- Joined
- Mar 6, 2011
- Messages
- 7,029
- Likes
- 8,764
Re: ADA Tejas (LCA) - III
Go and ask these people, why are you ordering smaller radar single engine craft?
Ask them why are you not building twin engined big radar stealth in place of this single engined smaller radar stealth?
By the way 1700 F-35s are ordered throughout the globe. You may find some answers,perhaps. which has lower combat specs than LCA due to power requirement for cooling and aerdynamic compromises for stealth,First of all I never claimed any seniority over you. All I am saying is that I am not stupid.
1. How do you know that LCA will always accompanied by AWACS?? we will have 15 AWACS in 2022 and they will be shared among 6 LCA squadrons, 7 Rafale Squadrons, 3 Mig 29 sqdrns and 2 Mirage sqdrns. So, either prove that IAF has specific doctrine of sending LCA with AWACS only or get lost.
2. Look man I don't want to correct you about the strike fighter issue. Every knows MKI is a fighter bomber. You saying otherwise won't change that. If you start calling an elephant a lion, it doesn't become a lion.First of all clarify your statement "that IAF has not ordered extra 20 mk-I". whether you posted without knowing the facts or knowing the facts?
Do you know the meaning of the word "EW" crafts. Have you read anything about the first PV of LCA being converted to EW craft.
ANd what is the meaning of that? where will the AWACS be in times of war. AWACS are not my grandfather's property to be divided among me and my brothers.
They are there to safeguard the airspace of the country ,not to be divided among SUKHOIs and RAFALEs and LCAs. Controling strategic airspace where all fighters do their job.
Even if awacs is not available dedicated ew crafts like the modified PV-1 will take over. Have you ever heard of the term "MINI AWACS" used liberally with SUKHOI? A dedicated EW craft will be 5 times capable than "SUKHOI" in ew warfare
. Ever heard of the term FA_18/GROWLER?. It is not the dog of USAF chief. It is a dedicated ew craft.Go google your self, and give your findings to the forum.
3. For RCS of Gripen, http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-1029-postdays-0-postorder-asc-start-30.htmlYou don't know what is the difference between a lion and elephant. You are saying MKI is a fighter bomber .World over fighter bombers are called strike fighters in the old days.Rafale too has a strike roll. But euro fighter is more air to air than air to ground .It's basic purpose is interceptor. It wont carry as much as rafale in those rolls.
But it has more higher service cielling and much tighter turn radius and carries a much bigger radar. SO it's roll tilts towards air to air fighter. Ofcourse nowadays it is more multi role, all planes do all things. But when you mate sukhoi with BRAHMOS and let it hunt the ocean for naval assets it's role is strike. But It has superior air to air abilities. when it performs those tasks it does air to air role.
Now put yourself in IAF chief's seat .there is a war. There is a need to strike a target that is 1000km away deep inside the enemy territory. Which aircraft will you call? The ones mated with BRAHMOS or what? Then what is the name of the mission? STRIKE.That's what I meant.
By the way, Do you have proof that LCA's RCS will be as low as you claim it to be.http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewt...-start-30.html----This link you posted is not authentic website. It is a place where people like you,P2PRADA,TWINBLADE and me keep posting forever .No one needs to speak the truth here.First try to know the difference between forum and a website of some authenticity.
Then you may ask "are all the things posted here are false?" NO.
What is false is the stuff that are posted without a back up of an authentic link.
I have given authentic link for every statement I made.I have given most outside links through out these thread
And I have debated only about the things here.Not my own gas.
By the way it says grippen has 1/2 of mirage -2000-5's RCS. Do you stand by that?
ALso how can you arrive that rafale has a tenth of mirage's cross section?
How does that prove LCA 's RCS whish is climed to be a third of MIRAGE?
Does that also prove LCA has a lesser RCS than GRIPPEN?Gripen's instaneous turn rate: significantly better than F-16C, F/A-18C/D, and M2000-5.
Gripenss sustaneous turn rate: worse than F-16C, F/A-18C/D, but better than M2000-5.
Do you stand by this?
If you say that people will set your back on fire in this forum. Please save your soul.
4. About the Mirage upgrade. Ok then please tell me what was the other option that airforce had other than upgrading its mirages regardless of the cost.No one in the world has any proof for any RCS of any fighter. These will be known only through exact testing.But looking at the craft and the claims by the makers and comparing them with other known fighters people can come to a relative conclusion. That's all.
Looking at the Y duct intake that shields the engine blades and ADA's statements we quote our figures. But keep in mind world over people use the same method for this purpose. Subjecting the fighters to radar waves from different angles and using RAMs and coatings.
SO when some one claims "that bigger twin engined or single engined ,canard added,twice the size of LCA ,more metal components fighters all of them which were designed at least 10 years before LCA have a third of LCA 's RCS, then naturally people will ask. How come?"
5. How do you that IAF's consent is not required for inducting LCA?? Proof?? Oh wait, you never come with proof, you only come with fantasies. MKIII will only be inducted if IAF needs it, not because DRDO wants to have something to show for 29 years of work.But IAF seems to have all other options when it comes to LCA.Why did they demand that ADA cant do it?
Why should their chief write letters to PM saying this,which ended up 2 TDs first. All tech must be proved. Then only PVs and LSPs.
IAF refused set aside a single ruppee from it's budget. It wanted the fighter to be just a MIG replacement. It steadfastedly argued ADA cant develop FCS.
why didn't every one supported ADA from 1983 to 1993. During this period just 500 crore were released all went to establish infrastructure and project definition.
funds came for TDs only on 1993.That too after ABDUL KALAM's intervention only.Td1 flew in 2001.so it was actually built in 7 years.
If further PVs and LSPs were built side by side the program would have been much quicker. Only after the collapse of USSR in 1993 people who mattered showed any urgency in this matter and released funds,brushing aside IAF's concerns.pvs rolled out only in 2004 onwards. SO it is the IAF's choice.
Who asked army's consent before building nuclear bombs?
who asked NAVY's nuclear sub before getting NAVY's consent?
who asked airforce's ASR before building air to air version of BRAHMOS?
who asked the army's GSQR before building nuclear bombs?
Did SUKHOI makers received IAF ASR before building it?
Did RAFALE makers received IAF ASR before building it?
Did T-90makers received army's GSQR before building it?
Was T-72 builders received army's GSQR before building it?
Did MIG makers received IAF ASR before building it?
The scientific establishment builds weapons according to the technology available.
Once a weapon systems shows comparable performance to other systems ,No one has the right to refuse it.
Country's that keep buying everything from foriegn countries are called CLIENT STATES.
Today US calls us geopolitical ally because we have built N bomb ,built the missiles, built the NSUB,
They wont use that word if we keep importing every thing.
Go and ask these people, why are you ordering smaller radar single engine craft?
Ask them why are you not building twin engined big radar stealth in place of this single engined smaller radar stealth?
Last edited: