ADA Tejas (LCA) News and Discussions

[Defcon 1]

Name of the technology is tactical data link. Though I do agree that so far IAF does not have a standard data link across its fighter fleet. But the situation will change once IAF starts linking its fighters with CABS AWA&C and IL-76 EL\W-2090, which is inevitable.

No the situation won't change. Getting a standard tactical data link across the fleet doesn't mean that a missile can be guided using another fighter. If that were so, all NATO nations would be able to do they use same data link, Link 16. Russians would be able to do it as well. But they don't do it, why?

Theoretically, a fighter with even one-way data link can send its radar picture to other fighter linked with it as long as data link is fast enough. Technically in a fighter jet, its radar is connected to the processing unit which generates firing cues and send it to its computer which gives firing solutions to pilot and readies its missile for possible launch. Theoretically, these cues can also be sent to linked fighters. It's called data sharing. And SAAB Gripen is sold with a tag "what one sees, others see as well".

Requirement is not only to share radar picture to another fighter, but also to provide guidance to the missile after launch. And LCA's primary BVR missile, Derby is not even integrated with MKI. How can MKI provide guidance to Derby?

Now I m ust and again mention that Tejas is not linked with SU-30MKI to date. That is why I mentioned quote unquote "Lets network Tejas and SU-30MKI together-- which in any case they will be". And only when we have developed fast enough and secure tactical data link (covering required distance) and required data generation that we can realise scenario, I mentioned.

Now since you have conceded that Tejas and MKI are not linked to date, let me say that let us not believe that it is very to provide guidance to a missile launched by another aircraft. No other nation is doing it. What if this technology takes 25 years? Would it still be useful then?

 

[Rahul Singh]

No the situation won't change. Getting a standard tactical data link across the fleet doesn't mean that a missile can be guided using another fighter. If that were so, all NATO nations would be able to do they use same data link, Link 16. Russians would be able to do it as well. But they don't do it, why?


The requirement is not only to share radar picture to another fighter but also to provide guidance to the missile after launch. And LCA's primary BVR missile, Derby is not even integrated with MKI. How can MKI provide guidance to Derby?

In my last two posts, I left blanks to be filled and elaboration to be done, wrt. to type of radar, data link and AAM. Can't make up even now, kinda short of time. So, I am posting links. I think it has ample information that said technology is available. And if IAF goes for it then it can be realised with help from developers within and some purchases from outside if found necessary.

Link 16 has been developed to meet the information exchange requirements of all tactical units, supporting the exchange of surveillance data, EW data, mission tasking, weapons assignments and control data.

Link

Meteor is network-enabled with a two-way data link and can be operated using third party targeting and target engagement.

https://mbdainc.com/product_posts/meteor/

Now since you have conceded that Tejas and MKI are not linked to date, let me say that let us not believe that it is very to provide guidance to a missile launched by another aircraft. No other nation is doing it. What if this technology takes 25 years? Would it still be useful then?

No no, not now. I said so in very first post i made on this matter.

And no, i don't think this is a technology that will take 25 years for us to realise.

I believe we have sufficient TOT on BARS that we can integrate any BVRAAM we choose to. And I also believe in next ten years the standard BVRAAM of IAF will be ASTRA MK-1, MK-2 and Ramjet Version (which will be a meteor class BVRAAM). So if IAF decides now then in sometime in future the entire fleet could be integrated with standard net-centric hardware and said scenario can be realised.

Now if Russia has it or not i don't know. But it is available in west, in NATO precisely. I don't know if we can buy from them or not but when pushed against wall we have developed what others said impossible. And here we have developed Astra MK-1 (already integrated with MKI and will be with Tejas) MK-2 is in underdevelopment and an ultra long range version with Ramjet propulsion (and may be with 2 way data link as well) is in design stage. We have DRDO AWACS comming up. Sat-Com and tactical data links have already been developed. And more importantly the technology has been realised alreay somewhere.

So what's stopping us? And i never said we have it. All i said we should have it.

 

[Pandora]

guys ,what is the payload of Gripen E ?

 

[Defcon 1]

In my last two posts, I left blanks to be filled and elaboration to be done, wrt. to type of radar, data link and AAM. Can't make up even now, kinda short of time. So, I am posting links. I think it has ample information that said technology is available. And if IAF goes for it then it can be realised with help from developers within and some purchases from outside if found necessary.





View attachment 10992

No no, not now. I said so in very first post i made on this matter.

And no, i don't think this is a technology that will take 25 years for us to realise.

I believe we have sufficient TOT on BARS that we can integrate any BVRAAM we choose to. And I also believe in next ten years the standard BVRAAM of IAF will be ASTRA MK-1, MK-2 and Ramjet Version (which will be a meteor class BVRAAM). So if IAF decides now then in sometime in future the entire fleet could be integrated with standard net-centric hardware and said scenario can be realised.

Now if Russia has it or not i don't know. But it is available in west, in NATO precisely. I don't know if we can buy from them or not but when pushed against wall we have developed what others said impossible. And here we have developed Astra MK-1 (already integrated with MKI and will be with Tejas) MK-2 is in underdevelopment and an ultra long range version with Ramjet propulsion (and may be with 2 way data link as well) is in design stage. We have DRDO AWACS comming up. Sat-Com and tactical data links have already been developed. And more importantly the technology has been realised alreay somewhere.

So what's stopping us? And i never said we have it. All i said we should have it.

Ok didn't know about Meteor getting it as well. Thanks for sharing. This would make it first non US missile to have third party targeting as far as I know.

Yes, it wouldn't take 25 years, that was just used a hyperbole to explain that the development duration is unknown. We might get this technology in less than a decade with Astra Mk2.
Correction: Astra is not yet integrated with anything. It has simply been test fired from MKI. The missile's development itself is not complete. Integration will come later.

Yes, we should have the technology.

But the question is will it be effective? If your vision of using LCA+MKI combination in an A2A mission over enemy airspace was so effective, won't all the countries in the world follow it? Instead, we are seeing countries moving towards medium weight fighters with bigger radar and ditching the light fighters. No one wants to have light+heavy fighter combination used as you mentioned in the previous post. If we look at all the future fighters of the world:
1. F35 (Medium)
2. Gripen NG (Medium)
3. TFX (Medium)
4. PAK FA (Heavy)
5. J20 (Heavy)
6. J31 (Medium)
7. TFX (Medium)
8. Mitshubishi X2 Shinshin (Medium)
9. AMCA (Medium)

All of them are heavy or medium weight. No light fighters. 5th Generation of fighter aircraft will be the first generation without light weight fighters. Light weight fighters cost less to operate, so the nations should be planning to use light weight fighters using heavy weight/AWACS to help with targeting. But this is not happening. If the technology is accessible for all, shouldn't more nations be interested in it?

Anyways, I believe we should strive to develop a missile which can use third party targeting. But we shouldn't hold procurement of 100 fighters hostage to the hope that the technology will be developed on time and will be effective in the battlefield.

There are various other reasons to drop the Pre-RFP sent out by the MoD. I don't believe third party targeting is one of them.

 

[Defcon 1]

guys ,what is the payload of Gripen E ?

6000 kg.....Yes I am still typing because of the 30 char limit.

 

[charlie]

This capability of using MKI's radar to guide missile launched by LCA has never been tested in IAF. It is not even known if LCA can communicate with MKI to share such info. USAF is the only airforce in the world to have tested this technology.

One cannot construct the scenario you are talking about in real life without the required technology.

Actually it was the USSR who did this way before USAF, the first plane to have this kind of digital data link was Mig 31, the idea was hunt in groups (four) as interceptor and commander deciding who will take on which target.

 

[Imaxxx]

Today we also have a better solution.

Lets network Tejas and SU-30MKI together-- which in any case they will be. And load SU-30MKI with 4x 1500 litres drop tanks and a buddy-buddy pod on the centerline. Make sections of fighter-hunters for air superiority or escorting roles for bombing missions comprising of 1 x SU-30MKI and 4 x Tejas (in A2A configuration with 6 AAMs and 1x centreline drop tank with 700 litres of fuel). The section will fly in a way; Tejas flies with its radars switched off and SU-30MKI flies higher than Tejas formation maintaining a distance of 50kms behind them. The modus operandi of the section will be as such.

Four Tejas will take off with 6 x AAM, 1 x centreline tank and jammer on pylon beneath air intake. And one SU-30MKI will take off with 4 x drop tanks, buddy-buddy pod, 4 x AAM and a jammer. Before crossing into enemy territory they will top up their tanks using a tanker. SU-30MKI will fly 50 Kms apart from Tejas formation and on a purge. It will use its radar at full power and upon acquiring the lock on enemy fighters will send firing cues to Tejas formation which will then fire on the enemy and shoot it down. Tejas which is a fighter with significantly smaller RCS and when operating in radar silence mode --Radar silence allows a fighter to get close without alerting enemy's RWR-- will be able to get close enough to bring enemy under its BVRAAM range without detection. Since MKI will be carrying enough fuel, with buddy-buddy refuelling Tejas would be able to stay longer and could go deeper along with MKI.

Hence, in my opinion, they will make a lethal team where MKI's strengths like a powerful radar with almost 400Km range and huge payload capacity (in this case majority of it will be fuel) will combine with strengths of Tejas like low RCS and agility for optimum air to air performance against the enemy.

OK. Trying to understand this better, a few ques/comments:
- if the MKI acquires the target first why would it not fire the AAM itself? It is carrying AAMs.
- when the MKI acquires the target with its long ranged radar, it vectors targeting info to Tejas. But the Tejas still has to get within the kill envelope of its AAM for it to fire the missile. If it's Astra then it's like ~100 km. It has to get that close. At this distance the Tejas could get tracked by enemy fighter radars.
- with drop tanks the Tejas will no longer be stealthy. The drop tanks increase the rcs and the Tejas could be exposed at a longer range
- can 1 MKI's buddy tanks refuel 4 Tejas?
- if enemy awacs are airborne, this tactic will not work. The M/T formation will be illuminated first. Awacs have to be taken out first for this to succeed
- iirc the drop tanks are used first and jettisoned asap because of the negative impact on performance. The refuelling by tankers will have to be done on the return leg
- to have tankers close to the border means near total air superiority has already been achieved. The
- is your scenario for CAP? Not knowing when the enemy aircraft are going to appear, then this formation will be in loitering role scanning the skies. By then the drop tanks have been rid of. Without drop tanks the T would have to turn back far more quickly than the M. Also there's a chance that they could be engaged when they are starting to get low on fuel.
- if this tactic is for air interdiction, then the info on bogeys is likely coming from our awacs. If the T is being vectored then the M is moot
- if this is for ground attack, I'm not sure how the roles would be divided between the 5 aircraft formation. The M would be natural candidate as the bomb truck; but then what would be T's role? If the Ts are used as the bombers that would leave the M as the lone-wolf interdictor.

 

[charlie]

BEL developed Data Link II is operational with P-8I. Since P-8I shares data with submarines, ships and supposedly with its fighter fleet as well. This data link serves as a base to develop advanced data link for mentioned scenario.

SU-30MKI will now be upgraded to SU-35 specifications(supposedly) and will be called Super Sukhoi. So I guess upgraded MKIs will feature a standard data link since another requirement is to link its fighter fleet with AWACS and AEW&Cs.

Tejas is getting all bells and whistles and surely it will get an advance data link in future standard across rest of the fighter fleet.

Already SU 30 MKI and LCA are connected through softnet SDR 2010.

http://bel-india.com/Products.aspx

 

[Defcon 1]

Actually it was the USSR who did this way before USAF, the first plane to have this kind of digital data link was Mig 31, the idea was hunt in groups (four) as interceptor and commander deciding who will take on which target.

Do you have any source for this claim?

 

[wuzetian]

Also as I have always been saying, try using CFTs on Tejas.

What is CFT - conformal fuel tanks ?

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk

 

[ersakthivel]

Today we also have a better solution.

Lets network Tejas and SU-30MKI together-- which in any case they will be. And load SU-30MKI with 4x 1500 litres drop tanks and a buddy-buddy pod on the centerline. Make sections of fighter-hunters for air superiority or escorting roles for bombing missions comprising of 1 x SU-30MKI and 4 x Tejas (in A2A configuration with 6 AAMs and 1x centreline drop tank with 700 litres of fuel). The section will fly in a way; Tejas flies with its radars switched off and SU-30MKI flies higher than Tejas formation maintaining a distance of 50kms behind them. The modus operandi of the section will be as such.

Four Tejas will take off with 6 x AAM, 1 x centreline tank and jammer on pylon beneath air intake. And one SU-30MKI will take off with 4 x drop tanks, buddy-buddy pod, 4 x AAM and a jammer. Before crossing into enemy territory they will top up their tanks using a tanker. SU-30MKI will fly 50 Kms apart from Tejas formation and on a purge. It will use its radar at full power and upon acquiring the lock on enemy fighters will send firing cues to Tejas formation which will then fire on the enemy and shoot it down. Tejas which is a fighter with significantly smaller RCS and when operating in radar silence mode --Radar silence allows a fighter to get close without alerting enemy's RWR-- will be able to get close enough to bring enemy under its BVRAAM range without detection. Since MKI will be carrying enough fuel, with buddy-buddy refuelling Tejas would be able to stay longer and could go deeper along with MKI.

Hence, in my opinion, they will make a lethal team where MKI's strengths like a powerful radar with almost 400Km range and huge payload capacity (in this case majority of it will be fuel) will combine with strengths of Tejas like low RCS and agility for optimum air to air performance against the enemy.

I hv written the exact scenario in comments section of one of Bharath karnard's pieces in his blog "Securitywise"

he posted my comments as a separate piece

"https://bharatkarnad.com/2013/11/10...nt-value-add-to-stop-wasteful-military-deals/
"Tejas will carry the combined weapon load of Jag and Mig-21 with lesser RCS than the MIG-29 and the Su-30 and more thrust to weight ratio than the mirage-2000 with equal detection and tracking range of RAFALE radar with almost the same RCS of RAFALE."

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

So even after launching all BVRs IAF Mirage-2000 (or any other fighter presently in service with IAF including SU-30 MKI) 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 launch of all long range BVRs Tejas will have a much smaller 0.2 meter RCS .

So it will not be visible to the PLAF flanker ‘s radars from from even medium BVR range forget about long range BVR s.

SO While PLAF flanker 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 PLAF flanker fire control radars even in clean config,

SO the BVRs fired by PLAF flankers won’t be given mid course update by PLAF fire control radars,

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

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

will be very different cup of tea compared to

PLAF flanker 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 120 km tracking range,

But Tejas mk-1A 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 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 flanker 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 PLAF flanker.

So even if PLAF flanker 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 flanker 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 flanker, 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 PLAF flanker 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 flanker because no PLAF flanker radar can pick up a sub 0.3 meter(clean config RCS) Tejas target from any distance greater than say 50 Km.

So how will the PLAF flanker 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 flanker 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 flanker 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 flanker.

So there is no guarantee that the bigger PLAF flanker 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 flanker. SO on the first day fleet vs fleet battles each PLAF flanker 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 flanker X band fire control radars from any distance greater than 50 Km, But tejas mk-2 will detect any PLAF flanker 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 PLAF flanker X band fire control radar won’t see Tejas mk-2 from any distance greater than 50 Km
For more of the same discussion , visit,
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/indian-air-force/43717-ada-lca-tejas-iv-94.html
"

Another comment by me
"
Regarding weapon load IAF has changed the BVR missile spec to more weight and more launch stress inducing missiles which resulted in redesign of wing and reduction in weapon load.

Also once testing telemetry equipment is taken off the LSPs another 0.4 ton will be added.

And redesign of it’s avionics display is also expected to shave off around 100 to 200 Kg of weight as per some reports from Ajaishukla,

Taking its weapon load to around 4 tons. Which is what carried on any fighter for a normal mission.

Within this 80 percent opening it has achieved close to 22 deg AOA and 18 deg STR which is nothing to complain about.

Once the spin recovery parameters test is completed it will achieve the remaining 20 percent of
it’s flight envelope parameters.
And by no stretch of imagination a fighter like LCA which has

1. a 4 ton pay load ,
2.capable of firing 120 KM range BVR
3.with one of the lowest RCS helping it to approach the enemy fighter closer before being detected
4.capable of launching laser guided long range ground attack munitions
5.with comparable leading STR and ITR specs

is going to be history, What is going to be history is the fighters like Jaguar, and MIG-21, 23 and 27(400 of which serve in IAF as on date!!!!!!) which have none of the above capabilities .

A combination of TWR, wing loading and Instantaneous turn rate at close combat speeds which determine the close combat specs of a fighter,

It exceeds IAF’s blue eyed beauty Mirage-2000 in all these parameters in a significant manner.

IAF is spending 40 million dollar a piece for upgrading to each Mirage-2000. Even after these upgrades the60 Mirage-2000s will have lesser TWR, wing loading and Instantaneous turn rate at close combat speeds and lesser climb rate than the Tejas Mk-1.

Only Su-30 MKI and Mig-29s can exceed the tejas that too by about around ten percent only in close combat specs.
Both are twin engined fighters with many times higher clean config RCS than the Tejas . And their reliability and availability rate is not as good compared the GE-414 equipped Tejas.

Some times in a squadron of Mig-29s the availability rate is single digit only.

So Tejas is as modern and as reliable and as effective as any other fighter in IAF.

Because it is ours we can introduce any new weapons in future without begging permission from the OE makers and it will be upgraded on regular basis,

The tejas mk-1 it self will carry both the akash mk-1 and MK-2 which will have 80 Km and 120 Km range in future."


"LCA mk-2 will have a slightly bigger radome dia than the RAFALE if fuselage is enlarged for GE-414.

LCA mk-2 will have a slightly higher top speeds than RAFALE as well with almost the same clean config RCS of RAFALE.

other than the longer range and higher pay load on all other parameters the LCA mk-2 will be better than 80 percent of the present IAF fleet.

And LCA mk-2 will have 120 km range BVR in Astra mk-2, What is the max range of BVRs on MIG-29?

Even with fully loaded air to air config LCA mk-2 will have far lesser RCS than the MIG-29 . Meaning it can get closer to fire it’s BVRs giving them a much better kill ratios.

A fully loaded Sukhoi for air to air mission will be spotted by enemy airborne radars at nearly thrice the distance of that of tejas mk-1.

It will carry the combined weapon load of Jag and Mig-21 with lesser RCS than the MIG-29 and the Su-30 and more thrust to weight ratio than the mirage-2000 with equal detection and tracking range of RAFALE radar with almost the same RCS of RAFALE.

According to all available open source info the more than 90 percent composite skin on the tejas surface will have a much better resistance to tough weather in India and weighs less with more stealthy characteristics ,

Already methods were developed to spot the fatigue cracks through state of the art tech and take any corrective action needed.

17 deg sustained turn rate is the initial ASR set for LCA mk-1 just 1 degree less than F-16 block C/D.

1.Even with 6G and 20 deg AOA limitation the LCA has already completed a horizontal loop in Aeroindia demo within 23 seconds. That comes to a STR of close to 16 deg with the limitations of partially opened flight envelope.We don’t know whether the plane was stretched even to this partial limit of 6Gs and 20 Deg AOA in that demo.

Also with the same 6G 20 deg AOA restriction it completed a vertical loop within 20 seconds in AeroIndia 2013 ,meaning it had a STR of close to 18 deg in vertical loop. In a recent fly past the Su-35 too completed the powered vertical loop within 18 seconds. Once again We don’t know whether the plane was stretched even to this partial limit of 6Gs and 20 Deg AOA in that demo.

Recent reports in a blog indicate that LCA mk-1 has achieved a Sustained Turn Rate to the IAf’s satisfaction even with 1 ton extra empty weight than the original target of 5470 kg. SO it must have improved over the aeroindia2013 demo in a substantial manner.

So in no way can the initial airframe design can be called draggy.

Also the TWR ratio of LCA with 50 percent fuel is 1.07. Same for F-16 is 1.25. So with even lower thrust to weight ratio than F-16 C/D , LCA has managed to pull closer to the F-16 C/D .

In mk-2 it will only further improve, with weight reduction due to more composite percentage and a 20 percent higher thrust engine in GE F414 IN S 6. Since the length of fuselage is going to be expanded by 0.5 meter only it won’t add to much empty weight either.

Also with an empty weight of 8.5 ton F-16 C/D carries 3.1 ton fuel.

LCA mk-1 with it’s empty weight of 6.4 tons carries 2.5 ton fuel.SO LCA mk-1 has a close to 10 percent better fuel fraction ratio than the F-16 C/ D. Indicating it won’t suffer much in range in an air to air configuration of 2 ton air to air missile load which is it’s primary role.

But by having a significantly lower wing loading than the F-16 C/D Tejas mk-1 will have a much better Instantaneous turn Rate than the 26 degree given for F-16 C/ D.

Even the initial ASR given for LCA by MSD Woollen indicates a requirement of 30 deg maximum attainable in the ADA website.

So in the all important high off bore sight WVR missile launching capacity based on Instantaneous Turn Rate , it will be better than the F-16 C/D, just going by the low wing loading factor alone.. But needs citation of course."

""

 

[ersakthivel]

This capability of using MKI's radar to guide missile launched by LCA has never been tested in IAF. It is not even known if LCA can communicate with MKI to share such info. USAF is the only airforce in the world to have tested this technology.

One cannot construct the scenario you are talking about in real life without the required technology.

Radar computers,mission computers$stores release software of SU-30 MKI & Tejas mk1 are made by HAL only.

In fact even russians are buying 64 sets of Radar computers, mission computer & stores release software for their Su-30 SM, same IAF su-30 MKI version from HAL , after impressed by IAF su-30 MKI.

Recently DRDO has integrated brahmos & Astra with SU-30 MKI radar , many DRDO glide bombs in future will also be added to SU-30 MKi

B

 

[ersakthivel]

Guys, Tejas is being killed for sure. At the max, we will get 120 Tejas.. rest 200+ F16/Gripen.

It's ugly truth.

You must have seen Raha showing his preference for Gripen already.

It all depends on how much money & manpower HAL is going to put into mk1A & tejas production line effort, which needs backing from Manohar Parrikar as he is also the minister for defence production besides besides being defence minister.

Why no one is seriously thinking about a global tender calling MNCs in JV with indian partners or in 100% FDI route, for setting up second tejas production line in india is a mystery to me!!!

China adds abt 40 locally produced fighters to its airforce every year, we should also add minimum of 40 fighters every year atleast from 2020 onwards if we hv to replace all obsolete migs & jags

As far as I hv known no defence analysts has ever raised this question either??

 

[ersakthivel]

Ok didn't know about Meteor getting it as well. Thanks for sharing. This would make it first non US missile to have third party targeting as far as I know.

Yes, it wouldn't take 25 years, that was just used a hyperbole to explain that the development duration is unknown. We might get this technology in less than a decade with Astra Mk2.
Correction: Astra is not yet integrated with anything. It has simply been test fired from MKI. The missile's development itself is not complete. Integration will come later.

Yes, we should have the technology.

But the question is will it be effective? If your vision of using LCA+MKI combination in an A2A mission over enemy airspace was so effective, won't all the countries in the world follow it? Instead, we are seeing countries moving towards medium weight fighters with bigger radar and ditching the light fighters. No one wants to have light+heavy fighter combination used as you mentioned in the previous post. If we look at all the future fighters of the world:
1. F35 (Medium)
2. Gripen NG (Medium)
3. TFX (Medium)
4. PAK FA (Heavy)
5. J20 (Heavy)
6. J31 (Medium)
7. TFX (Medium)
8. Mitshubishi X2 Shinshin (Medium)
9. AMCA (Medium)

All of them are heavy or medium weight. No light fighters. 5th Generation of fighter aircraft will be the first generation without light weight fighters. Light weight fighters cost less to operate, so the nations should be planning to use light weight fighters using heavy weight/AWACS to help with targeting. But this is not happening. If the technology is accessible for all, shouldn't more nations be interested in it?

Anyways, I believe we should strive to develop a missile which can use third party targeting. But we shouldn't hold procurement of 100 fighters hostage to the hope that the technology will be developed on time and will be effective in the battlefield.

There are various other reasons to drop the Pre-RFP sent out by the MoD. I don't believe third party targeting is one of them.

buddy guiding of BVR missiles fired from another fighter doesn't need weight or engine match

It needs data link match.

In IAF day celebrations the SU-30 MKI in background already has Astra missile integrated with it.

It is IAF tradition to showcase only inducted fighters & missiles in their airforce day celebration.

Astra integration with Tejas is not years away conditioned upon costly tech transfer from any other country

 

[ersakthivel]

Where did you read that lca's manufacturing infrastructure is short of money?

Last time when HAL asked for money to be put into tejas production line, UPA MOD told HAL to go with a begging bowl to IAF & Navy for 50% & get 50% from its own internal accruals.

Also it doesn't make commercial sense for HAl to put in 1000s of crore into production line as at that time IAF was committed to just 40 tejas mk1 fighters!!!

 

[ersakthivel]

What I wanted to say was that Tejas can intercept F-16 incase MKI was busy in any other task. By the way accoding to "Asia Times", SU-30MKI are outdated and inferior & Pak F-16 are superior to them!!! Can you believe their intellectual level?

Tejas can easily intercept chinese flankers & PAf f-16s, that too mk1A with ASEA 2052 & DRFM ASEA EW suit will have a definite advantage over them,

 

[ersakthivel]

Tejas doesn't need Meteor. If we succeed in integrating Astra Mk. 2 with Tejas, it will be more than enough. It's primary job is an interceptor. I don't know which one will detect the other first in war between Tejas & F-16. But irrespective of what happens, Tejas will intercept F-16 as it will has 150km range Astra Mk.2. Pak will never have BVRAAMs of such range. F-16 medium bird will be outclassed by a Tejas light bird. Forget Su-30MKI or Rafale. They are for China centric.

Tejas will be the first to detect any 4.5th gen fighter currently flying in Asia , Reason- low RCS & higher radar tracking range

 

[ezsasa]

Why no one is seriously thinking about a global tender calling MNCs in JV with indian partners or in 100% FDI route, for setting up second tejas production line in india is a mystery to me!!!

Probably because HAL is not willing to let go of its baby, they would want to recover their investment on LCA program as early as possible.

Also let's not forget there was some talk of HAL IPO, if true that would mean they are not letting go of their prized assets at least for now.

 

[ersakthivel]

Probably because HAL is not willing to let go of its baby, they would want to recover their investment on LCA program as early as possible.

Also let's not forget there was some talk of HAL IPO, if true that would mean they are not letting go of their prized assets at least for now.

HAL is too tied up in various production lines, SU-30 MKI, Mirage upgrade, ALH, LUH, HTT etc, etc,
Time for a fully focused indian MNC whose sole product is tejas production & export

 

[tejas warrior]

I hv written the exact scenario in comments section of one of Bharath karnard's pieces in his blog "Securitywise"

he posted my comments as a separate piece

"https://bharatkarnad.com/2013/11/10...nt-value-add-to-stop-wasteful-military-deals/
"Tejas will carry the combined weapon load of Jag and Mig-21 with lesser RCS than the MIG-29 and the Su-30 and more thrust to weight ratio than the mirage-2000 with equal detection and tracking range of RAFALE radar with almost the same RCS of RAFALE."

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

So even after launching all BVRs IAF Mirage-2000 (or any other fighter presently in service with IAF including SU-30 MKI) 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 launch of all long range BVRs Tejas will have a much smaller 0.2 meter RCS .

So it will not be visible to the PLAF flanker ‘s radars from from even medium BVR range forget about long range BVR s.

SO While PLAF flanker 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 PLAF flanker fire control radars even in clean config,

SO the BVRs fired by PLAF flankers won’t be given mid course update by PLAF fire control radars,

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

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

will be very different cup of tea compared to

PLAF flanker 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 120 km tracking range,

But Tejas mk-1A 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 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 flanker 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 PLAF flanker.

So even if PLAF flanker 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 flanker 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 flanker, 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 PLAF flanker 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 flanker because no PLAF flanker radar can pick up a sub 0.3 meter(clean config RCS) Tejas target from any distance greater than say 50 Km.

So how will the PLAF flanker 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 flanker 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 flanker 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 flanker.

So there is no guarantee that the bigger PLAF flanker 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 flanker. SO on the first day fleet vs fleet battles each PLAF flanker 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 flanker X band fire control radars from any distance greater than 50 Km, But tejas mk-2 will detect any PLAF flanker 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 PLAF flanker X band fire control radar won’t see Tejas mk-2 from any distance greater than 50 Km
For more of the same discussion , visit,
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/indian-air-force/43717-ada-lca-tejas-iv-94.html
"

Another comment by me
"
Regarding weapon load IAF has changed the BVR missile spec to more weight and more launch stress inducing missiles which resulted in redesign of wing and reduction in weapon load.

Also once testing telemetry equipment is taken off the LSPs another 0.4 ton will be added.

And redesign of it’s avionics display is also expected to shave off around 100 to 200 Kg of weight as per some reports from Ajaishukla,

Taking its weapon load to around 4 tons. Which is what carried on any fighter for a normal mission.

Within this 80 percent opening it has achieved close to 22 deg AOA and 18 deg STR which is nothing to complain about.

Once the spin recovery parameters test is completed it will achieve the remaining 20 percent of
it’s flight envelope parameters.
And by no stretch of imagination a fighter like LCA which has

1. a 4 ton pay load ,
2.capable of firing 120 KM range BVR
3.with one of the lowest RCS helping it to approach the enemy fighter closer before being detected
4.capable of launching laser guided long range ground attack munitions
5.with comparable leading STR and ITR specs

is going to be history, What is going to be history is the fighters like Jaguar, and MIG-21, 23 and 27(400 of which serve in IAF as on date!!!!!!) which have none of the above capabilities .

A combination of TWR, wing loading and Instantaneous turn rate at close combat speeds which determine the close combat specs of a fighter,

It exceeds IAF’s blue eyed beauty Mirage-2000 in all these parameters in a significant manner.

IAF is spending 40 million dollar a piece for upgrading to each Mirage-2000. Even after these upgrades the60 Mirage-2000s will have lesser TWR, wing loading and Instantaneous turn rate at close combat speeds and lesser climb rate than the Tejas Mk-1.

Only Su-30 MKI and Mig-29s can exceed the tejas that too by about around ten percent only in close combat specs.
Both are twin engined fighters with many times higher clean config RCS than the Tejas . And their reliability and availability rate is not as good compared the GE-414 equipped Tejas.

Some times in a squadron of Mig-29s the availability rate is single digit only.

So Tejas is as modern and as reliable and as effective as any other fighter in IAF.

Because it is ours we can introduce any new weapons in future without begging permission from the OE makers and it will be upgraded on regular basis,

The tejas mk-1 it self will carry both the akash mk-1 and MK-2 which will have 80 Km and 120 Km range in future."


"LCA mk-2 will have a slightly bigger radome dia than the RAFALE if fuselage is enlarged for GE-414.

LCA mk-2 will have a slightly higher top speeds than RAFALE as well with almost the same clean config RCS of RAFALE.

other than the longer range and higher pay load on all other parameters the LCA mk-2 will be better than 80 percent of the present IAF fleet.

And LCA mk-2 will have 120 km range BVR in Astra mk-2, What is the max range of BVRs on MIG-29?

Even with fully loaded air to air config LCA mk-2 will have far lesser RCS than the MIG-29 . Meaning it can get closer to fire it’s BVRs giving them a much better kill ratios.

A fully loaded Sukhoi for air to air mission will be spotted by enemy airborne radars at nearly thrice the distance of that of tejas mk-1.

It will carry the combined weapon load of Jag and Mig-21 with lesser RCS than the MIG-29 and the Su-30 and more thrust to weight ratio than the mirage-2000 with equal detection and tracking range of RAFALE radar with almost the same RCS of RAFALE.

According to all available open source info the more than 90 percent composite skin on the tejas surface will have a much better resistance to tough weather in India and weighs less with more stealthy characteristics ,

Already methods were developed to spot the fatigue cracks through state of the art tech and take any corrective action needed.

17 deg sustained turn rate is the initial ASR set for LCA mk-1 just 1 degree less than F-16 block C/D.

1.Even with 6G and 20 deg AOA limitation the LCA has already completed a horizontal loop in Aeroindia demo within 23 seconds. That comes to a STR of close to 16 deg with the limitations of partially opened flight envelope.We don’t know whether the plane was stretched even to this partial limit of 6Gs and 20 Deg AOA in that demo.

Also with the same 6G 20 deg AOA restriction it completed a vertical loop within 20 seconds in AeroIndia 2013 ,meaning it had a STR of close to 18 deg in vertical loop. In a recent fly past the Su-35 too completed the powered vertical loop within 18 seconds. Once again We don’t know whether the plane was stretched even to this partial limit of 6Gs and 20 Deg AOA in that demo.

Recent reports in a blog indicate that LCA mk-1 has achieved a Sustained Turn Rate to the IAf’s satisfaction even with 1 ton extra empty weight than the original target of 5470 kg. SO it must have improved over the aeroindia2013 demo in a substantial manner.

So in no way can the initial airframe design can be called draggy.

Also the TWR ratio of LCA with 50 percent fuel is 1.07. Same for F-16 is 1.25. So with even lower thrust to weight ratio than F-16 C/D , LCA has managed to pull closer to the F-16 C/D .

In mk-2 it will only further improve, with weight reduction due to more composite percentage and a 20 percent higher thrust engine in GE F414 IN S 6. Since the length of fuselage is going to be expanded by 0.5 meter only it won’t add to much empty weight either.

Also with an empty weight of 8.5 ton F-16 C/D carries 3.1 ton fuel.

LCA mk-1 with it’s empty weight of 6.4 tons carries 2.5 ton fuel.SO LCA mk-1 has a close to 10 percent better fuel fraction ratio than the F-16 C/ D. Indicating it won’t suffer much in range in an air to air configuration of 2 ton air to air missile load which is it’s primary role.

But by having a significantly lower wing loading than the F-16 C/D Tejas mk-1 will have a much better Instantaneous turn Rate than the 26 degree given for F-16 C/ D.

Even the initial ASR given for LCA by MSD Woollen indicates a requirement of 30 deg maximum attainable in the ADA website.

So in the all important high off bore sight WVR missile launching capacity based on Instantaneous Turn Rate , it will be better than the F-16 C/D, just going by the low wing loading factor alone.. But needs citation of course."

""

Thank you for your detailed analysis.

Why IAF do not order more MK1s ?

They are spending more on upgrading Mirage, ready to buy F-solh, Gripen which are good for nothing..

HAL can not increase production due to less ORDER is well understood.