No. Landing gears are overweight by 500kg and that's what they are trying to reduce by FOC. After that Air force wants an extra 1 ton on the empty weight. So, right now efforts are on to reduce the LCA Mk1 to 5 tons from the current 5.5 tons. Then LCA Mk2 will be increased by 1 tons by redesigning nose, wing, inlets and changes for F414 INS6. It will be significant.
Trimming landing gear of 6.5 ton fighter by 500kg! Possible only if MK-2 chooses to take off with detachable rollers and land a like glider, just like Me 163.
Redesigned nose as of today means increasing length with plug. Changed intake means increasing radius in horizontal axis and few more auxiliary inlets. Changes for F-414 will be internal. Wing will largely remain unchanged except LEVCON.
So again, which changes among following can't be done on MK-1 during MLU? And if it can be done what is wrong in buying second squadron?
But what if Gripen is selected? The LCA Mk2 and Gripen NG have similar specifications.
But they will not same range and combat payload. Not to forget that Mk-2 will remain as a L-MRCA and Gripen IN will be a M-MRCA.
LCA is primarily a point defence fighter. All it has to do is point defence and minor air interdiction. If it is a replacement for Mig-21 then it will do the role of a Mig-21, that is shoot intruding enemy aircraft with BVR, WVR missiles or engage using guns. For all that the LCA needs to be able to get into turning games.
Yes LCA will be point air defence fighter with BVR capability and will do minor air interdiction and A2G air support at border with LGB's and standoff missiles.
In dog fight main objective always remains getting behind foe's 6 o'clcok and turning with turn is considered as worst maneuver as it bleeds energy very fast especillay of pure delta. But this is not the first and last maneuver in the book. High Yo Yo is one alternative and very good especially for deltas because they at advantage there.
That's why its called a Mig-21++ by ACM. It is a Mig-21 Bison with strike capability.
Yes indeed. A Mig-21 replacement would always be similar in capability(combat load and range wise) and would be built with present generation technology to tackle present generation threat. Same is the case with LCA which is a advanced replacement of Mig-21s .
The problem isn't the plans of the objectives. The problem is results. Your plans are great. But what if by 2014, ADA suddenly announces, LCA Mk1 failed due to design limitations and LCA Mk2 cannot be done by 2020 and that AMCA will be shelved for a newer platform. What then? It's great if we succeed. But what if we fail? Then where will the replacement come from?
Plain speculation and negative one. There were some in 90s who used to say LCA will not even fly. There are some who says, FGFA will fail as a stealth fighters because Russians can only build fighters with large RCS not with LO features. Do not not risk factor applies with them? Can you say for sure Russian 5G design will be better than US or even Chinese because some says Chinese stealth tech is stolen US technology? What if China in reality has stolen US 5g tech? Would not FGFA or even PAK-FA put IAF at great disadvantage at both fronts?
More reasons to expect for better than otherwise. DRDO is now delivering. Situation has changed for good will change even more for better.
ADA has never had any experience building an aircraft. Why would the IAF take such massive risks chasing behind dreams? Once ADA has successfully made LCA and gets AMCA flying, then I don't see a reason why IAF will not place its cards on ADA or HAL. The IAF instead places its cards on Russia or Europe imply because they are more successful.
IAF is not a single fighter type air force, it has available spots for imported one. Mere success/failure of LCA and AMCA will not seal faith of IAF. But their success would change IAF's faith, Navy's faith and Indian's faith forever. Worth taking chance.
It's exactly like the difference between joining IIMs for MBA or some start up college for MBA. It's a huge difference. The Future is completely uncertain if you join a start up while the future is assured if you join IIM. IAF will place its bet on Sukhoi any day over ADA.
No. Buying defence products from out side and developing then buying them locally doesn't compare to MBA from IIM and MBA from start up college respectively. Unlike your comparison, here interests are permanently mutual and reciprocal and will bear fruits forever. If IAF invests in local it will face some problem initially but in time it will get perfect product for its need. But with imports IAF will always be compromising, sometime on requirements sometime on budget.
Rather I suspect behind the scene action, similar to another 124 Arjuns inducted y the army for Arjun Mk1.
You do, I don't.
If we pick Gripen, then that statement becomes void.
No not at all. Gripen means JAS-39IN which is a M-MRCA, HF-XX MK-2 means L-MRCA. Two different aircraft can't replace each other.
Still reliability is very important. Jaguars have a very reliable strike capability and we have some really good pilots on the Jaguar, why retrain those pilots, instead give them better Jaguars. New Jaguars are a stop gap anyway until AMCA comes into the picture.
If anything in IAF is reliable then it is Mirage? Jaguar did had its share of criticism. But this is not the thread to discuss that in detail. Whole point was, new Jaguars and new engines (in upgraded one's) will have much life left when they will be decommissioned. So why put so much money specially when unlike Tejas spin-off/pay-back, money invested in Jaguars will be totally unrecoverable.
USN simply did not engage the Russian jets or the Chinese submarine because they did not want to invite a diplomatic war. But the Jaguars penetration during Malabar was well orchestrated in order to sink the carrier. There were 150-200 aircraft flying at the time.
USN did not engaged because they were not presenting any considerable threat. Whenever they did, they were intercepted by jets flying from carriers.
Mig-21s shot down F-16s during a war game but during Red USAF officer said they were operation at huge restrictions. Will know about that carrier incident soon.
But I am not interested in the radar at all.
Then what? Radar is a major ask from IAF in LCA.
That was IAF's call. They said they want a better engine. AESA was just an upgrade. The time they announced MK2, the IAF clearly said they have no interest in the Mk1.
Only engine and Radar was IAF's call. Rest of improvements about which we came to know during AI 09 was ADA's proposal. Anyway, engine demand was not new. Ever since latest ASR was conveyed it became certain that LCA will need a 90KN engine.
IAF only said don't want LCA with present thrust/engine. A mere re-engining doesn't shoots MK-1 to MK-2 there is a comprehensive package.
Not if Israel helps us and looks like they already barred the 2052 for export. If Israel re-develops the 2052 in India itself then we will see.
It's for LCA's good that Israel cleared its stand now, not half way down the road. Now LRDE will team up with EuroRadar. However, i am sure that ADA will definitely keep alternative option open which in worst case will be either RBE-2 or ZUKE AE.
What if LCA ends up fighting a PAF F-16 or J-10? LCA is not just a supportive workhorse. It is a point defence and an air interdiction fighter.
Tejas will fire BVR just like F-16s. In any air to air combat Tejas will engage F-16s at number advantage or else will escape. Same applies to J-10. However i don't consider it a threat as long as it uses chinese BVR missiles.
Gripen is a simple, cheap and easily acquirable fighter. We can even work with Saab and get the Kaveri on it once it's out. Gripen cannot replace the heavier contemporaries in certain roles, but it can handle LCA's role many times better
Imported hardwares are neither cheap nor easily acquirable specially when need is most, recall Kargil days.........One black dot and SAAB will be banned just like Bofors. What then other than IAF begging DRDO to keep them airworthy.
So can do heavier fighters much better than Gripen in addition to heavy duty role which Gripen can't do. So why don't dump Gripen and buy them?
You undermine the success of the A-10. It has less to do with deserts and Afghanistan and more to do with its ability to kill ground troops and tanks. You could say it was under used simply because the enemy was already annihilated.
No i did not. I only pointed to its usefulness in present time. BTW A-10 and Jaguar are different and i had used Jaguar for something not A-10.
.That's the problem, you are comparing a proven platform with a developing one.
No, i am only saying don't invest in re-engined Jaguar and new one specially when a better replacement will be fully ready in 2 years. Mature or not, any day down the line it will be replaced by new jet and more likely date is 2018 .
Two new engine per Jaguar for only 800 hours of flying!
But it comes with the guarantee that it will work. Granted imported jets are more expensive, but so is an IIM MBA degree compared to a start up. So, will you base the future 40 years of your life on a cheaper budget college?
Nitesh has posted one article regarding F-16 which gives me enough reasons to distrust.
MBA logic doesn't applies here. A students pays a college and gets an MBA. Relation, 2 years max. IAF pays ADA and gets something. DRDO improves next one using that money provides better this time to IAF. Relation, forever.
