ADA Tejas Mark-II/Medium Weight Fighter

[Kchontha]

This lca MK 2/MCA could be the backbone of iaf in the near future, hope they developed it in time.

Sent from my Redmi Note 4 using Tapatalk

 

[Filtercoffee]

Mig 21’s airframes are a gone case by now, you also can’t add any more sub systems in that tiny airframe.

It was just a thought, experience with the aircraft is legendary, the Indian Air Force can do wonders with a new glass cockpit, engine, maybe be extending the range (this means every requirement necessary for the upgrades to be done.) with the role of it being as close as a permitted to be a multirole aircraft of today. The MiG-35 is the grestest example of great subtle design changes for its current and extended role from the MiG-29. It is still possible.

 

[Filtercoffee]

It was just a thought, experience with the aircraft is legendary, the Indian Air Force can do wonders with a new glass cockpit, engine, maybe be extending the range (this means every requirement necessary for the upgrades to be done.) with the role of it being as close as a permitted to be a multirole aircraft of today. The MiG-35 is the grestest example of great subtle design changes for its current and extended role from the MiG-29. It is still possible.

Again I was browsing for reasonable answers for progressive upgrades and manufacturing, here is a presentation about the highs (and some times lows) for the IAF by the current vice chief of staff for the Indian Air Force, Air Marshal S.B. Deo.

 

[Sancho]

Since, Tejas Mk2 will be replacing Mirage and other medium weight fighters, is there a plan to assign the role of strategic weapons delivery to Tejas as it was to Mirage? Or will we see the Rafale being the new strategic weapons carrier?

The whole justification for Rafale was strategic missions and even that is nothing more than PR, since the M2Ks will remain in service till 2030 at least.

Also Tejas is not replacing Mig 29 or M2K in terms of capabilities, but because of necessity to fill the void FGFA cancellation created.
FGFA was initially planned to replace the remaining 2 Mig 27 squads (for which additional MKIs were ordered instead), Mig 29s, parts of the Jags and eventually the M2K. That's why the planner numbers were around 200 at the beginning, which now are missing in the replacement plan of IAF.
The only incoming fighter for IAF so far is LCA, with AMCA planned as the long term replacement of MKIs around 2035.

So all we see now, is a reshaping of the replacement plans within the planned time lines, from LCA/MMRCA/FGFA/AMCA, to LCA/Rafale + 2nd MMRCA?/AMCA.

This once again makes clear, that budget cuts are the prime reason for the FGFA cancellation and that it leaves India in major disadvantage over China on 4.5th and 5th gen fighters.

 

[Jackd]

The whole justification for Rafale was strategic missions and even that is nothing more than PR, since the M2Ks will remain in service till 2030 at least.

Also Tejas is not replacing Mig 29 or M2K in terms of capabilities, but because of necessity to fill the void FGFA cancellation created.
FGFA was initially planned to replace the remaining 2 Mig 27 squads (for which additional MKIs were ordered instead), Mig 29s, parts of the Jags and eventually the M2K. That's why the planner numbers were around 200 at the beginning, which now are missing in the replacement plan of IAF.
The only incoming fighter for IAF so far is LCA, with AMCA planned as the long term replacement of MKIs around 2035.

So all we see now, is a reshaping of the replacement plans within the planned time lines, from LCA/MMRCA/FGFA/AMCA, to LCA/Rafale + 2nd MMRCA?/AMCA.

This once again makes clear, that budget cuts are the prime reason for the FGFA cancellation and that it leaves India in major disadvantage over China on 4.5th and 5th gen fighters.

I have read somewhere that twin engine jets are preferred when it comes to strategic weapons delivery, due to increased reliability. Maybe, that is why we will never see MCA (medium weight tejas) taking on a strategic role or they can do it?
If what I have heard in the news about Eurofighter bid being revised during MMRCA 1.0, then we should think about getting Typhoons for IAF and 36 Rafale can do the job of strategic weapons delivery.

 

[Sancho]

Again I was browsing for reasonable answers for progressive upgrades and manufacturing, here is a presentation about the highs (and some times lows) for the IAF by the current vice chief of staff for the Indian Air Force, Air Marshal S.B. Deo.

Interessting, thx for sharing.
He is right about too much talk, too little results, the being afraid of failures although that only counts for the decision makers, DRDO and HAL showed the opposite. But he shouldn't had made the Elon Musk example, given the fact that Tesla is an example of big promises, with meager results, delays and increasing costs too.

But he also referred to examples where we went to experienced foreign designers, to gain their know how and that's exactly where the LCA programme failed to follow. If we had taken foreign development partners for LCA, radar and engine developments, some if not all of these developments could had been successful and operational by now. Chosing to do things alone, mess up and then go to foreign consultants for help, not only made things more costly, but also far more delayed than necessary.

A decade ago Turkey was clearly behind India on defence technology and aviation industry. Now they surpassed us, thx to the know how they gathered from US, European, or East Asian OEMs. They are popping out drones, combat and utility helicopters, basic trainers and advanced trainers now, with a 5th gen fighter development too. All that by understanding, that they have to close their knowledge gaps, with the help of foreign JV partners!
Offsets and ToT is a start to gain know how, but we need to push for more joint developments / JVs like Brahmos or Barak 8.

 

[Sancho]

I have read somewhere that twin engine jets are preferred when it comes to strategic weapons delivery, due to increased reliability.

The M2k is a single engine fighter and one of our prime nuclear strike options. So even if a single engine might be more prone to bid strikes or technical issues, it's capability that primarily counts.
Tejas was never intended for strategic roles, where long range, load capability and survivability are key factors. All this will be covered by M2k, MKI, Rafale and with the revised replacement plans, AMCA in the long run.
All Tejas must deliver, is good performance to it's own requirements, not to be comparable to MMRCA on capability.

 

[Filtercoffee]

The deputy chief of the Indian Air Force, R. Nambiar.

Interessting, thx for sharing.
He is right about too much talk, too little results, the being afraid of failures although that only counts for the decision makers, DRDO and HAL showed the opposite. But he shouldn't had made the Elon Musk example, given the fact that Tesla is an example of big promises, with meager results, delays and increasing costs too.

But he also referred to examples where we went to experienced foreign designers, to gain their know how and that's exactly where the LCA programme failed to follow. If we had taken foreign development partners for LCA, radar and engine developments, some if not all of these developments could had been successful and operational by now. Chosing to do things alone, mess up and then go to foreign consultants for help, not only made things more costly, but also far more delayed than necessary.

A decade ago Turkey was clearly behind India on defence technology and aviation industry. Now they surpassed us, thx to the know how they gathered from US, European, or East Asian OEMs. They are popping out drones, combat and utility helicopters, basic trainers and advanced trainers now, with a 5th gen fighter development too. All that by understanding, that they have to close their knowledge gaps, with the help of foreign JV partners!
Offsets and ToT is a start to gain know how, but we need to push for more joint developments / JVs like Brahmos or Barak 8

 

[Pandeyji]

Basic question

Why do we even reply to Sancho. We know he isn't going to provide any proof or logical statement. So why needlessly clutter the thread?

 

[Advaidhya Tiwari]

I have read somewhere that twin engine jets are preferred when it comes to strategic weapons delivery, due to increased reliability. Maybe, that is why we will never see MCA (medium weight tejas) taking on a strategic role or they can do it?
If what I have heard in the news about Eurofighter bid being revised during MMRCA 1.0, then we should think about getting Typhoons for IAF and 36 Rafale can do the job of strategic weapons delivery.

There will not be any nuclear bombs that will be dropped by air anymore. It will all be missile launched. When missiles are easy to make, it makes no sense to risk flying them in planes. The number of nuclear warheads are in thousands and the missiles are easily made for it. The planes are meant to drop PGM which are relatively cheap, precision strike cruise missiles, SEAD, DEAD etc. The strategic role is completely missile based

 

[Advaidhya Tiwari]

Basic question

Why do we even reply to Sancho. We know he isn't going to provide any proof or logical statement. So why needlessly clutter the thread?

That is correct. Sancho is simply a spammer. One must ignore him as far as possible

 

[Jackd]

There will not be any nuclear bombs that will be dropped by air anymore. It will all be missile launched. When missiles are easy to make, it makes no sense to risk flying them in planes. The number of nuclear warheads are in thousands and the missiles are easily made for it. The planes are meant to drop PGM which are relatively cheap, precision strike cruise missiles, SEAD, DEAD etc. The strategic role is completely missile based

Can't say that I agree with you considering no country has ceased the development of air launched strategic weapons.

 

[Advaidhya Tiwari]

Can't say that I agree with you considering no country has ceased the development of air launched strategic weapons.

All these strategic weapons are missiles, not direct dropping of bombs. The option of aerial strike always exists as some cases will need precision strike to collapse a tunnel or strike behind mountains etc. But, the delivery will not be done by bomb drops but only missile. Any plane, even MCA or LCA can launch a subsonic cruise missile once developed and that missile can be fitted with nuke.

 

[Jackd]

All these strategic weapons are missiles, not direct dropping of bombs. The option of aerial strike always exists as some cases will need precision strike to collapse a tunnel or strike behind mountains etc. But, the delivery will not be done by bomb drops but only missile. Any plane, even MCA or LCA can launch a subsonic cruise missile once developed and that missile can be fitted with nuke.

Never mentioned N-bomb drops.....

 

[Sancho]

There will not be any nuclear bombs that will be dropped by air anymore

That sums up the level of knowledge fan boys have.

 

[Sancho]

Basic question

Why do we even reply to Sancho.

Because there are people that want more than the basic flawed understanding of fan boys like you. Your problem is only, that I always can back myself up, which leaves fan boys left with nothing to counter and caught red handed with a lot of hot air. So stop complaining and inform yourself properly, to be able to have a reasonable debate. :biggrin2:

 

[Advaidhya Tiwari]

Never mentioned N-bomb drops.....

If nukes are not dropped, then what exactly is the difference between strategic role and normal role fighter? Unless there is something like trigger mechanism that initiates nuke activation, no point calling something as strategic role/ Any plane that can carry a missile can also carry a missile with nuclear warhead.

 

[Sancho]

The deputy chief of the Indian Air Force, R. Nambiar.

Thx again, haven't seen the full video yet. MK1A prototype hasn't flown yet and MK2 expected in 10 years, which puts it even back to 2028. Conservative plan or another change, since Air Chief Dhanoa so far estimated it around 2025.

 

[Jackd]

If nukes are not dropped, then what exactly is the difference between strategic role and normal role fighter? Unless there is something like trigger mechanism that initiates nuke activation, no point calling something as strategic role/ Any plane that can carry a missile can also carry a missile with nuclear warhead.

Is that so? I didn't know that nukes had to be dropped to call it a strategic weapons delivery platform, I might have to 'revise' my definition of a strategic weapons delivery platform.
BAe hawk will make an excellent n-weapon delivery platform.

 

[Advaidhya Tiwari]

Is that so? I didn't know that nukes had to be dropped to call it a strategic weapons delivery platform, I might have to 'revise' my definition of a strategic weapons delivery platform.
BAe hawk will make an excellent n-weapon delivery platform.

Whenever you lose an argument you act like a retard. BAE hawk does not have ability to launch cruise missile. When it gets that ability, you can come and tell your nonsense. First answer this question:
Since launching cruise missile is done by almost every fighter jet,, what is the difference between strategic role fighter and normal fighter in terms of physical capability?