ADA Tejas (LCA) News and Discussions

[Defcon 1]

2675th flight on 11 Aug
TD1 : 233, PV1: 242, PV3: 386, LSP1: 74, LSP3: 219, LSP5: 278, TD2 : 305, PV2: 222, PV5: 54, LSP2: 294, LSP4: 128, LSP7: 115, NP1: 25, LSP8 : 100

Is LSP6 cancelled? It was supposed to fly before FOC wasn't it?

 

[Twinblade]

Is LSP6 cancelled? It was supposed to fly before FOC wasn't it?

No to the first, yes to the second.

 

[Punya Pratap]

@ Kunal Biswas @ Ersakthivel could you please give us a detailed break up of Mirage & Tejas as per below example:

Mig21 Mig27 Mig29 Mirage 2000 Tejas Mk 1 Tejas Mk 2 Su 30 MKI Rafael

Empty weight
Loaded ""
Max Take off
TWR
Engine Dry/Wet
MAx Speed
Ferry Range
Combat Range
Wing Loading
Armaments
Radar Range
RCS approx


Lets have an analytic assessment of where Tejas stands. I want to figure out with data what operational advantages Rafael has that Tejas does nt or for that matter Su30 MKI cannot perform. Besides the IAF's Light/Medium/Heavy category argument beats the hell out of me since the other IAF (Israel's) operates only F15's & F16's and has by far more war operations knowledge/experience than Indian Airforce. At the end of the day if Israel Air Force is happy with F15/16 fighter mix they ought to have some rational behind it since their threat perception from unfriendly neighborhood is if not more than us than is nt less by any stretch of imagination.

Besides Israel Air force is going to acquire only F35 in future to address the 5th Gen issue whereas Indian Air force wants to acquire another 4.5 Gen fighter at 5th Gen price tag to the extent that they are wiling to denounce/reduce FGFA numbers!! And lets not talk about the chaos of maintaining 7 different types of fighters in future 2020 onwards (Tejas 1 & 2, Mirage, Mig29, Rafael, Su30 MKI & FGFA) I would have thought they would trim their operational and maintenance profile for better upkeep and better cost management!!

Thanks in advance!!

 

[ersakthivel]

That word was used for me .... and I do object to it being used for any body....
I have not called TILL NOW any thing of such kind....But some people who believe that they are expert or so called know it all kinds have been defaming a lot of things and curbing alot of facts which have been highlighted by @ersakthivel in many of the posts....

Name calling calling fan boy or Arjun Tejas brigade is common..... but they have been misquoting alot of things and fact... kindly check those ....

@Twinblade We must try and keep the posts and discussion free from personal attacks ..... for fun sake is ok .... but not exceeding certain limits.....


I think i m gonna enter into one more ignore list....

You still don't know @Twinblade 's purpose in this forum.

The link below quotes explicit reason for Mig-21 accidents,

Prof. Prodyut Das: The Aerodynamics of the MiG 21 Accidents.

The CK ejection seat which is good in high altitude while giving unparalled blast protection when ejecting at supersonic speed,

As the seat leaves the cockpit , the canopy hinged to the front of the windshield attaches to the top of the pilot's seat and rotates to cover the entire front of the pilot seat giving giving unparalled blast protection when ejecting at supersonic speeds at high altitude.

This safety feature delayed the ejection and takes a bit of time to get rid of the canopy after the pilot ejects out of the aircraft , this delays the parachute opening and this is the reason for its sub optimum performance in lower altitude and take off where enough time is not available for the pilot to open his parachute safely.

It has nothing to do with delay in tejas or IJT program. It was a Mig-21 design feature ( nothing to do with ageing of the aircraft as made out by few trolls here )as an extra guaranty to save the pilot in high altitude supersonic ejection , working against him inlow altitude due to the time it takes for the canopy top to separate from pilot's seat and hence the subsequent delay in parachute deployment , which adds up to the pilot not having enough time and altitude level to reach safety,



Also in mig-21 unless the pilot gets the angle of attack right he may see a very high increase of drag without the accompanying lift increase(because of high wing loading coupled with low aspect ratio wings ).

This leads to mig-21 hitting the ground before the landing area if a small error in AOA occurs due to high drag and low lift from high wing loading (less area ) wing.
this coupled with the safety feature design for high altitude super sonic ejection which delays canopy release to protect the pilot from the blast adds to the complications in low altitude and during take off or landing ejections.

These are the reasons for the pilot fatalities in low altitude Mig-21 accidents , all due to its design feature and nothing to do with delay in Tejas or IJT induction as these gang of trolls make it out to be,

In fact no Mig-21 that is not fit enough is allowed to fly. The serious safety audit on Mig-21 by HAL(which is hounded by these trolls endlessly) resulted in drastica reduction of Mig-21 accidents,

The ejection seat of the German luftwafe's F104 was even worse that the MiG 21 for low altitude flying. The Germans corrected that by switching over to the Martin Baker GQ 7 seat sometime in the mid sixties.

But Mr das still has a sting in the tail for tejas with his following comment

The LCA has an unusually low aspect ratio of 1.9. It will inevitably put on weight in mid life. Unless it has been tamed by the FBW software, the LCA , will be requiring much careful handling at low speed low level flight. It is also a single engine machine. Will it repeat the MiG experience? May be but the loss of life will be less as it has a very good ejection seat.

But the interesting thing is mr. Das as usual has missed out the most important point, tejas has one of the lowest wing loading of all fighter planes means it has bundles of lift and never crash like the high wing loading Mig-21 , which is also borne out by its stellar test flight records of close to 3000 landings and take offs with not even a single emergency. But it is quite natural of Mr. DAS to ignore this salient low wing loading feature of tejas which enables to meet IAF needs even in high altitude low lift leh airfield, where 4 of the 6 MMRCA contesters couldn't do it with meaningful loads with in the stipulated take off distance.

I have pointed out this troll many times, but he acts like he has never seen it.

@pmaitra


But this passage from Mr. Das

5 The importance of having the best ejection seat possible cannot be overstated. It is noteworthy that the Pakistan Air Force retrofitted their MiG 19s with the Martin Baker MK 10. Such a seat in the MiG 21would have saved many of the 70 pilots killed. Wg.Cdr Gautam, MVC and Bar who died "dead sticking" a MiG 21 FL during take off at Lohegaon is one name, of the many, who come to mind.

.
exposes trolls like
@Twinblade
@p2prada, who consistently blame the delays in Tejas for death of IAF pilots in accident


If these trolls have any concern for the life of IAF pilots getting killed in IJT phased induction or tejas delays ,

then they should ask this question to our IAF brass,"why you could not follow the pakistani example and fit Mig-21s with better ejection seat?",

SInce our IAF ex chief brownie wanted to assemble pliatus from his Base repair Depot and famously claimed that "they can build a MMRCA winner type fighter from their Base Repair Depot within a decade?"

Sure fixing up an ejection seat problem is no big thing for the big daddies of IAF. Why didn't they do it?

And now the field is open for few trolls here to conclusively rebut this post with authentic links and settle the matter once for all.


It will be a refreshing change to the forum to know about these contentious issues rather than calling people who point out such things as traitors who suspect men in uniform, nationalistic tripe, dumbass, hackneyed tamilians, and what not,,,,,,,,

Guys who raise such valid point also care about the safety and effectiveness of our airforce, which seems to have been the wholesale interest of few trolls here,

lets see whether our gang of resident trolls and technocrats are upto the challenge,
@Mad Indian,
please look forward to your guru's replies on this weighty matter.(I am sure it will never come!!!!)

 

[ersakthivel]

@ Kunal Biswas @ Ersakthivel could you please give us a detailed break up of Mirage & Tejas as per below example:

Mig21 Mig27 Mig29 Mirage 2000 Tejas Mk 1 Tejas Mk 2 Su 30 MKI Rafael

Empty weight
Loaded ""
Max Take off
TWR
Engine Dry/Wet
MAx Speed
Ferry Range
Combat Range
Wing Loading
Armaments
Radar Range
RCS approx


Lets have an analytic assessment of where Tejas stands. I want to figure out with data what operational advantages Rafael has that Tejas does nt or for that matter Su30 MKI cannot perform. Besides the IAF's Light/Medium/Heavy category argument beats the hell out of me since the other IAF (Israel's) operates only F15's & F16's and has by far more war operations knowledge/experience than Indian Airforce. At the end of the day if Israel Air Force is happy with F15/16 fighter mix they ought to have some rational behind it since their threat perception from unfriendly neighborhood is if not more than us than is nt less by any stretch of imagination.

Besides Israel Air force is going to acquire only F35 in future to address the 5th Gen issue whereas Indian Air force wants to acquire another 4.5 Gen fighter at 5th Gen price tag to the extent that they are wiling to denounce/reduce FGFA numbers!! And lets not talk about the chaos of maintaining 7 different types of fighters in future 2020 onwards (Tejas 1 & 2, Mirage, Mig29, Rafael, Su30 MKI & FGFA) I would have thought they would trim their operational and maintenance profile for better upkeep and better cost management!!

Thanks in advance!!

Tejas in mk1 is better than the upgraded mirage-2000 is the claim by award winning test pilot ans group captain Suneth Krishna's and former NTSE chief Pervez Khokar's . Both men have flown mirage-2000 and tejas mk1.

What tejas can not do in mk1 is to reach the combat range of SU-30 MKI .

And the difference in lo low level deep penetration combat range of Rafale and Tejas in indian hot weather conditions will mirror their difference in internal fuel fractions.

In mk2 tejas too will have a better internal fuel fraction figure than mk1 and inch closer to Rafale, even though it is not going to match it. Things will clear up once tejas mk2 prototype rolls out next year and takes flight in 2017,

Effective combat range with effective weapon load will depend upon the criteria called fuel fraction, i.e weight of internal fuel/empty operational weight of the fighter.

In this area even tejas mk1 better than gripen C.

Then a question arises why range of tejas was often quoted less, it may be due to the reason that new super sonic center line fuel tank was not validated till IOC-2, Even without that The press information beruau release clearly stated that the combat range of tejas is 500 Km. It means a combat range in excess of 1000 Km in a low penetration fuel consuming flight into enemy territory, with extra fuel allocation for take off, a few minutes of high fuel consuming close combat and high fuel consuming After burner thrust .

But other fighter makers give misleading combat range figures with minimum weapon config and high altitude(less fuel consuming flight path) with no allocation for close combat and AB thrust and low penetration mode.

Roughly the fuel fraction above will give us effective combat utilization of the fighter.

Su-30MK: 34.9%（Empty weight: 17,700 kg，Internal fuel: 9,500 kg）

Rafale: 31.4% ~ 33.6%（Empty weight: 9,500 ~ 10,220 kg，Internal fuel: 4,680 ~ 4,800 kg）

JAS-39NG: 30.6%（Empty weight: 7,100 kg，Internal fuel: 3,130 kg）

MIG-35: 28.6%（Empty weight: 12,000 kg，Internal fuel: 4,800 kg）

Tejas: 27.0%（Empty weight: 6,500 kg，Internal fuel: 2,400 kg）

JF-17: 26.3%（Empty weight: 6,450 kg，Internal fuel: 2,300 kg）

JAS-39C: 25.0%（Empty weight: 6,800 kg，Internal fuel: 2,268 kg）

This is a fair comparison of fuel fractions with just internal fuel , and the same percentage will more or less reflect with external fuels also,

So Tejas mk-1(which still has 400 KG of flight test equipment on board, removal of them will lead to even better fuel fraction) itself has much better fuel fractions than grippen C/D with more TW ratio and lower wing loading,

Tejas mk-2 will easily compare to RAFALE which has just 4 percent more in fuel fractions than Tejas mk-1.

So in indian conditions there won't be no issues with range of tejas mk-1 or mk-2 in useful combat configuration if we take into account that four tejas can be operated for one RAFALE if we include total lifecycle costs and upgrade costs,

So there is no way Tejas can be faulted on weapon load or range. A full read of the link above will show how fighter makers abroad indulge in word play when it comes to range and load figures!!! , to fool the people.
Reply

http://www.bureaucracytoday.com/mustread_coverstory.aspx?id=23

Some interesting news there.

And the following piece of my previous posts also merit discussion here,

Two french rafales with two external fuel tanks each and no weapons ,

needed 5 refuelling for their 10.5 hour long 10000 Km trip from france to reunion islands

Sure they must have had their tanks full at take off.

So it amounts to a total of 6 fuel loads for a 10000 Km flight with no weapon loads and only two external fuel tanks for each plane provided that each plane had five refuellings enroute.Rreport does not states whether the 5 refuellings were for each rafale. But since it is an odd number it is safe to assume that it is five refuellings for each plane . Becuase both planes need exactly the same amount of refuelling . SO an odd number can not denote total refuelling for both the planes.

Then range in tropical climate with two external fuel tanks in optimum altitude conditions(high altitude )comes only to 1500 Km around.

Why?

But AVM has claimed that tejas has just one third of rafale range. Even in IOC-2 press information bureau release the farthest tejas can fly without refuelling for tejas was stated to be 1700 Km. ANd its combat radius 500 km, means with weapons it can have close to 1000 Km range with needs for AB thrusts and fuel penalizing lo altitude flight and a few minutes of close combat needs.

Looking at the fact they flew 10K Kms and needed 5 refuels + 1 to begin with i.e a range of 1600 km with no weapons and two fuel tanks quite clearly shows Rafale doesn't have the famed deep legs as claimed since the start. Also such long range distances are covered flying at very high altitude i.e over 30K feet at optimal fuel burning cruise speed to minimize fuel consumption, these claimed long ranges would be much lower when slung with weapons flying in low in deep strike missions.

whatever the optimum flying conditions if you add weapons worth their price, and do a lo lo penetration with reservation for AB thrusts and close combat and take off needs, the result will be the same

Even if we believe such rafale brochure range of 3600 Km , the hi-lo-hi missions that can use this ,exist in libiya and mali where open skies with no enemy air defence spreads for a vast expanse of 1000s of Km.

But on india -pak borders and india-china borders enemy air defence is just a couple of hundreds of KM away.

SO practically those much vaunted 3600 Km ranges has no relevance to two front wars or in Tibet deep strikes.

Reality is sobering. As I said before in lo-lo penetration flight the differnece between tejas and rafale combat range will hug a figure closer to their difference fuel fraction ratio.

Dangling more and more external tanks and stuff will add to immense drag in lo-lo strikes . So the Rafale has thrice the range of tejas like statements made by people is just irrelevant in indian air space where enemy air defences are just next door.

SO this issue needs to be looked into,
Also the specific fuel consumption figure of rafale's each engine is,
0.80 kg/(daN*h) (0.78 lbm/(lbf*h)) (dry), 1.75 kg/(daN*h) (1.72 lbm/(lbf*hr)) (wet/afterburning)

If you can work out how much fuel it will take for rafale to stay in air with two engines consuming 0.80 Kg /(daN*h)

and compare it to one tejas GE-414 SFC for mk2 and GE-404 for mk1 we can resolve this issue.

@SajeevJino

..


any thought of raising this with indranilroy in BR?

http://pib.nic.in/newsite/erelease.aspx?relid=102056
IOC-2 shall enable Air Force to carry out air superiority and offensive air support missions, forward air field operations, all weather multi role operations, Electronic counter measures and night flying operations.
LCA Tejas is capable of flying non- stop to destinations over 1700 km away (Ferry Range). It's Radius of Action is upto 500 km depending upon the nature and duration of actual combat.
LCA is powered by the F404/IN20- a well proven turbofan engine, designed and manufactured by General Electric Aircraft Engines, USA. The Engine is modular in construction, consisting of six modules, ensuring easy maintenance. The F404-GE-IN20 is a low bypass turbofan engine, with augmented thrust provided by the afterburner.

I have raised the same point in Why rafale is a big mistake thread here also, but did not get any satisfactory replies,

 

[Punya Pratap]

@ersakthivel please let us know the Radar ranges for both Tejas 1 & 2 and the rest of the fighters.

Also I d like to find the answer to my other question:

Lets have an analytic assessment of where Tejas stands. I want to figure out with data what operational advantages Rafael has that Tejas does nt or for that matter Su30 MKI cannot perform. Besides the IAF's Light/Medium/Heavy category argument beats the hell out of me since the other IAF (Israel's) operates only F15's & F16's and has by far more war operations knowledge/experience than Indian Airforce. At the end of the day if Israel Air Force is happy with F15/16 fighter mix they ought to have some rational behind it since their threat perception from unfriendly neighborhood is if not more than us than is nt less by any stretch of imagination.

Besides Israel Air force is going to acquire only F35 in future to address the 5th Gen issue whereas Indian Air force wants to acquire another 4.5 Gen fighter at 5th Gen price tag to the extent that they are wiling to denounce/reduce FGFA numbers!! And lets not talk about the chaos of maintaining 7 different types of fighters in future 2020 onwards (Tejas 1 & 2, Mirage, Mig29, Rafael, Su30 MKI & FGFA) I would have thought they would trim their operational and maintenance profile for better upkeep and better cost management!!

I think any one who supports induction of Rafael knowing the prohibitive costs involved should also bear in mind that we are doing a disservice to the country by shelling out all the money on Rafael at the cost of indigenous aviation industry development and more importantly at the cost of letting go of 5 Gen fighters like AMCA & FGFA!!

THE MORE WE PAY FOR RAFAEL THE LESS WE HAVE FOR AMCA & FGFA!!

 

[Punya Pratap]

Please also illustrate the issue of Tejas having a limited weapons load... with just 8 hard points. Is it possible/not possible for multi ejector racks to be fitted on Tejas 1/2??

 

[Pulkit]

Firstly we cannot compare Israel with India... The only thing common is Unfriendly neighbours.....
Range of action , Weaponary of Opposition , Environment , capability is all different...

We do need Aircraft in all the three categories.... operating all teh A/C from one category cannot be supported due to our quite large borders to cover them up we need to have all the three categories....

See thats the main difference... the strech of our borders in comparison with Israel....
There tech in the field of Rockets Missiles and defense is surely better than ours and in many cases quite superior... We will need another decade to overtake them as of now....

Rafale is a waste of money with a quick induction of Tejas MK1 and few extra Su MKI we can meet its req untill MK2 joins IAF by 2018-2020....There is almost nothing which the mix of SU MKI and Tejas Cannot do and Rafale can....

and FGFA and AMCA will be close to induction 2020 , 2025 respectively....hence no need for Rafale so its just waste of money.... on the contrary they shud start Inducting Tejas Today....

Maintenance will not be a big issue and all of these (Apart from Rafale) can be maintained easily due to the numbers we have.... we cannot rely on just one or two which will be suicidal.... and you forgot AMCA into the count which makes it 8 if we go for Rafale(Fingers crossed the deal gets scrapped)....

by the time FGFA induction starts the cost cannot be estimated but one thing is sure that Rafale at the present price is tooooooo costlt.....

@ersakthivel please let us know the Radar ranges for both Tejas 1 & 2 and the rest of the fighters.

Also I d like to find the answer to my other question:

Lets have an analytic assessment of where Tejas stands. I want to figure out with data what operational advantages Rafael has that Tejas does nt or for that matter Su30 MKI cannot perform. Besides the IAF's Light/Medium/Heavy category argument beats the hell out of me since the other IAF (Israel's) operates only F15's & F16's and has by far more war operations knowledge/experience than Indian Airforce. At the end of the day if Israel Air Force is happy with F15/16 fighter mix they ought to have some rational behind it since their threat perception from unfriendly neighborhood is if not more than us than is nt less by any stretch of imagination.

Besides Israel Air force is going to acquire only F35 in future to address the 5th Gen issue whereas Indian Air force wants to acquire another 4.5 Gen fighter at 5th Gen price tag to the extent that they are wiling to denounce/reduce FGFA numbers!! And lets not talk about the chaos of maintaining 7 different types of fighters in future 2020 onwards (Tejas 1 & 2, Mirage, Mig29, Rafael, Su30 MKI & FGFA) I would have thought they would trim their operational and maintenance profile for better upkeep and better cost management!!

I think any one who supports induction of Rafael knowing the prohibitive costs involved should also bear in mind that we are doing a disservice to the country by shelling out all the money on Rafael at the cost of indigenous aviation industry development and more importantly at the cost of letting go of 5 Gen fighters like AMCA & FGFA!!

THE MORE WE PAY FOR RAFAEL THE LESS WE HAVE FOR AMCA & FGFA!!

 

[Pulkit]

Who claims that ????
Tejas can carry sufficient fire power for the Aircraft of its category....

Please also illustrate the issue of Tejas having a limited weapons load... with just 8 hard points. Is it possible/not possible for multi ejector racks to be fitted on Tejas 1/2??

 

[ersakthivel]

Video: Vayu-StratPost Air Power Roundtable V | StratPost

Lots of stuff here,

 

[ersakthivel]

Please also illustrate the issue of Tejas having a limited weapons load... with just 8 hard points. Is it possible/not possible for multi ejector racks to be fitted on Tejas 1/2??

Multi ejector or tandem pylons can be fitted on any fighter, there are no restrictions as long as engine has enough thrust to take the load .

 

[power_monger]

Liked the below remark from Arun prakash

We've sunk money into the FGFA – PAK FA – which is already – three prototypes are already flying – the Russians have built it for their air force and we've sunk three or four billion US dollars into it – for what reason I don't understand. So it's committed. At the highest level of the government. So why is the air force allowing this to happen. Instead of doing all that, back the LCA. It's got problems, sure, but here the chief test pilot who's written a paper and his last words are 'It's a beautiful aircraft. Why don't we back it – why don't we back the LCA Mk II, and once again let me give you the navy's example. The navy sunk 900 crores into the LCA Navy – the air force has not given them a single rupee. So if the air force had done it right at the beginning perhaps this stage would not have arisen. If you had shown enough interest, if you had backed it – meddled with it and interfered at every stage and made it go. This is only a personal opinion that we should not allow the LCA to fail. We should go on to LCA Mk II – the AMCA should also be a lead on from the LCA and then this whole thing will proliferate – we'll have a trainer, aero engines – the whole industry. – Admiral (retd) Arun Prakash

 

[Pulkit]

Liked the below remark from Arun prakash

We've sunk money into the FGFA – PAK FA – which is already – three prototypes are already flying – the Russians have built it for their air force and we've sunk three or four billion US dollars into it – for what reason I don't understand. So it's committed. At the highest level of the government. So why is the air force allowing this to happen. Instead of doing all that, back the LCA. It's got problems, sure, but here the chief test pilot who's written a paper and his last words are 'It's a beautiful aircraft. Why don't we back it – why don't we back the LCA Mk II, and once again let me give you the navy's example. The navy sunk 900 crores into the LCA Navy – the air force has not given them a single rupee. So if the air force had done it right at the beginning perhaps this stage would not have arisen. If you had shown enough interest, if you had backed it – meddled with it and interfered at every stage and made it go. This is only a personal opinion that we should not allow the LCA to fail. We should go on to LCA Mk II – the AMCA should also be a lead on from the LCA and then this whole thing will proliferate – we'll have a trainer, aero engines – the whole industry. – Admiral (retd) Arun Prakash

I think instead of FGFA the concerned person should have mentioned Rafale...
PAKFA and FGFA will be quite different and better in the end plus it is 5th gen A/C .... SU MKI is better than the normal Russia SU.....


LCA MK1 to MK2 is a upgradation/updation/modification but its base is still MK1 .... so any money spent on MK1 is not wasted....

 

[Punya Pratap]

Israel Air Force knows a thing or two about long haul ops also with the 1982 Lebanon War where they flew F 15's to a stretch of 2300 Kms so lets not again fall for the geographical limitations arguement.

If this argument for light/medium/heavy mix is a doctrinal thing with our IAF than why did they buy Mig 21's in such large numbers?

If China is the factor with two front war than shell the Rafael and get FGFA / AMCA mix coz in 5 years China will start inducting J 20's than what are you going to throw at it?

I understand our IAF needs to retire the legacy Mig's but at what costs?? I suggest get Tejas in the fray now since the Mig 21/27 will be there to back Tejas if worst comes to worst!!

If there is a purchase to be made, than knowing you start inducting that said fighter after say 3-4 years we should remember J 20's coming by 2020!!

By the way Israel's official war doctrine clearly says all its battles are to be fought on enemy territory which means they always fly long haul missions past,present and for future so there lies my answer to the light/medium/high fancy fad of our IAF !! The world over the biggest and the most powerful are cutting out logistical nightmares of having more than 3 fighter types be it USAF,RAF,RAAF & IAF (Israel)
And my limited knowledge of Geography tells me that USAF & RAAF has a bigger geography to defend than our IAF!!

 

[Pulkit]

Israel Air Force knows a thing or two about long haul ops also with the 1982 Lebanon War where they flew F 15's to a stretch of 2300 Kms so lets not again fall for the geographical limitations arguement.

If this argument for light/medium/heavy mix is a doctrinal thing with our IAF than why did they buy Mig 21's in such large numbers?

You cannot maintain airforce of heavy A/c only the cost will be huge not just the aquisition cost but also the operation cost .....

If China is the factor with two front war than shell the Rafael and get FGFA / AMCA mix coz in 5 years China will start inducting J 20's than what are you going to throw at it?

Scrap rafale Make Way for Tejas mK2 FGFA and AMCA

I understand our IAF needs to retire the legacy Mig's but at what costs?? I suggest get Tejas in the fray now since the Mig 21/27 will be there to back Tejas if worst comes to worst!!

MIG 21 needs to be replaced immediately ... they are forced to fly it .... and Tejas can be supported by Mirage or SU ...

If there is a purchase to be made, than knowing you start inducting that said fighter after say 3-4 years we should remember J 20's coming by 2020!!

By then FGFA And Tejas MK2 will be there to counter Chinese .....

By the way Israel's official war doctrine clearly says all its battles are to be fought on enemy territory which means they always fly long haul missions past,present and for future so there lies my answer to the light/medium/high fancy fad of our IAF !! The world over the biggest and the most powerful are cutting out logistical nightmares of having more than 3 fighter types be it USAF,RAF,RAAF & IAF (Israel)
And my limited knowledge of Geography tells me that USAF & RAAF has a bigger geography to defend than our IAF!!

Geography is a factor and will always remain there.... we hav eto cover a huge strech of mass land which in case of Israel is not there....

 

[Punya Pratap]

Liked the below remark from Arun prakash

We've sunk money into the FGFA – PAK FA – which is already – three prototypes are already flying – the Russians have built it for their air force and we've sunk three or four billion US dollars into it – for what reason I don't understand. So it's committed. At the highest level of the government. So why is the air force allowing this to happen. Instead of doing all that, back the LCA. It's got problems, sure, but here the chief test pilot who's written a paper and his last words are 'It's a beautiful aircraft. Why don't we back it – why don't we back the LCA Mk II, and once again let me give you the navy's example. The navy sunk 900 crores into the LCA Navy – the air force has not given them a single rupee. So if the air force had done it right at the beginning perhaps this stage would not have arisen. If you had shown enough interest, if you had backed it – meddled with it and interfered at every stage and made it go. This is only a personal opinion that we should not allow the LCA to fail. We should go on to LCA Mk II – the AMCA should also be a lead on from the LCA and then this whole thing will proliferate – we'll have a trainer, aero engines – the whole industry. – Admiral (retd) Arun Prakash

Amongst all the three arms I think IN has its strategy spot on and I expect it to overtake its 2 "elder brothers" within a decade. They know how to plan for the future even though they get the last left overs budget wise!! Arun Prakash and his ilk understand that policing a region like IOR we need to build our own capabilities where we decide our weapons and develop them without fear of sanctions criplling us!!

 

[Punya Pratap]

You cannot maintain airforce of heavy A/c only the cost will be huge not just the aquisition cost but also the operation cost .....


Scrap rafale Make Way for Tejas mK2 FGFA and AMCA



MIG 21 needs to be replaced immediately ... they are forced to fly it .... and Tejas can be supported by Mirage or SU ...


By then FGFA And Tejas MK2 will be there to counter Chinese .....



Geography is a factor and will always remain there.... we hav eto cover a huge strech of mass land which in case of Israel is not there....

Regarding your last point -- The War Doctrines of each country's Number 1 priority is how you defend your territory so USAF & RAAF has a larger territory to defend yet why is it that only our IAF has this light/medium/heavy category?? I understand the Light/Heavy mix which is what I wanted to illustrate when I said Israel Air Force has a Light/Heavy mix of F16/F15 and trust me our politicians even if they buy the F22 will never order a strike on say TAR or Pakistan...then why do we need a MMRCA ?? Trust me Israel will fight all its battles on enemy airspace and geared up to hit Iran over the nuclear weapons issue yet I have nt heard them ever demanding a MMRCA!!

 

[ersakthivel]

Regarding your last point -- The War Doctrines of each country's Number 1 priority is how you defend your territory so USAF & RAAF has a larger territory to defend yet why is it that only our IAF has this light/medium/heavy category?? I understand the Light/Heavy mix which is what I wanted to illustrate when I said Israel Air Force has a Light/Heavy mix of F16/F15 and trust me our politicians even if they buy the F22 will never order a strike on say TAR or Pakistan...then why do we need a MMRCA ?? Trust me Israel will fight all its battles on enemy airspace and geared up to hit Iran over the nuclear weapons issue yet I have nt heard them ever demanding a MMRCA!!

Russians dont have reliable jet engine tech with high TWR to bank on , sothey are building fighters like Mig-29 which are short ranged eventhough they have twin engines,
Americans have thousands of single engined fighters because they have reliable tech,
French too had only single engined Mirage-2000

 

[Pulkit]

I think you are saying there is no need for medium range Combat aircraft.....

This is how I see the requirement of Medium range Aircraft....

Its a tactical weapon....which can do everything a light a/c can do and everything that can be done by a medium A/C can be done by heavy one....
Assume you need to Bomb a 4 location in a area of radius 500 Kms one thing you can do is send 1 each light A/C to one of the locations other thing you can send 4 medium A/C together to bomb all the 4 locations together like a pack....
Which one will be better and more effective....

Okay sending 4 heavy A/C for this much range will be not effective as they won't be able to use there entire weapon strength and there fuel aswell and you cannot keep them in enemy territory any longer than that....


This is where a medium A/C can be used .... but yes mix of light and heavy can solve this issue also but limited range of light will hamper performance and availability of heavy A/C....


Apart from this i see no issue in the mix of heavy and light.....


I dont wont Rafale is an entirely different scenario....

1)Cost tooooooooooooooooo high
2)MK2 will be almost equal to it i.e. can fit its role of MMRCA with increased fuselage to an extent.
3)FGFA will share responsiblity of SU so Su can be used in another role.....
4)AMCA fifth gen is on board .

Regarding your last point -- The War Doctrines of each country's Number 1 priority is how you defend your territory so USAF & RAAF has a larger territory to defend yet why is it that only our IAF has this light/medium/heavy category?? I understand the Light/Heavy mix which is what I wanted to illustrate when I said Israel Air Force has a Light/Heavy mix of F16/F15 and trust me our politicians even if they buy the F22 will never order a strike on say TAR or Pakistan...then why do we need a MMRCA ?? Trust me Israel will fight all its battles on enemy airspace and geared up to hit Iran over the nuclear weapons issue yet I have nt heard them ever demanding a MMRCA!!

 

[Pulkit]

Russians dont have reliable jet engine tech with high TWR to bank on , sothey are building fighters like Mig-29 which are short ranged eventhough they have twin engines,
Americans have thousands of single engined fighters because they have reliable tech,
French too had only single engined Mirage-2000

I know Engines now a days have matured enough but it is still a machine.... nothing is 100% confirmed...
Two engines do provide some sense of safety and security to the pilot.....