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."
""
