Indian Air Force: News & Discussions

[Kunal Biswas]

I cannot comment on economics, But we are indeed paying a lot more than what we should including Mirage 2000 upgrade which is same level of Tejas ..

This are not my words but pilots who are from IAF only ..

 

[p2prada]

@Kunal Biswas in the interview you shared with the Ex army chied VK singh he said we could have bought that company is it true?
How would that have helped us? @ersakthivel I too tried to convince him but he has made his mind... one day Tejas itself will proove him wrong...

Again, everything ersakthivel posted there is wrong. He has terrible comprehension skills, and hence is impossible to debate with. He is on the ignore list of almost every senior member he has debated with, proves how good of a skill he has there.

You can read all of his arguments, the gem of them being LCA requirement was for 2 tons payload and LCA can beat the F-22 because it has low wingloading.

And VK Singh is wrong about us being able to buy Dassault. It is impossible to buy a foreign arms company.

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/indian-air-force/43717-ada-lca-tejas-iv-156.html#post840210

Do you know why Pakistan is in such deep shit today?

It's because the generals played economics.

What VK Singh does not know is the French govt will not allow a foreign takeover of a strategic organization even if the takeover attempt is hostile. If required, a French (or EU) company can take over Dassault instead, or even the military business wing of Dassault. That would be allowed by the French govt. Typical example of a general playing economics.

If we can buy Dassault, they can buy ISRO. You really think it is possible?

The family itself won't allow it to happen.

Truth: IAF doesn't give a fig about LCA.
Proof: They are not promising anything. Even the navy has not promised any orders until NLCA Mk2 starts flying. That's why ADA has purchased only 8 F-414 engines. And the reason ADA gave was the same, even they are unsure about the progress of the LCA Mk2 and will buy more engines when things are moving smoothly. So, what's in your mind and what's on your ground is completely different. And this has nothing to do with whether LCA received IOC or FOC. It is simply limited by its design. The navy is still wondering if they have to go ahead with the project or start a new tender for the F-414EPE high thrust engine.

With everybody I have debated so far, including a resident naval prof we had here for a time, none of them have countered any of my claims properly. All my previous claims are still true to this day, regardless of the nonsense ersakthivel harps constantly. His posts are merely disingenuous and almost always carry wrong information. Check post #160.

So, before you make comments like you are trying to convince me, first you have to make an argument that will start the process of convincing me. The entire time I was the one explaining the status of the LCA, you had no part in it. You can't use words like trust, acceptance and affordability without understanding what each of this actually means and then claim you tried to convince me. This was no different with my debate with ersakthivel, where he makes silly claims and I easily counter them, let me emphasize on "easily", and then at a later date ADA releases information that backs up my claims.

Proof: I pointed out 2 years ago that LCA Mk2 will have very similar specs as LCA Mk1. Guess what happened? In Tamilmani's chat session on Facebook, he said the same. Another claim I made two years ago was that LCA won't exceed mach 1.6, Tamilmani said the same recently. Even after mainstream news kept saying that LCA has achieved AOA of 24 deg for IOC-2, I continued claiming that the news was wrong and that LCA has achieved 22 deg, and that LCA won't be achieving 24 deg for quite sometime. Guess what? Even that claim was verified to be true a week later in the mainstream media and ADA clarified that they have 26-28 deg as the goal for FOC with 22 deg achieved. Everybody kept claiming that LCA will get F-414 EPE, while I said otherwise. Guess what? I was right with that too.

I have made many such claims, and many such claims have been nearly 100% true. The only claim I have ever gone wrong with is the peak power output of the radar, which was sadly wrong information. I had claimed it was 800 W, similar to what M-2000 had, but it is much higher. And that was sometime in 2009 or 2010, when very less info was known about the radar.

 

[Pulkit]

Its good to have both kinds of people for and against in a discussion....
some only wanna stick to hard core facts which suits there choice and not interested in +points and others are opp they just see +ves...

there can b there are many flaws in Tejas but they can b improved...
by buying i m sure now he meant that we are paying too much that to the extent it is its worth... i believe u will agree they were closing rafale and this order helped them survive...

If it is such a good A/C why was it being not in production...

just making another childish argument here ..... they agreed for tot thats y they got the order..... but 20b is not wat they r worth... in todays time cost of rafale 4.5 and f35 is not much.. yes in future it will b but not today...

And yes just on lighter not "KEEP PREDICTING".....

Again, everything ersakthivel posted there is wrong. He has terrible comprehension skills, and hence is impossible to debate with. He is on the ignore list of almost every senior member he has debated with, proves how good of a skill he has there.

You can read all of his arguments, the gem of them being LCA requirement was for 2 tons payload and LCA can beat the F-22 because it has low wingloading.

And VK Singh is wrong about us being able to buy Dassault. It is impossible to buy a foreign arms company.

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/indian-air-force/43717-ada-lca-tejas-iv-156.html#post840210


The family itself won't allow it to happen.

Truth: IAF doesn't give a fig about LCA.
Proof: They are not promising anything. Even the navy has not promised any orders until NLCA Mk2 starts flying. That's why ADA has purchased only 8 F-414 engines. And the reason ADA gave was the same, even they are unsure about the progress of the LCA Mk2 and will buy more engines when things are moving smoothly. So, what's in your mind and what's on your ground is completely different. And this has nothing to do with whether LCA received IOC or FOC. It is simply limited by its design. The navy is still wondering if they have to go ahead with the project or start a new tender for the F-414EPE high thrust engine.

With everybody I have debated so far, including a resident naval prof we had here for a time, none of them have countered any of my claims properly. All my previous claims are still true to this day, regardless of the nonsense ersakthivel harps constantly. His posts are merely disingenuous and almost always carry wrong information. Check post #160.

So, before you make comments like you are trying to convince me, first you have to make an argument that will start the process of convincing me. The entire time I was the one explaining the status of the LCA, you had no part in it. You can't use words like trust, acceptance and affordability without understanding what each of this actually means and then claim you tried to convince me. This was no different with my debate with ersakthivel, where he makes silly claims and I easily counter them, let me emphasize on "easily", and then at a later date ADA releases information that backs up my claims.

Proof: I pointed out 2 years ago that LCA Mk2 will have very similar specs as LCA Mk1. Guess what happened? In Tamilmani's chat session on Facebook, he said the same. Another claim I made two years ago was that LCA won't exceed mach 1.6, Tamilmani said the same recently. Even after mainstream news kept saying that LCA has achieved AOA of 24 deg for IOC-2, I continued claiming that the news was wrong and that LCA has achieved 22 deg, and that LCA won't be achieving 24 deg for quite sometime. Guess what? Even that claim was verified to be true a week later in the mainstream media and ADA clarified that they have 26-28 deg as the goal for FOC with 22 deg achieved. Everybody kept claiming that LCA will get F-414 EPE, while I said otherwise. Guess what? I was right with that too.

I have made many such claims, and many such claims have been nearly 100% true. The only claim I have ever gone wrong with is the peak power output of the radar, which was sadly wrong information. I had claimed it was 800 W, similar to what M-2000 had, but it is much higher. And that was sometime in 2009 or 2010, when very less info was known about the radar.

 

[Pulkit]

ok.... ......

I cannot comment on economics, But we are indeed paying a lot more than what we should including Mirage 2000 upgrade which is same level of Tejas ..

This are not my words but pilots who are from IAF only ..

 

[p2prada]

Its good to have both kinds of people for and against in a discussion....
some only wanna stick to hard core facts which suits there choice and not interested in +points and others are opp they just see +ves...

What are the +ves?

there can b there are many flaws in Tejas but they can b improved...

Who is talking about LCA's flaws? If we get into it, it will never end. I am talking about the actual design goals of the program which can never be improved upon.

Tejas has an endurance of 40 minutes today. It won't become 2 hours by FOC, it will remain 40 minutes tomorrow and forever. This is a design point. And not a flaw. Flaws can be improved upon, Mk2 is the direct result of achieving such a goal, but Mk1 has no such chance. The very reason why Mk1 cannot be improved is why Mk2 was started. It wasn't a new program. ADA said, "Okay, we fvked up with Mk1. Let's design a new Mk2 and bring it to the original ASR specs, maybe improve it a little where we can." So, that's where LCA is today.

Mk1 is messed up. It is much heavier than anticipated, and became underpowered in the process. Earlier the plan was that LCA will lift 4 tons of payload with full external fuel and two 500 Kg bombs, but today it is more in the region of carrying two bombs but sacrifice a lot of external fuel. ADA suggested to IAF that they should sacrifice fuel in order to carry the bombs, the IAF was very angry at the suggestion. That's pretty much what supported the design of Mk2. Today, the new payload is similar to what Gripen C carries, 5 tons. This way, even if Mk2 becomes overweight, at least the aircraft will be able to carry 4 tons payload instead of the 3.5 tons it does today.

LCA has been a mix of compromises rather than a real fighter program. Expecting the IAF to buy Mk1 is merely sending the IAF pilots to their deaths because our enemies have better aircraft today, forget tomorrow, they have better aircraft today and will improve drastically even before Mk1 and Mk2 are even in operation. PLAAF seem to have plans on inducting and operating at least 600-700 Flankers at one time and perhaps well over 1000 J-10s, both aircraft superior to even LCA Mk2 in every major performance parameter.

Guess what? LCA won't even be used against China. The IAF is planning two bases for LCA Mk2 and only one will be near Pakistan. It is supposed to be in Rajasthan with two squadrons. This is apart from the home base of Sulur for the 40 Mk1s which will eventually be used to train pilots before they move to Rafale, FGFA and AMCA. Another Mk2 base is being set up in Tanjore with two squadrons. Basically, around 80 aircraft will be located in South India, far away from any enemy, and one will be setup with 40 aircraft near Pakistan. While the bases in Sulur and Thanjavur and set in stone, the base in Rajasthan is still undecided. With IAF's Look South policy, it is possible all the LCAs will be located in Tamil Nadu, against the vast might of the Sri Lankans.

by buying i m sure now he meant that we are paying too much that to the extent it is its worth... i believe u will agree they were closing rafale and this order helped them survive...

No. It looks like the French will sell to Qatar first, very likely. And ALA/MN are obligated to order 60 more Rafales and bring the number to near 200, that's a very good number. There is no danger to the future of Rafale. Don't get caught up in the media blitz, especially by anti-Rafale media which is available in plenty.

If it is such a good A/C why was it being not in production...

What are you talking about? Rafale has been in production since the late 90s. It was inducted in 2000.

just making another childish argument here ..... they agreed for tot thats y they got the order..... but 20b is not wat they r worth... in todays time cost of rafale 4.5 and f35 is not much.. yes in future it will b but not today...

Who told you Rafale will cost $20 Billion? F-35 is not available to us and its utility is much lower than what Rafale will offer. Rafale has more range than the F-35 and currently carries far more weapons. F-35 is not the choice for IAF.

More importantly, Rafale came in a tender which make the aircraft cheap. Some reports have pegged the cost of a single Rafale in flyaway condition at less than $80 Million for India. One report said $65 Million. ALA bought Rafale-C at E57 Million in 2012. An FMS buy from the US will cost twice as much. Without a tender the F-35 will be very expensive. LM obviously plans on milking the F-35 from the Gulf countries, just like how we paid $400 Million for each C-17.

And Dassault did not get the deal because they offered ToT, ToT is just one part of the entire setup. ToT had no part to play in the first stage of the evaluations where only technical aspects were compared. IAF chose the two best aircraft of the lot. It was well after that that ToT, industrial production and lifecycle costs came into play. Basically, MoD chose the cheapest bidder.

For the technology that Rafale brings to the IAF, even if the Rafale costs $20 Billion, it is well worth the costs. You simply don't understand the importance of high level capability that comes with Rafale which LCA does not provide.

As for the cost, there are various costs that people simply don't understand. There are flyaway costs, recurring flyaway costs, non-recurring flyaway costs, total flyaway costs, procurement costs, program acquisition costs, lifecycle costs and total lifecycle costs. These are further divided into more types. So, when someone comes up and says LCA Mk1 costs only $30+ Million and Rafale costs $150 Million or $250 Million, ask them what they are referring to. LCA's cost is total flyaway costs with engines. The engines are supplied to HAL directly by GE and ADA contracted it. Rafale's apparent cost of $120 Million reported in the media is procurement cost which includes cost of spares, maintenance and training. Rafale's cost of $20 to $30 Billion that you see in the media in the actual lifecycle costs of what the entire aircraft will cost us over 30 or 40 years.

So, if LCA costs around $40 Million in unit costs (compared to around $80 Million for Rafale), the actual procurement costs will be significantly different. LCA will cost much higher than the Mirage-2000 upgrade because the procurement costs for M-2000 has been amortized over many years of service. This IAF and MoD know for a fact, the general public doesn't.

And yes just on lighter not "KEEP PREDICTING".....

Who is predicting? Start googling all my "predictions."

 

[Kaalapani]

What are the +ves?



Who is talking about LCA's flaws? If we get into it, it will never end. I am talking about the actual design goals of the program which can never be improved upon.

Tejas has an endurance of 40 minutes today. It won't become 2 hours by FOC, it will remain 40 minutes tomorrow and forever. This is a design point. And not a flaw. Flaws can be improved upon, Mk2 is the direct result of achieving such a goal, but Mk1 has no such chance. The very reason why Mk1 cannot be improved is why Mk2 was started. It wasn't a new program. ADA said, "Okay, we fvked up with Mk1. Let's design a new Mk2 and bring it to the original ASR specs, maybe improve it a little where we can." So, that's where LCA is today.

Mk1 is messed up. It is much heavier than anticipated, and became underpowered in the process. Earlier the plan was that LCA will lift 4 tons of payload with full external fuel and two 500 Kg bombs, but today it is more in the region of carrying two bombs but sacrifice a lot of external fuel. ADA suggested to IAF that they should sacrifice fuel in order to carry the bombs, the IAF was very angry at the suggestion. That's pretty much what supported the design of Mk2. Today, the new payload is similar to what Gripen C carries, 5 tons. This way, even if Mk2 becomes overweight, at least the aircraft will be able to carry 4 tons payload instead of the 3.5 tons it does today.

LCA has been a mix of compromises rather than a real fighter program. Expecting the IAF to buy Mk1 is merely sending the IAF pilots to their deaths because our enemies have better aircraft today, forget tomorrow, they have better aircraft today and will improve drastically even before Mk1 and Mk2 are even in operation. PLAAF seem to have plans on inducting and operating at least 600-700 Flankers at one time and perhaps well over 1000 J-10s, both aircraft superior to even LCA Mk2 in every major performance parameter.

Guess what? LCA won't even be used against China. The IAF is planning two bases for LCA Mk2 and only one will be near Pakistan. It is supposed to be in Rajasthan with two squadrons. This is apart from the home base of Sulur for the 40 Mk1s which will eventually be used to train pilots before they move to Rafale, FGFA and AMCA. Another Mk2 base is being set up in Tanjore with two squadrons. Basically, around 80 aircraft will be located in South India, far away from any enemy, and one will be setup with 40 aircraft near Pakistan. While the bases in Sulur and Thanjavur and set in stone, the base in Rajasthan is still undecided. With IAF's Look South policy, it is possible all the LCAs will be located in Tamil Nadu, against the vast might of the Sri Lankans.



No. It looks like the French will sell to Qatar first, very likely. And ALA/MN are obligated to order 60 more Rafales and bring the number to near 200, that's a very good number. There is no danger to the future of Rafale. Don't get caught up in the media blitz, especially by anti-Rafale media which is available in plenty.



What are you talking about? Rafale has been in production since the late 90s. It was inducted in 2000.



Who told you Rafale will cost $20 Billion? F-35 is not available to us and its utility is much lower than what Rafale will offer. Rafale has more range than the F-35 and currently carries far more weapons. F-35 is not the choice for IAF.

More importantly, Rafale came in a tender which make the aircraft cheap. Some reports have pegged the cost of a single Rafale in flyaway condition at less than $80 Million for India. One report said $65 Million. ALA bought Rafale-C at E57 Million in 2012. An FMS buy from the US will cost twice as much. Without a tender the F-35 will be very expensive. LM obviously plans on milking the F-35 from the Gulf countries, just like how we paid $400 Million for each C-17.

And Dassault did not get the deal because they offered ToT, ToT is just one part of the entire setup. ToT had no part to play in the first stage of the evaluations where only technical aspects were compared. IAF chose the two best aircraft of the lot. It was well after that that ToT, industrial production and lifecycle costs came into play. Basically, MoD chose the cheapest bidder.

For the technology that Rafale brings to the IAF, even if the Rafale costs $20 Billion, it is well worth the costs. You simply don't understand the importance of high level capability that comes with Rafale which LCA does not provide.

As for the cost, there are various costs that people simply don't understand. There are flyaway costs, recurring flyaway costs, non-recurring flyaway costs, total flyaway costs, procurement costs, program acquisition costs, lifecycle costs and total lifecycle costs. These are further divided into more types. So, when someone comes up and says LCA Mk1 costs only $30+ Million and Rafale costs $150 Million or $250 Million, ask them what they are referring to. LCA's cost is total flyaway costs with engines. The engines are supplied to HAL directly by GE and ADA contracted it. Rafale's apparent cost of $120 Million reported in the media is procurement cost which includes cost of spares, maintenance and training. Rafale's cost of $20 to $30 Billion that you see in the media in the actual lifecycle costs of what the entire aircraft will cost us over 30 or 40 years.

So, if LCA costs around $40 Million in unit costs (compared to around $80 Million for Rafale), the actual procurement costs will be significantly different. LCA will cost much higher than the Mirage-2000 upgrade because the procurement costs for M-2000 has been amortized over many years of service. This IAF and MoD know for a fact, the general public doesn't.



Who is predicting? Start googling all my "predictions."

Sir Tejas Mk1 also has loads of dead weight(lead roads used to balance design flaws) .Mk2 is to eliminate that dead weight.

 

[p2prada]

Sir Tejas Mk1 also has loads of dead weight(lead roads used to balance design flaws) .Mk2 is to eliminate that dead weight.

You can cut out the sir too.

Yes, Mk1 has a lot of dead weight. It's a messed up program.

 

[ersakthivel]

Again, everything ersakthivel posted there is wrong. He has terrible comprehension skills, and hence is impossible to debate with. He is on the ignore list of almost every senior member he has debated with, proves how good of a skill he has there.

Senior trolls , not senior members, it is a shame that a guy like you still has the gall to unload tons of lies after proved conclusively wrong on every count!!!!!

You can read all of his arguments, the gem of them being LCA requirement was for 2 tons payload and LCA can beat the F-22 because it has low wingloading.

Don't make up BS. I said F-22 has lower wing loading and the same compound delta wingform along with the RSS fly by wire software.Tejas too shares all these traits.

So noway its design is obsolete as your stupidly claimed!!!!

Even an F-22 needs a spotter to stay in a silent stealth mode in air to sir fights for long range BVR shots , and this spotter is trackable in future and vulnerable to any long range BVR from any 4.5th gen like tejas is what I posted.

As usual you are committing a fraud by twisting my statement to mean tejas is better than F-22,which is what you will do forever.

You are the one who posted BS that wing loading is a spec related to passenger aircarft and nothing to do with military aircraft!!!!

And VK Singh is wrong about us being able to buy Dassault. It is impossible to buy a foreign arms company.

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/indian-air-force/43717-ada-lca-tejas-iv-156.html#post840210


The family itself won't allow it to happen.

Dassault has no tech worth the name to splurge 20 billion dollars of indian tax payer money. What V.K. Singh said was for the market cap of dassault itself was just equal to the IAf dassault deal. He knows thousand time better than a twister like you that no country will allow india to buy their top aviation company. As usal you are twisting his statements.

Truth: IAF doesn't give a fig about LCA.

IAF need not give a fig about LCA.
It is the import lobby within IAf that leaks all kind of fake strories about Tejas which are conveniently used by motivated campaigners who does not have enough brain to understand what is the basic aerodynamic design capability of a fihgter and how to exploit it to full potential, inventing stupid phrases like single role multi task fighter!!!

MOD and GOI will see to that what kind of fighter will satisfy our defence needs in the most economical manner acting as force multipliers. You are IAF need not worry about that.

Proof: They are not promising anything. Even the navy has not promised any orders until NLCA Mk2 starts flying. That's why ADA has purchased only 8 F-414 engines. And the reason ADA gave was the same, even they are unsure about the progress of the LCA Mk2 and will buy more engines when things are moving smoothly. So, what's in your mind and what's on your ground is completely different. And this has nothing to do with whether LCA received IOC or FOC. It is simply limited by its design. The navy is still wondering if they have to go ahead with the project or start a new tender for the F-414EPE high thrust engine.

A.K. Antony himself has gone on record saying that tejas is capable of replacing all Mig series fighters in IAF. They number around 400. And once IAF sees the FOC certified mk-1 and mk-2 of tejas follow up orders are sure to follow.

Since both the fighters are built as per IAf demands. tejas mk-1 itself can take off with combat loads in leh even before FOC. But four of the famed six MMRCA contenders could not do it in the trials. That itself proves that motivated lies spread by people like you have no worth in reality.

Navy has committed close to 900 crores for tejas program from its own funds seeing the progress with airforce version of tejas mk-1!!!. Still people like you spread a motivated lie that Navy is not interested in n Tejas!!!! And only after Navy invested the funds IAF came forward to commit further funds for tejas. That itself shows the intent of both the services towards indigenous platforms.

Tejas is not limited by design in reality may be in your imagination it is. Once tejas mk-2 gets FOC engine orders will be given, No one needs to stock up on 414 engines even before the production of first tejas prototype begins.

EPE and EDE don't require huge design changes to be interchanged. Both have similar dimension , similar air inflow needs, similar weight and similar fitments.

Don't make up stories about things on which you have zero knowledge.

With everybody I have debated so far, including a resident naval prof we had here for a time, none of them have countered any of my claims properly. All my previous claims are still true to this day, regardless of the nonsense ersakthivel harps constantly. His posts are merely disingenuous and almost always carry wrong information. Check post #160.

There is nothing surprising about the debate you had with your "friends". All of you guys don't know anything about the design philosophy behind any modern 4.5th gen RSS fly by wire fighter.

Don't lie endlessly. Which claim of yours on tejas was proven right till this day?

Stupid claim like one mig-21 can finish off many tejas fighters, when in reality mig-21 pilot will have the BVR fired from tejas before his nose and still his short ranged radar won't be able to pick up Tejas on its screen?

I have not seen such a retard post from any one on any aviation forum . Even in pakistani forums no one makes up such total BS like you do here.

.

So, before you make comments like you are trying to convince me, first you have to make an argument that will start the process of convincing me. The entire time I was the one explaining the status of the LCA, you had no part in it. You can't use words like trust, acceptance and affordability without understanding what each of this actually means and then claim you tried to convince me. This was no different with my debate with ersakthivel, where he makes silly claims and I easily counter them, let me emphasize on "easily", and then at a later date ADA releases information that backs up my claims.

You explained nothing. Because to explain something one needs some theory based understanding of how the laws of basic physics work in real time. Mugging up what a moron wrote in Flight global and giving a verbal vomit in Tejas thread is not "explaining"

Proof: I pointed out 2 years ago that LCA Mk2 will have very similar specs as LCA Mk1. Guess what happened? In Tamilmani's chat session on Facebook, he said the same. Another claim I made two years ago was that LCA won't exceed mach 1.6, Tamilmani said the same recently. Even after mainstream news kept saying that LCA has achieved AOA of 24 deg for IOC-2, I continued claiming that the news was wrong and that LCA has achieved 22 deg, and that LCA won't be achieving 24 deg for quite sometime. Guess what? Even that claim was verified to be true a week later in the mainstream media and ADA clarified that they have 26-28 deg as the goal for FOC with 22 deg achieved. Everybody kept claiming that LCA will get F-414 EPE, while I said otherwise. Guess what? I was right with that too.

at the altitude(which is the flight ceiling of tejas mk-1) of 15 000 Km feet both mk-1 and mk-2 will have the same speeds is what tamil mani siad

. Most probably tejas mk-2 will have a higher flight ceiling since excess power is available .So in higher altitude than 15 K Tejas mk-2 is bound to have higher speeds.

And tamil mani is not directly involve in a hands on fashion in tejas mk-2 design. ADA director Subramanium who is incharge of tejas mk-2 has quitely clarified that tejas mk-2 will have mach 2 as top speed in its "service ceiling" and will have 9G limits along with thirty percent improvement in flight specs over mk-1.

When I posted the link repeately in tejas mk-1 thread you kept a stony silence for two years. Now you are taking tamil mani's interview here. Lets see who is right Tamil Mani or ADA chief Subramanium.

In the past tamil mani has suggested that tejas mk-1 can not reach supersonic speeds without a nose cone plug. But ADA postponed lenghtening of the

air frame to mk-2 and still reached mach 1 plus at sea level off Goa skies.Til that press release came you were claiming foolishly tejas is subsonic in sea level hundreds of time. It is one of the famous lies you kept on repeating for years which finally was nailed in ADA release to service document on IOC-2 with a crytic wordings "Super Sonic at all altitudes".

Infact tejas has the same top speeds as Su-30 MKi in indian conditions at sea level proving another famous lie of your which you repeated hundred times ,"Since tejas airframe is draggy it can not reach supersonic speeds at sea leve!!!"
But it was ADA which called your repeated bluff of wrongly designed smaller air intake when they announced that for mk-2 they will go for just 100 mm dia increase for air intake.

I have made many such claims, and many such claims have been nearly 100% true. The only claim I have ever gone wrong with is the peak power output of the radar, which was sadly wrong information. I had claimed it was 800 W, similar to what M-2000 had, but it is much higher. And that was sometime in 2009 or 2010, when very less info was known about the radar.

All your claims were 100 percent wrong.

let me blast another famous BS claim of yours. ---"Tejas can not have multiple ejection pylons as its airframe is draggy".You kept on repeating it like a parrot for hundred times in arguments running for 5 pages in ADA tejas thread.

I asked Suneet krishna the same question at TArmak007 Live chat.

His answer was multiple ejection rack was being qualified on tejas mk-1 itself.

After that you kept shut up on tejas mk-1 thread for a long time.

Another one of your humbug claim is "because of poorly designed air intake tejas can not pass 20 deg AOA". Which too was busted in IOC-2 press release that explicitly says till now within 80 percent flight envelope tejas has already crossed 24 deg AOA and on its way to 26-28 deg AOA in FOC.And to top it all AOA increase will go on with experimental LSP6 even after FOC to more than 28 deg!!!!

And

So you can keep your bogus expertise on tejas to yourself . It will avoid further damages to your all ready ruined credibility on tejas.

 

[ersakthivel]

Sir Tejas Mk1 also has loads of dead weight(lead roads used to balance design flaws) .Mk2 is to eliminate that dead weight.

Design of tejas mk-1 was repeatedly changed at each and every IAF requests , In mk-2 everything is corrected to finality.

Even with those lead plates mk-1 could undertake a vertical loop in 20 seconds in aeroindia 2013.

Such sub optimal design solutions are there in other fighters. For example in future Su-30 MI production lots more composites are going to be used reducing the weight of Su-30 MKI. DOes that mean the previous Su-30 MKi fighters are all over weight?

With 5.5 ton empty wieght and lesser stress inducing R-60 missiles on its wing tip the design top speed for tejas was just 1.5 in 1990s.

But know the mk-1 wieghs 6.3 tons, and carries higher stress inducing more bulky R-73 (which needs more strengthened and bulky wing to withstand the launching stress.) but its topspeed instead of reducing to cater to the overall weight has in fact increased to mach 1.6( the 5 times costlier latest tech rafale has just mach 1.6 as top speed!!!).

So you can not take just one aspect and conclude a judgement.

Tejas now has the same radome dia as RAFALE and has a little top speeds as rafale .

But what matters is ITRs in corner speeds not top speeds to dodge high G capable missiles in todays air combat.

Where teajas has one of the best TWR +low wing loading combination to excel upgraded mirage-2000 even in mk-1 itself.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Your post are always educative even for me, But dont fall for any baits, Keep the knowledge flowing and it will counter the disinformation ..

I can back your claims which are nothing but words from IAF sources ..

All your claims were 100 percent wrong.

let me blast another famous BS claim of yours. ---"Tejas can not have multiple ejection pylons as its airframe is draggy".You kept on repeating it like a parrot for hundred times in arguments running for 5 pages in ADA tejas thread.

I asked Suneet krishna the same question at TArmak007 Live chat.

His answer was multiple ejection rack was being qualified on tejas mk-1 itself.

After that you kept shut up on tejas mk-1 thread for a long time.

Another one of your humbug claim is "because of poorly designed air intake tejas can not pass 20 deg AOA". Which too was busted in IOC-2 press release that explicitly says till now within 80 percent flight envelope tejas has already crossed 24 deg AOA and on its way to 26-28 deg AOA in FOC.And to top it all AOA increase will go on with experimental LSP6 even after FOC to more than 28 deg!!!!

And

So you can keep your bogus expertise on tejas to yourself . It will avoid further damages to your all ready ruined credibility on tejas.

 

[Singh]

@ersakthivel

I don't think @p2prada has a history of racist or abusive behaviour, I have known for over 6 years.

We are not publishing editorials, so there is no responsibility of staff to "fight the untruths and lies" or to take sides re: DRDO etc.

 

[abhi_the _gr8_maratha]

What are the +ves?



Who is talking about LCA's flaws? If we get into it, it will never end. I am talking about the actual design goals of the program which can never be improved upon.

Tejas has an endurance of 40 minutes today. It won't become 2 hours by FOC, it will remain 40 minutes tomorrow and forever. This is a design point. And not a flaw. Flaws can be improved upon, Mk2 is the direct result of achieving such a goal, but Mk1 has no such chance. The very reason why Mk1 cannot be improved is why Mk2 was started. It wasn't a new program. ADA said, "Okay, we fvked up with Mk1.

mkII has a aesa radar and j10 have a pesa. Even radar of mkI is superior to j10 and rcs of mkI is lesser than j10 , and tejas is equipped with systems of su30 mki , sir tejas is a real battle field fighter

 

[p2prada]

I don't think @p2prada has a history of racist or abusive behaviour, I have known for over 6 years.

It's been nearly 8 now. IDF was created in 2007 or 2008.

mkII has a aesa radar and j10 have a pesa. Even radar of mkI is superior to j10 and rcs of mkI is lesser than j10 , and tejas is equipped with systems of su30 mki , sir tejas is a real battle field fighter

J-10B has AESA. J-10A has an Israeli radar called EL/M 2035 which they made for Lavi. That was reverse engineered and is better than the MMR that LCA Mk1 has in many of the specs. It is a much larger radar and the nose in the J-10 is much bigger. Mk2's AESA design has not even been finalized yet. LRDE is still negotiating with ELTA on supply of front end systems.

Apart from this, J-10 has greater range, greater TWR, more weapons stations, higher dash speed, greater service ceiling, greater payload and its performance characteristics, rather conclusively, appear to be superior to LCAs. It is possible turn rates, roll rates and climb rates are all superior to the LCA. J-10A is supersonic at all altitudes, LCA is not.

I'm not sure if you know this but J-10's and LCA's first flights happened in just a span of 3 years. And J-10 has been in operational use for over 10 years now, while LCA is still in development. And J-10B is in serial production with AESA and other 4.5th gen technology and they are already developing a J-10C. The first tranches of J-10A could very well be replaced soon.

There is a reason why the first MRCA RFP was canceled in 2004 and restarted again in 2007, and also why there were some requirement changes from Mk1 to Mk2 on LCA. J-10 was first revealed to the world in 2005, if you didn't know.

 

[p2prada]

@ersakthivel

I can counter every post you made again, easily, as usual. I simply choose not to since it is pointless repetition of previous debates.

Nevertheless, you made two silly points which are usual pointless ranting from your end.
The multi-ejector racks and 20 deg AOA still stand. Common sense will tell you what racks LCA normally be equipped with. And checking the dates for the 20 deg AOA will give you the answer you need. Only one aircraft has achieved 22 deg AoA and this was well after I put you on my ignore list. So, even to this day, except LSP-8 none of the other LSPs can achieve greater than 20 deg. Had you joined the forum after March 2013, I would have happily have told you we achieved 22deg AoA after 13 years of test flights. When we started our discussion LCA was restricted to 18 deg AoA. And certain design changes and compromises were made to achieve target AoA for IOC, which they hope to rectify with Mk2. You see, simple comprehension skills, a bit of analytical skills and a teensy-weensy bit of common sense goes a long way in understanding my posts.

The rest of your post is the usual tripe one needn't bother with.

 

[abhi_the _gr8_maratha]

look at the avionics subsystems of the
aircraft under comparison. Both
airplanes run on Mil 1553b standard
buses.
The LCA radar is a lightweight pulse
doppler that has the ability to tract 10
targets at ranges of over 100km and
engage 4. The J-10's radar choice has
not been determined yet. But its
choices are the Elta 2035 radar
(originally meant for the Lavi) that
tracks 6 targets at ranges over 100km
and engages 4 targets and the
Phazotron N010 radar that equips the
later versions of the Su-27 that can
tract 6 targets at ranges up to 160km
and engages 2 targets. Some sources
suggest that there is a Chinese radar
under development that is similar to
the Phazotron N010 radar. The LCA
radar more modern than the N010
aswell as the Elta 2035 radar in terms
of tracking ability and jamming
immunity. When operating against
ground targets, all the afformentioned
radars are similar in ability.
The LCA uses an indigenous EW
system that is based on the latest
technology, and is similar to the one in
the Indian Su-30MKI. THe J-10 in
comparison will use either the
standard Su-27 EW suite or an
indigenous version of it. The LCA suite
is more advanced than the standard
Su-27 EW suite, which was rejected for
use in the Su-30MKI. RWR system,
jammer and chaff & flare
dispensers are used in both aircraft.
The LCA utilized a FLIR along with
other OLS whereas the J-10 lacks this.
THey both use target seeker/
designator pods for ground attack
missions with PGMs. The LCA uses a
inbuilt designator pod, whereas the
J-10 will utilize a Chinese version of
the Litening pod.
A number of the LCA's onboard
equipment (navigation and
communications equipment, cockpit
instruments) are versions of those on
the Su-30MKI and are quite close to
the best in world technology. The
onboard systems on the J-10 are either
indigenous chinese developments or
are Chinese versions of cockpit
instrumentations of the Su-27. The
LCA utilized a HUD, HMS and 2 color
MFDs and HOTAS controls. The J-10
utlizes a HUD, HMS, 1 color MFD and 2
monochrome ones and HOTAS
controls.
Both fighters feature high
survivability, provided by a wide range
of assets. Systems protecting from fuel
loss and hydroshock, as well as the
firefighting system (which also
protects airframe compartments)
make both aircraft very survivable.
In terms of weapon load, both these
fighters are quite similar.
Both use HMS for their SRAAMs. The
LCA uses the AA-11, which is quite
possibly the best SRAAM in service
along with the Python 4. The J-10 uses
a Chinese version of the Python 3
missile in their aircraft. The J-10 could
also use the AA-11 aircraft that were
procured with the Su-27.
The LCA uses the AA-12/Astra active
radar guided missile for its BVR
engagements. The J-10 might use
either the AA-10 semiactive guided
missile or the Chinese version of the
Italian apside missile.
The LCA uses Kh-59ME for Interdiction
and the Kh-31 for SEAD missile, along
with American LGBs and French air to
surface weapons. The J-10's guided
missiles are Russian LGBs, Kh-31 for
SEAD and the Kh-31 for Interdiction.
Both airplanes use indigenously made
unguided weapons.
The LCA and the J-10 use the same
Russian 23mm gun which have similar
characteristics.
On the whole, aircraft combat
capability is usually assessed by some
complex indices, defining an aircraft's
overall performance.
The advantages that the LCA posessed
over the J-10 is its more up to date
radar, EW, cockpit instrumentation
systems and its greater weapon choice.
The advantage that the J-10 has is its
marginally greater thrust to weight
ratio and its high efficiency at low
level flight.
Both aircraft as as previously
m

 

[abhi_the _gr8_maratha]

j10 like lavi is more efficient at subsonic @ p2prada and now do you got superiority of tejas over j10, and tejas has lowest rcs among non stealth fighters that's the biggest plus point for tejas over j10 and more composite materials will be used in mkII with superior aesa radar mkII will be superior to j10B

 

[abhi_the _gr8_maratha]

@p2prada about aesa radar of mkII which will later be fixed on mkI

On asking whether
the indigenously developed
AESA radar could also be
integrated with the
indigenous light combat
aircraft Tejas , Saraswat said,
" The work is already on and
the Tejas Mark-2 will have
nothing but the AESA radar.
In fact recently when I was in
our lab LRDE, they showed
me 1/8 size of RA which is
already operational in the
same frequency band
delivering certain amount of
power with the TR
(Transmitter & Receiver)
modules. The work on the
development of AESA for LCA
is on."
The DRDO developed AESA
radar will be of same size and
volume of the present radar
integrated on Tejas Mark-1.
Once the work starts for the
Mark-2 of Tejas aircraft, the
old radar will be simply
replaced by the indigenous
AESA radar.
"Now we can configure small
as well as large AESA radar.

 

[p2prada]

j10 like lavi is more efficient at subsonic @ p2prada and now do you got superiority of tejas over j10, and tejas has lowest rcs among non stealth fighters that's the biggest plus point for tejas over j10 and more composite materials will be used in mkII with superior aesa radar mkII will be superior to j10B

You are assuming things that are not true. The EL/M 2035 specs you quoted are from the 90s. Things have changed drastically. Even JF-17 has a better radar than the specs you quoted, which is pretty much the same as LCA's current MMR.

The EW suite on J-10 is unknown, the one on J-10B seems to be solid state with AESA transmitter. LCA doesn't use the same EW kit as the MKI. Whether it is better or worse than what's on J-10B, we have no idea of knowing.

LCA doesn't have FLIR or OLS.

LCA is yet to be integrated with air to air missiles like R-77, Astra, Derby or Python-V. It carries only the old R-73 as of today. This capability will be available only two years later. J-10 is already equipped with the PL-12. A new Ramjet version is being made.

LCA does not have an inbuilt designator. It uses the Litening pod on a hardpoint outside, near the gun. Look up pics.

LCA does not share much in terms of anything with the MKI. LCA carries Indian/Israeli components currently, while all modern MKIs carry Indian/Russian made systems. Even the Israeli systems were eventually replaced overtime. The Indian systems are different because one is by DRDO and the other by HAL. LCA's suite was developed with the Israelis with DRDO whereas MKI's suite is being developed with BEL and the Israelis. We know a lot about the LCA suite, while we know next to nothing about MKI's. This shows the systems are very different.

J-10 has greater weapons choices compared to LCA. The Chinese have built up a large inventory of weapons which the LCA won't have for many years, including near hypersonic cruise missiles with long ranges.

The RCS difference isn't a huge advantage. We don't know what is J-10's RCS either. LCA's RCS is only a bit better than Mirage-2000s and J-10s won't be significantly different. So, this point is moot.

Apart from that J-10A still has greater range, endurance, payload, weapon stations, TWR and so on. All this gives the J-10 a much larger advantage compared to LCA, even the Mk2 version. The J-10B is a step above the J-10A. Even if LCA has similar or better avionics, the design deficiencies of the LCA with respect to the J-10 is vast.

J-10 is a MCA, Tejas is a LCA. That makes a big difference. Even Gripen C is moving towards MCA status with the new NG program, whereas LCA is not.

 

[p2prada]

@p2prada about aesa radar of mkII which will later be fixed on mkI

On asking whether
the indigenously developed
AESA radar could also be
integrated with the
indigenous light combat
aircraft Tejas , Saraswat said,
" The work is already on and
the Tejas Mark-2 will have
nothing but the AESA radar.
In fact recently when I was in
our lab LRDE, they showed
me 1/8 size of RA which is
already operational in the
same frequency band
delivering certain amount of
power with the TR
(Transmitter & Receiver)
modules. The work on the
development of AESA for LCA
is on."
The DRDO developed AESA
radar will be of same size and
volume of the present radar
integrated on Tejas Mark-1.
Once the work starts for the
Mark-2 of Tejas aircraft, the
old radar will be simply
replaced by the indigenous
AESA radar.
"Now we can configure small
as well as large AESA radar.

Yes, I am aware of this. It is still years away from entering operational service.

In comparison, this is J-10's radar.

It began operational service this year.

First serial production J-10B with AESA.

 

[abhi_the _gr8_maratha]

we have mki to take care until amca and fgfa comes and we must be proud of lca cause we have made a better aircraft than chinese lca ie jf17 and f16 @p2prada