ADA Tejas (LCA) News and Discussions

[sayareakd]

Check out @sayareakd’s Tweet:

 

[AnantS]

Check out @sayareakd’s Tweet:

I think its an order right from the top(Defmin or PMO), to thrash out rumors mongering. Otherwise IAF is not far away from its sister service Army to raise Hue and Cry about wanting imported maal!

 

[aditya10r]

I think its an order right from the top(Defmin or PMO), to thrash out rumors mongering. Otherwise IAF is not far away from its sister service Army to raise Hue and Cry about wanting imported maal!

IAF leads the way in these cases.

________________________________________

:biggrin2::biggrin2::biggrin2::biggrin2::biggrin2::biggrin2::biggrin2::biggrin2::biggrin2::biggrin2:

 

[Steven Rogers]

Blame the Human resource management, But not the reservation for the backward classes. As if, its a reservation for class of people who want to drag the project.

The project might be lagging back due to number of reasons, your blame on particular class of people's baseless performance issues blamed on them is irrelevant and short minded, It doesnt prove other class of people are more workaholic, enthusiasts them others.
(sorry to derail the topic, i have to till this. )

No the guy mentioned or blamed quota while the projects are taken and have name such as "Prashant Singh Bhadauria ", that seems Kshatriya, so it is foolish to blame quota.

Sent from my Aqua Ace II using Tapatalk

 

[Steven Rogers]

Procurement of any Single Engine Fighter Jet or joint venture on Kaveri Engine won't help India in its Indeginious Fighter Jet program. ( it's my philosophical perspective, and topics discussed in this post are non technical )

Before moving on to the point we first need to know that what is knowledge?
Knowledge is nothing but information in action.
We can classify knowledge into two types Explicit Knowledge and Tactic knowledge.

Explicit Knowledge is the one that deals with objective, rational and technical knowledge it consists of polices, procedures, strategies and goals.

Tactic knowledge is the cumulative store of subject or experiential learning it consists of an organisations experience, insight, expertise, know how and trade secrets.

For succesfull development of any product,may it be Defence related or Commercial,an organisation needs both Explicit Knowledge and Tactic knowledge.

Explicit knowledge is available in the form of Technical books, Scientific Journal papers etc. Using this knowledge we can make our product working initially but to make product more refined, competitive, and sophisticated we need Tactic knowledge.
Such tactic knowledge is acquired over years of product development, product improvement, and research.
Organisations who have invested time, human resource and money are reluctant to share information and loose there competitive advantage in Market.

Hence we can conclude that no matter how much India go for joint ventures and joint development it won't improve our Indeginious program unless we put our own effort, make use of our own products, find faults, make improvements and refine.
Ordering foreign defence products will just serve as stop gap and not as a boost to our Indeginious Industry, but ordering Indeginious products like LCA Tejas in bulk and keeping the development cycle going will help our Indeginious Industry and economy.

A bit wrong, we got the tactic knowledge from Akash and LRSAM, we have tactic as well as explicit knowledge on Kaveri, we aren't jv for Kaveri but we are asking correction under our supervision, they are investing 1 billion, what stopped India earlier to invest the same money on Kaveri, 2things we didn't wanted to risk that money so we went into French yard.

Sent from my Aqua Ace II using Tapatalk

 

[Steven Rogers]

One us just for enjoyment, while the other one shows that tejas configured with multiple rack for CCM. Can Anyone confirm that

Sent from my Aqua Ace II using Tapatalk

 

[Kshithij]

One us just for enjoyment, while the other one shows that tejas configured with multiple rack for CCM. Can Anyone confirm that

Sent from my Aqua Ace II using Tapatalk

CCM are wasteful missiles. ASTRA has both close as well as long range intercepting ability. I don't see a reason india will risk having CCM at the expense of BVR/CCM and waste precious hardpoint.

But, yes, all pylons can be racked in almost all modern planes if the missile is light weight. Not sure of Tejas, but most likely racking is possible

 

[no smoking]

A bit wrong, we got the tactic knowledge from Akash and LRSAM, we have tactic as well as explicit knowledge on Kaveri, we aren't jv for Kaveri but we are asking correction under our supervision, they are investing 1 billion, what stopped India earlier to invest the same money on Kaveri, 2things we didn't wanted to risk that money so we went into French yard.
Sent from my Aqua Ace II using Tapatalk

Because the investment required to develop the knowledge of finding the cause of your problem and fixing it is worth 100 times of 1 billion dollars, not to mention the time spent in the last 6 decades for accumulating experiences in all kinds of French engine projects.

 

[Kay]

CCM are wasteful missiles. ASTRA has both close as well as long range intercepting ability. I don't see a reason india will risk having CCM at the expense of BVR/CCM and waste precious hardpoint.

But, yes, all pylons can be racked in almost all modern planes if the missile is light weight. Not sure of Tejas, but most likely racking is possible

CCMs emphasize maneuverability -having more surfaces and/or thrust vectoring. What if an enemy manages to jump you by avoiding detection - using stealth or jamming? With BVR you are left with a missile which does not turn that fast and you will lose in a dogfight. It is similar to having a layered defence.
Also CCMs are more difficult to develop as they have to withstand higher G-s.

 

[Kay]

Because the investment required to develop the knowledge of finding the cause of your problem and fixing it is worth 100 times of 1 billion dollars, not to mention the time spent in the last 6 decades for accumulating experiences in all kinds of French engine projects.

How much time and money is needed - There is no way to know for sure - is there? The Kaveri project did not receive this much money because of inherent tisks. The French are called in to reduce risks and reduce development time, specially since Kaveri's last minute problems of screech and flutter have known solutions.

 

[Kshithij]

Because the investment required to develop the knowledge of finding the cause of your problem and fixing it is worth 100 times of 1 billion dollars, not to mention the time spent in the last 6 decades for accumulating experiences in all kinds of French engine projects.

You seem to be speaking from your behind. As your name says - NO SMOKING. Get normal and come back for better reasoning.

The Kaveri engine is not being given by french as ToT. India is simply taking consultation which could be avoided by using trial and error. It will waste 2-3 years, but will get things done

 

[sthf]

All of your examples were of equipment that (1) attained maturity in their home countries,

Nope. You cannot claim OEM or home country maturity when it was not inducted before (or ever) in the said home country. That is not how maturity works. It is attained on the basis of user feedback which in 3 out of 4 of the cases was India not the home country.

(2) were purchased off the shelf. Sure, there are components that a "home built" (and I quote it for a reason), such as DRDO installed AC in the T-90.

Once again, the "home built" components as you put it makes it significantly and I mean significantly different than the version used in the home country. In case of T-90S, the differences are major, armour, FCS, ACs and sights in addition to the terrain it is deployed in.

I think you are trying, (1) to delink Sukhoi-27 from Sukhoi-30

No sir I am not. I am merely pointing out that MKI is a significantly different beast than Su-27 and that Russian Air Force had no user experience on MKI and therefore it cannot be claimed that it was a mature platform when India bought it. It was derived from a mature platform but was not a mature platform in itself.

(2) to delink T-72 from T-90, just so that you can argue that these were not off-the-shelf purchases.

On the contrary, my entire argument revolves around the fact that these are in fact off-the-shelf purchases sans "maturity".

Let's go through the argument once again. If India inducts Armata in 2018, will you consider it as a "mature" platform despite the fact that neither India nor Russia is currently a user and has very little user feedback to offer?

Going by this logic, you would probably argue that Mil-35 was also not an off-the-shelf purchase because the Russians never inducted the Mil-35. They only use the Mil-24.

Explained above, doesn't apply in this case or in the case of many many foreign systems that were inducted over the years.

 

[pmaitra]

Nope. You cannot claim OEM or home country maturity when it was not inducted before (or ever) in the said home country. That is not how maturity works. It is attained on the basis of user feedback which in 3 out of 4 of the cases was India not the home country.
Once again, the "home built" components as you put it makes it significantly and I mean significantly different than the version used in the home country. In case of T-90S, the differences are major, armour, FCS, ACs and sights in addition to the terrain it is deployed in.
No sir I am not. I am merely pointing out that MKI is a significantly different beast than Su-27 and that Russian Air Force had no user experience on MKI and therefore it cannot be claimed that it was a mature platform when India bought it. It was derived from a mature platform but was not a mature platform in itself.
On the contrary, my entire argument revolves around the fact that these are in fact off-the-shelf purchases sans "maturity".

Let's go through the argument once again. If India inducts Armata in 2018, will you consider it as a "mature" platform despite the fact that neither India nor Russia is currently a user and has very little user feedback to offer?
Explained above, doesn't apply in this case or in the case of many many foreign systems that were inducted over the years.

Ok, if you think all of those purchases you cited were not off-the-shelf purchases, then so be it.

I am prepared to move on.

 

[sthf]

Ok, if you think all of those purchases you cited were not off-the-shelf purchases, then so be it.

For crying out loud atleast read the posts before commenting.

On the contrary, my entire argument revolves around the fact that these are in fact off-the-shelf purchases sans "maturity".

I am prepared to move on.

Please do.

Good day.

 

[Kshithij]

CCMs emphasize maneuverability -having more surfaces and/or thrust vectoring. What if an enemy manages to jump you by avoiding detection - using stealth or jamming? With BVR you are left with a missile which does not turn that fast and you will lose in a dogfight. It is similar to having a layered defence.
Also CCMs are more difficult to develop as they have to withstand higher G-s.

Lets take an example of MBDA MICA. It has maneuverability of 50g till 7km but only 30g at 12km. CCM is smaller and hence has lower power.

It is possible to have high G in medium range BVR. There is a reason why russia, usa doesn't develop short range CCM. Medium range BVR and long range ramjet BVR are the only 2 missile worth having.

Even if CCM is brought in, it can be placed under the side of fuselage, in place of pods

 

[Vorschlaghammer]

Lets take an example of MBDA MICA. It has maneuverability of 50g till 7km but only 30g at 12km. CCM is smaller and hence has lower power.

It is possible to have high G in medium range BVR. There is a reason why russia, usa doesn't develop short range CCM. Medium range BVR and long range ramjet BVR are the only 2 missile worth having.

Even if CCM is brought in, it can be placed under the side of fuselage, in place of pods

Well latest marks of older CCM missiles like AIM-9X Block III, Python-5, under development K-74M2 and newer ones like ASRAAM, IRIS and MICA-IR are technically BVR cause they have 30-50km range. The trend seems to be to retain and enhance the passive IR guidance, while increasing motor size thus range, and adding datalink for LOAL capability.

I guess the slow but sure proliferation of stealth technology and advanced active array based digital jammers have degraded pure radar guided BVR missile performance , hence these "upgrades" to traditional short range CCM missiles.

 

[binayak95]

Well latest marks of older CCM missiles like AIM-9X Block III, Python-5, under development K-74M2 and newer ones like ASRAAM, IRIS and MICA-IR are technically BVR cause they have 30-50km range. The trend seems to be to retain and enhance the passive IR guidance, while increasing motor size thus range, and adding datalink for LOAL capability.

I guess the slow but sure proliferation of stealth technology and advanced active array based digital jammers have degraded pure radar guided BVR missile performance , hence these "upgrades" to traditional short range CCM missiles.

And yet it was an AIM-9X which failed to shoot down the Su-22. (That F-18 incident) The Aim-9X was defeated by Russian flares. The USN Super Hornet got the kill with an AIM-120.

http://www.combataircraft.net/2017/06/23/how-did-a-30-year-old-su-22-defeat-a-modern-aim-9x/

 

[Kshithij]

Well latest marks of older CCM missiles like AIM-9X Block III, Python-5, under development K-74M2 and newer ones like ASRAAM, IRIS and MICA-IR are technically BVR cause they have 30-50km range. The trend seems to be to retain and enhance the passive IR guidance, while increasing motor size thus range, and adding datalink for LOAL capability.

I guess the slow but sure proliferation of stealth technology and advanced active array based digital jammers have degraded pure radar guided BVR missile performance , hence these "upgrades" to traditional short range CCM missiles.

With the arrival of AESA radar, stealth has been compromised to some extent. When we get GaN radar (as of now, USA has made a big GaN radar for patriot missile defence and are miniaturising it), planes like F22 will lose its stealth value.

The 5th generation will again be reduced to 4.5 generation. USA will be left with a fat, low performance F35!

BVR is will remain effective due to this reduction in stealth and 'CCM only' missiles are highly unlikely to be used

 

[tejas warrior]

ADA's current director apparently believes that HAL willl be able to supply 16 Tejas aircraft in 2018-19.

 

[Willy2]

CCMs emphasize maneuverability -having more surfaces and/or thrust vectoring. What if an enemy manages to jump you by avoiding detection - using stealth or jamming? With BVR you are left with a missile which does not turn that fast and you will lose in a dogfight. It is similar to having a layered defence.
Also CCMs are more difficult to develop as they have to withstand higher G-s.

I wonder what then use of BVR ? if jets can out maneuver CCM then it can easily dodge BVR with less maneuverability , and their RWR system would warn them about it when it's around 50/60 KM away .

Are these BVR kept only for heavy aircraft like AWACS , transport etc ?