Imported Single Engine Fighter Jet Contest

[Sancho]

F16 and 39 Gripen is LMRCA if we follow IAF and Fin Min terminology.

What category then LCA comes into?

What is the criteria of deciding which is medium and which is Light?

MTOW, anything above 30t is generally considered as heavy, while anything above 15t as medium.

But that's just the broad criteria, while the real difference in capability, is the amount of hard points you have for weapons and fuel, if you can free some with fully internal fuel / or CFTs or if you have to waste some with external SPJ pods.
A single engined F16 therfore can be a freaking bomb truck when it comes to load capabilities and operational range.

 

[Sancho]

1) no decision will be taken until after 2019 elections now. Every moment of delay is a blow to its chances and plus for LCA

Every delay increase the threat to the country and IAF, but doesn't make LCA an MMRCA, or capable enough to fight PLAAF.

2) calculation is based on the fact that RFI responses will take at least a year, trails 1 year, price bid analysis 2 years

So only baseless claims, we didn't even needed 1 year to evaluate 6 fighters, let alone 2.

LCA MK.1A with AESA radar and I-Derby ER with >100km range isn’t more capable than M2K?

Of course not, just because it has AESA, doesn't mean it's the overall better fighter. Will Jaguar with EL2052 be more capable than ugraded M2Ks too? Again, of course not!

LCA MK1A still remains with insufficient flight performance, can carry only 2 BVR missiles in CAP, is range limited, has size and weight limitations on the centerline to carry heavy loads, has not a fully integrated EW...

There are multiple fields where the upgraded M2K will be superior, let alone the SE MMRCAs.

Range and payload are almost irrelevant for LCA, it is a point defence Air interceptor not a deep strike aircraft.

Yes and and it also doesn't need useful flight performance and why bother with too many missiles, they only add weight. Should we add more excuses for the fact that it can't keep up with medium class fighters, or can we simply admit, that it never was meant to offer medium class performance, but to be a modern 4th gen light class fighter?

LCA, Rafale and MKI will be a perfect combination for the foreseeable future for IAF, they perfectly complement each other.

It would had been, if Dassault didn't had tried to play us, but that ship has sailed and you have to move on and see the realities. We never will see more than 72 Rafales, if at all and even they would be limited to 2 bases. A pathetic result for all the hard work IAF has invested in the MMRCA.

 

[Sancho]

Upgraded Mirage 2000 with a 2000lb SPICE PGM

Rafale with a 2000lb LGB

(can carry 2 more at the mid wing station)

Gripen NG/E and F16:

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...ighter-jet-contest.78028/page-92#post-1381643

That's medium class capability and simply not possible with Tejas, no matter if we imagine an AESA radar and some minor upgrades to it, it remains to be a light class fighter.

 

[Screambowl]

while anything above 15t as medium.

So JAS 39 NG is LMRCA, wt: 14t and JAS 39E/F wt: 16t (approx.) is MMRCA?

In MMRCA deal , Offered was Jas 39 NG which is similar to Jas 39 A in weight. So now what is being offered is Jas 39 E which is 16t. Compared to F16 it's way lighter and I doubt it is even Medium.

Where as if you see the Indonesians they are comparing Jas39 C/D ( wt < 16t) with F16V and su 35 for their procurement.

 

[Sancho]

So JAS 39 NG is LMRCA, wt: 14t and JAS 39E/F wt: 16t (approx.) is MMRCA?

Gripen C - 14t / 7+1 hardpoints => light class
Gripen E - 16,5t / 9+1 hardpoints => medium class

NG was a demonstrator for the E capabilities.

 

[Screambowl]

Gripen C - 14t / 7+1 hardpoints => light class
Gripen E - 16,5t / 9+1 hardpoints => medium class

NG was a demonstrator for the E capabilities.

But then if IAF already has ordered rafale and as discussed in previous times F414 engine would be put in upcoming Mk2. So I don't think there is a need of a new bid. New hard points can be engineered too. No doubt Mk2 will be delivered earlier to prevent the depleting SQN
And by the way if they are going after new bid due to TOT, well in any case SAAB does not own the engine tech. What's the advantage?

 

[Sancho]

But then if IAF already has ordered rafale and as discussed in previous times F414 engine would be put in upcoming Mk2. So I don't think there is a need of a new bid.

We only ordered 36 Rafales of a requirement of 126, that's why the SE MMRCA came in, to cover the rest.

The higher thrust engine in LCA was suppose to make it reach the planned flight performance, NOT to make it an MMRCA competitor. It still was aimed at 7+1 hardpoints, it still were searching for space for avionics and EW...

 

[Screambowl]

The higher thrust engine in LCA was suppose to make it reach the planned flight performance, NOT to make it an MMRCA competitor. It still was aimed at 7+1 hardpoints, it still were searching for space for avionics and EW...

Well if it doesn't have space for EW and avionics or to extend payload capacity this would be a major drawback when it comes to marketing. You are forgetting the two sitter trainer which can when required be converted into single sitter to accommodate complete new EW and Avionics up gradations. And there the F414 will have it's role.

Gripen C was also upgraded to NG/E for marketing or bidding.

 

[smestarz]

The biggest difference between me and you is that, you like IAF is classifying the planes as per weight, and I like to classify a plane as per its performance and hence the roles.
Tejas is highly maneuverable, has 7 stations, has a good radar and would be able to fire both long and short range missile, It does not have a long range and hence it can perform roles of point defence, Air defence,. Interceptor, Short range MRCA (It cannot be long range MRCA as using the pod as fuel tank will reduce its ability to carry more missiles)
On other hand planes like Rafale are medium range MRCA. with ability to carry strike in medium range (say till 2000 kms) thus it becomes medium range MRCA and long range interceptor (using its wet pylons for carrying fuel tanks)
Su-30 MKI becomes the long range MRCA with ability to carry Brahmos and strike at targets deep in Pakistan if need be, it can also be a long range strike, interdictor and air dominance plane.
Can Su-30 MKI be used instead of Rafale? Yes, MKI has the long range required
Can the MKI and Rafale be used in roles of Tejas? YES but that would mean an overkill, The cost of using MKI or Rafale for interception role might be an overkill in some cases.
For example, conducting strikes on borders of pakistan in Rajasthan sector, All the three planes can carry out the strike, just that it might be cheaper with Tejas. But with MKI we can ensure there is air dominance and any planes that PAF might send to intercept can be dealt by MKI.

Upgraded Mirage 2000 with a 2000lb SPICE PGM

Rafale with a 2000lb LGB

(can carry 2 more at the mid wing station)

Gripen NG/E and F16:

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...ighter-jet-contest.78028/page-92#post-1381643

That's medium class capability and simply not possible with Tejas, no matter if we imagine an AESA radar and some minor upgrades to it, it remains to be a light class fighter.

 

[smestarz]

LOL you have fallen in the trap of IAF.
IF you actually remember few things
A) What IAF was losing was big quantity of MiG-21 and these were causing short falls
MiG-21 were mainly interceptors and not medium range or long range strike.
B) Strike planes, we are still using Jaguars and Mirages.we did not retire them

So how exactly did IAF come from replacing its single engine interceptors with Rafales?

During Kargil war, IAF was caught with its pants down, literally, and they thought to have a face saver and wanted to buy the obsolete Mirage 2000 in numbers. I am using the word "obsolete" because even France had stopped its production, thus IAF was like..We shall be replacing MiG-21 interceptor with a plane which is somewhat better.
This is a good idea.
But since you are the one talking of weights, MiG-21.. light weight interceptor, Mirage 2000 medium weight MRCA

Then when AK Anthony said that they cannot order 126 Mirage 2000 just like that but had to be RFP and that became MRCA competition. Dassault went with Mirage 2000, EADS (then it was EADS) went with Eurofighter and SAAB with Gripen. Ultimately if the competition went through, Dassault realised that it cannot win against these and F-16 and F/A-18 or MiG-35 in terms of performance or price. And so then Dassault suddenly changed its entry from M2K to Rafale

Now like I asked India was retiring its light single engine interceptor.. why was it trying to replace it by Medium weight Mirage?
Surely Mirage is better performer and Rafale is better performer than Mirage and Su-30 MKI is way better performer than Rafale.,

The problem is that IAF suddenly after seeing Rafale wanted more of it, perhaps there were a lot of kickbacks involved. But the way the competition was held, it made sure that the cheaper planes were eliminated first. And then we had option to select from two expensive planes (of course based on performance) There are news of how Rafale bid was incomplete and thus leaving space for "management"

So you see the requirement was to replace 126 MiG-21 and since when did MiG-21 became medium weight class? IAF has classified MiG-21 as Light class interceptor.
Also one of the reason to go for MRCA was that there was a big delay in Tejas and IAF saw its nos dwindling and thought buying 126 planes would be a good stop gap measure as there was delay in Tejas.

Please go through history of MRCA competition and try not to fall in the stupid concept of IAF. It would have been foolish for IAF to replace MiG-21 by Su-30 MKI because they have different roles, but country like India having short range interceptor and long range air dominance planes makes more sense when facing china rather than Face with Rafale which really cannot hit important targets in China effectively.

We only ordered 36 Rafales of a requirement of 126, that's why the SE MMRCA came in, to cover the rest.

The higher thrust engine in LCA was suppose to make it reach the planned flight performance, NOT to make it an MMRCA competitor. It still was aimed at 7+1 hardpoints, it still were searching for space for avionics and EW...

 

[JBH22]

IAF forgot the Hi-Low Mix.

Mig-21 which is the low end fighter and therefore more numerous should have been replaced by LCA Tejas.
The mass acquisition is economically on all fronts, it leads to establishment of local aviation sector which is will have its own multiplier effect (creation of jobs, no outflow of capital etc)

However, in all their wisdom you see the craze for more foreign products vintage F-16, F-18 and Gripen. Instead, gradual improvement of LCA Tejas with mass order. Alas, god forbids brace yourself for F-16

By the way the same disease is in Indian Navy, large sums spent for development of Mig-29K. Surprisingly instead of getting service maintenance issues taken up with Rosbonexport, there is a craze for EMALS for supposedly a future nuclear carrier. Craze for additional 57 aircrafts.

 

[Steven Rogers]

Every delay increase the threat to the country and IAF, but doesn't make LCA an MMRCA, or capable enough to fight PLAAF.


So only baseless claims, we didn't even needed 1 year to evaluate 6 fighters, let alone 2.



Of course not, just because it has AESA, doesn't mean it's the overall better fighter. Will Jaguar with EL2052 be more capable than ugraded M2Ks too? Again, of course not!

LCA MK1A still remains with insufficient flight performance, can carry only 2 BVR missiles in CAP, is range limited, has size and weight limitations on the centerline to carry heavy loads, has not a fully integrated EW...

There are multiple fields where the upgraded M2K will be superior, let alone the SE MMRCAs.



Yes and and it also doesn't need useful flight performance and why bother with too many missiles, they only add weight. Should we add more excuses for the fact that it can't keep up with medium class fighters, or can we simply admit, that it never was meant to offer medium class performance, but to be a modern 4th gen light class fighter?


It would had been, if Dassault didn't had tried to play us, but that ship has sailed and you have to move on and see the realities. We never will see more than 72 Rafales, if at all and even they would be limited to 2 bases. A pathetic result for all the hard work IAF has invested in the MMRCA.

Yes tejas is an LCA and will never be a MMRCA, but it does have provision of flying with dual racks, we will get more clearer picture of weaponry once Indian weapons getting operational with it, it is capable enough of defending against PLAAF(technologically+training) but can't replace an MMRCA.

Sent from my Aqua Ace II using Tapatalk

 

[smestarz]

The weight class stupdity is from our belowed Imported Air force,
rest of the countries or rather the ones who build their own planes, develop and produce planes as per the roles.

Gripen C - 14t / 7+1 hardpoints => light class
Gripen E - 16,5t / 9+1 hardpoints => medium class

NG was a demonstrator for the E capabilities.

 

[smestarz]

What IAF lacks is
a) Vision of the future
b) Clarity of doctrine of use.

IAF is a reactive force and that is why you see many planes handling so many roles,
MiG-21, 23 27 29
Jaguar
Mirage 2000
Su-30 MKI
Rafale
Tejas

Now would be simple maths, if you were to select 2 planes instead of all these planes to handle all roles between them., but with one limitation,.
the cost of purchase at average should be US 60 M and cost operation per hour should an average be 10000$
Based on the these types of planes that IAF has, it tried to have a super speciality air force where Jaguar were highly useful, but when the most important time came (Kargil war) they were found wanting.

So in my view, it is better the IAF does a brain storming session limiting their resources and then coming up with doctrine that can be clear

Having not so clear doctrine, we would end up like soviet union which had a lot of planes and most having similar roles and no clue how to manage them effectively.

IAF forgot the Hi-Low Mix.

Mig-21 which is the low end fighter and therefore more numerous should have been replaced by LCA Tejas.
The mass acquisition is economically on all fronts, it leads to establishment of local aviation sector which is will have its own multiplier effect (creation of jobs, no outflow of capital etc)

However, in all their wisdom you see the craze for more foreign products vintage F-16, F-18 and Gripen. Instead, gradual improvement of LCA Tejas with mass order. Alas, god forbids brace yourself for F-16

By the way the same disease is in Indian Navy, large sums spent for development of Mig-29K. Surprisingly instead of getting service maintenance issues taken up with Rosbonexport, there is a craze for EMALS for supposedly a future nuclear carrier. Craze for additional 57 aircrafts.

 

[smestarz]

Doenst it seem funny?
Gripen E is advance version of Gripen C but theortically IAF would not want it as it comes in medium class. !!!
This is why I say the BS is all due to IAF classification.
You can classify a transport aircraft because its role is transport only. so heavy or medium transport, but the same really should not be applied to MRCA planes, MRCA planes should be classified as per their attributes (performance, ability to carry load, speed, range etc) and NOT DUE TO THEIR WEIGHT.

Gripen C - 14t / 7+1 hardpoints => light class
Gripen E - 16,5t / 9+1 hardpoints => medium class

NG was a demonstrator for the E capabilities.

 

[Sancho]

Tejas is highly maneuverable, has 7 stations, has a good radar and would be able to fire both long and short range missile, It does not have a long range and hence it can perform roles of point defence, Air defence,. Interceptor, Short range MRCA

And that's exactly why it can't take over the 90+ medium class fighter requirements.

Single engine light fighter is not = single engine medium fighter.

So how exactly did IAF come from replacing its single engine interceptors with Rafales?

First of all, because MMRCAs also replace Mig 27 and not just Mig 21s.

Secondly, because fighters are not limited to a single role anymore, but multi or swing role fighters replaces older single role once (F35 replaces Harriers, or A10s too).

Thirdly, no other major air force in the world still operates light class fighters, since it's cheaper and more efficient to use the twin type mix, of a single engine medium class multi role fighter and a twin engine heavy class air superiority and long range fighter.
As you showed yourself, any medium class fighter can do what a light class fighter can, but not the other way around. Light class fighters are by design limited to a few missions, limited capability and performance, which is why most major air forces prefer medium class fighters as the low end.

That's also why Mig 29s and M2Ks were necessary to support Mig 21s in the past, because Mig 21st couldn't defend the country alone. Just as we need MMRCAs to support LCAs too.

Then when AK Anthony said that they cannot order 126 Mirage 2000 just like that but had to be RFP and that became MRCA competition.

Lol, he wasn't even in office back then. The former Defence Minister George Fernandes did that and after him came Pranab Mukherjee.

 

[Sancho]

Doenst it seem funny?
Gripen E is advance version of Gripen C but theortically IAF would not want it as it comes in medium class. !!!

No it doesn't, because Gripen E is a re-designed version, especially to increase load and range capabilities to be comparable to other medium class fighters.

While a Gripen C is an upgraded light class multi role fighter, from the Gripen A base.
That's what we do with LCA as well and what LCA MK2 was suppose to be too.

 

[Steven Rogers]

No it doesn't, because Gripen E is a re-designed version, especially to increase load and range capabilities to be comarble to othe medium claas fighters.

While a Gripen C is an upgraded light class multi role fighter, from the Gripen A base.
That's what we do with LCA as well and what LCA MK2 was suppose to be as well.

Forget Gripen, single engine deal isn't going any where, the proposed fighter has yet to get ioc, and IAF won't induct Gripen E as requirement suggests registering 2000hrs of flight by the proposed fighter. Only F16 full fills that but again single vendor favoring situation arises. And worst for Gripen as acc to last detail, the first 18 aircrafts were needed to come in fly away condition and rest 90 made or assembled in India.

Sent from my Aqua Ace II using Tapatalk

 

[Steven Rogers]

No it doesn't, because Gripen E is a re-designed version, especially to increase load and range capabilities to be comparable to other medium class fighters.

While a Gripen C is an upgraded light class multi role fighter, from the Gripen A base.
That's what we do with LCA as well and what LCA MK2 was suppose to be too.

LCA mk1 has 10kN thrust more than Gripen C/D.

Sent from my Aqua Ace II using Tapatalk

 

[Sancho]

Yes tejas is an LCA and will never be a MMRCA,

And that's all there is to say!

We need capable medium class fighters, to counter capable J10s and J11s, we need capable MMRCAs to do SEAD and precision strikes against enemy ground targets,
We need to reduce the number of fighters needed per mission, to fight a 2 front war, we need to reduce the dependence on costly MKIs in basic missions, we need to add industrial know how to the aviation industry, that is limited to ADA and HAL only and lacking too far behind to our enemies.

All this is only possible with an MMRCA deal.