

Indian Naval Air Arm - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Sea Harriers are armed with the Matra Magic-II AAM and the Sea Eagle Anti-ship missiles. The aircraft were upgraded with the Elta EL/M-2032 radar and the Rafael Derby BVRAAM missiles.[30] Though the Sea Harriers were expected to remain in service with the Indian Navy till 2012–15, limited upgrades are being performed on these Sea Harriers by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL), to extend the life of the aircraft by 15 years.[31]

Derby Missiles Selected to Arm India's Tejas Fighters - Defense Update - Military Technology & Defense News

So it is stupid to even suggest 40 odd tejas mk-1 won't carry Derby. I don't know why people are stooping to such a low level to spread lies and falsehoods on the 40 odd tejas mk-1s.

What can be the motivation?

And so if fighters don't have IRST on board they can not be armed with 120 Km range missiles!!!!!!!!

What is the relationship between IRST and 120 Km range radar guided missiles?

Nothing.

All stuff like ASEA radar and IRST will come on board IAF tejas fighters when IAF express its wishes for such an addition, They can be added later on.

When we can spend billions upgrading much older Mirage-2000s, jags, Mig-21s and even 30 year old T-72 tanks, Who says IAF Tejas mk-1 has to fly with just R-73 through out it's service life and can not have ASEA radar and IRST upgrades later?

From their induction the IAf SU-30 MKIs are continually updated with new missiles and hardware on it. Same will be the case with IAF tejas mk-1. So adding an additional IRST pod on tejas mk-1 won't be rocket science at all.

Any way primary missiles for tejas mk-1 and mk-2 in future will be Astra mk-1s with close to 80 Km range and Astra mk-2 with a proposed 120 Km range.

I wish people won't post that considering the costs IAF will not arm tejas Mk-1 with either Astra mk-1 or Mk-2 !!!!!!!!!!!

 

[WMD]

I don't think they will spend a lot of money on upgrading Mk1. So it will be R-73 for the time being. We have thousands of those missiles. RVV-MD is a heavier missile with greater range, so no point getting that on Mk1. LCA won't have IRST, so that's a drawback for longer range missiles.

Mk2 would be equipped with Python-V which is a logical option. It is a short range missile, so it will manage without IRST.

Do you mean that mk2 also won't have IRST?? :why:

 

[ersakthivel]

The missile will be able to intercept target aircraft at supersonic speed. Initially planned to arm Jaguar, MIG-29 and indigenous light combat aircraft, Tejas, DRDO officials are now indicating that after user trials, the missile would be integrated with Indian Air Force's front-line fighter aircraft like Sukhoi-30 MKIs and Mirage-2000s


The maximum range of Astra is 110 km in head-on chase and 20 km in tail chase. The missile could be launched from different altitudes - it can cover 110 km when launched from an altitude of 15 km, 44 km when fired from an altitude of eight km and 21 km when the altitude is sea-level . The missile can reportedly undertake 40 g turns close to sea level, when attacking a maneuvering target. It will have an active homing range of 25 km. The missile has a pre-fragmented warhead and is fitted with a proximity fuse.

A radar fuse already exists for the Astra, but the DRDO is currently working on a new laser fuse. Astra has on-board ECCM capability allowing it to jam radar signals from an enemy surface-to-air battery, ensuring that the missile is not tracked or shot down. The Mark 2 version of Astra will have a maximum range of 150 km and tail chase range of up to 35 km.

Astra (missile) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Whether tejas mk-1 has IRSt now or not it will get Astra mk-1 and 2 once development is over.

 

[Defcon 1]

I don't think they will spend a lot of money on upgrading Mk1. So it will be R-73 for the time being. We have thousands of those missiles. RVV-MD is a heavier missile with greater range, so no point getting that on Mk1. LCA won't have IRST, so that's a drawback for longer range missiles.

Mk2 would be equipped with Python-V which is a logical option. It is a short range missile, so it will manage without IRST.

Ohkk so let me get this straight. R73 for wvr on mk-1 and Derby/Astra mk1 for bvr.
and Python V for wvr on mk2 and Derby/Astra mk1/Astra mk2 for bvr