LCA TEJAS MK1 & MK1A: News and Discussion

[Hydra3]

What about in A2A role for growlers..?

Growler is the only air carft which credited kills against f22 in multiple times, in bvr range.

 

[Flying Dagger]

IAC1 is anyway very similar to Vikramaditya.
So it’s common sense.

Common sense lol
:bs:

Navy's 45 Mig 29 k for one aircraft carrier have a record of its poor serviceability everytime it lands on deck needs extensive maintenance.

They require 57 more.. cost effective potent machine..

Baaki Jo khareedna hain khareedlena market se..

 

[Hydra3]

Common sense lol
:bs:

Navy's 45 Mig 29 k for one aircraft carrier have a record of its poor serviceability everytime it lands on deck needs extensive maintenance.

They require 57 more.. cost effective potent machine..

Baaki Jo khareedna hain khareedlena market se..

Sofar only three types of aircraft is available for skie jump deck su33&its chinese ripoffs, mig29k & f35b. And f18 did it only in simulation software.

 

[AbRaj]

:biggrin2:

Common sense lol
:bs:

Navy's 45 Mig 29 k for one aircraft carrier have a record of its poor serviceability everytime it lands on deck needs extensive maintenance.

They require 57 more.. cost effective potent machine..

Baaki Jo khareedna hain khareedlena market se..

So to solve a mistake, you would like to commit another blunder.
Waah Modi ji Waah.

Anyway my F18 lover friend, let f18 get certified for ski jump before taking your final decision :biggrin2:

PS: I have a better Idea. Since you’re so much into it, we should go few steps further. We should order 100 grams each of following items
F18 since we love it. It’s bestest
F16 It’s Amrican. So it’s best
F22 It looks good. Also it’s murican , will look best on a soviet design ACC.
F35 next best thing after F18, also murican.
Did I miss something else which is bestest
Also should by stickers of made in Murcia for our soviet design ACC to make it look totally American
Btw . It’s very very hard to maintain Mig 29 therefore IAF ordered

 

[Hydra3]

:biggrin2:
So to solve a mistake, you would like to commit another blunder.
Waah Modi ji Waah.

Anyway my F18 lover friend, let f18 get certified for ski jump before taking your final decision :biggrin2:

PS: I have a better Idea. Since you’re so much into it, we should go few steps further. We should order 100 grams each of following items
F18 since we love it. It’s bestest
F16 It’s Amrican. So it’s best
F22 It looks good. Also it’s murican , will look best on a soviet design ACC.
F35 next best thing after F18, also murican.
Did I miss something else which is bestest
Also should by stickers of made in Murcia for our soviet design ACC to make it look totally American
Btw . It’s very very hard to maintain Mig 29 therefore IAF ordered

If f22 is on order, we definitely should grab it. If they have offered f35, then also we should order 35s.

 

[Suryavanshi]

Put the Troll on Ignore

Put the Troll on Ignore

Put the Troll on Ignore

Put the Troll on Ignore

 

[AbRaj]

[

If f22 is on order, we definitely should grab it. If they have offered f35, then also we should order 35s.

Definitely 100 gram each for our soviet design ACC

 

[Assassin 2.0]

If f22 is on order, we definitely should grab it. If they have offered f35, then also we should order 35s.

Good luck in flying them
Even for GE-404 any crucial repairs we have to send the whole engine to US then we can imagine what would be the condition of F-35 in india without any infrastructure to contain them service cost would be killer for IAF without TOT they are of no use because we cannot utilize them.
Most probably nearest service station for that jet for india will be SK or Israel.

 

[Aniruddha Mulay]

26 mig is max capacity . In general probably 16-18 will be fielded on each with 6 in reserve. Few nlca might also be Fielded to gain operation expertise for domestic jet development.

I really hope Navy orders a squadron worth of NLCA in Mk1A config.

 

[Snowcat]

I really hope Navy orders a squadron worth of NLCA in Mk1A config.

That would be a pretty stupid thing to if it doesn't satisfy their criteria. It's too small to be a carrier based fighter, we shouldn't Just go ahead with it Just because it's local made.
Either way, we should atleast get a squadron worth of mig 29K for now as vikrant is going to be commissioned soon.
As for the future, keep a million miles away from f18s and Rafale M if they want the tedbf to succeed.
Also, if we do go through with the rafalem/f18 SH deal for some reason, scrap the tedbf, and all the focus should be made N-AMCA only then it would be possibly inducted by 2035.

 

[Aniruddha Mulay]

That would be a pretty stupid thing to if it doesn't satisfy their criteria. It's too small to be a carrier based fighter, we shouldn't Just go ahead with it Just because it's local made.
Either way, we should atleast get a squadron worth of mig 29K for now as vikrant is going to be commissioned soon.
As for the future, keep a million miles away from f18s and Rafale M if they want the tedbf to succeed.
Also, if we do go through with the rafalem/f18 SH deal for some reason, scrap the tedbf, and all the focus should be made N-AMCA only then it would be possibly inducted by 2035.

Mig 29K is problematic and has a poor availability rate, now we have 42 Mig 29K which are most likely going to be shared between our 2 AC. Lets assume 6 Mig 29K are kept in reserve, that means 18 jets per carrier which is a pathetic number in itself as both carriers can handle 26 each. Plus the mig has poor serviceability, means at any given moment only 7-8 are in flightworthy condition.
LCA has never had serviceability issues like the Russian jets and it is likely India may never place an order for additional Mig 29K given their past history. I am suggesting NLCA in Mk1A config as they are 1000 kilos lighter than Mk1 config.
They wpuld serve as a stopgap until TEDBF starts arriving in 2030.

 

[Bleh]

I really hope Navy orders a squadron worth of NLCA in Mk1A config.

Just for CAP?..They already are short of funding.

What Navy could actually afford to do is get Brahmos capable Tejas Mark1A & station them at A&N. Better if IAF placed Su-30 there, but seems like they wont.

I am suggesting NLCA in Mk1A config as they are 1000 kilos lighter than Mk1 config.

Dont exist... And no guarantee Mark1A will actually be 1ton lighter, maybe few hundreds kilos. Plus it was supposed to get lighter by reducing landing gear mainly, cannot do that to NLCA.

 

[Shekhar Singh]

No, never. First of all there huge difference is there between an aircraft with EW suits with an EW attack aircraft.
I di agree that rafale is an amazing platform, & we have ordered it. That doesn't mean that it is the best aircraft in the world.
Growler is a dedicated EW attack aircraft, it hoises internal jamming pods aswell as external jamming pods. EA18 even undergine special wirings to cope up with the power consumption of added EW pods & to escape from the wrath of its own jamming pods.EW jamming works base on signal processing, & more importantly the shear power of jamming signals it produced in a wife spectrum.
Rafale may beat EA18 on aerobatics but definitely inferior on electronic warfare.
Propaganda of rafale f3 beats growler on EW is like if someone says su30mki with bars will beat phalcon on awacs role.

The Growler has more EW options than the Rafale. Whether that makes it more advanced or not, that depends on how you plan a mission. The only area where Rafale can be supported by the Growler is communication jamming. This is a pretty useful capability in some circumstances. But the best option is to use capabilities that will not alert the enemy, which are next gen capabilities, and the Growler is the most useless aircraft for that.

In simple terms, if you have aircraft like MKI, EFT, F-16 etc, then you need Growler. These aircraft are like horses charging in a battlefield. Very noisy.
But if you have Rafale, F-22, F-35 etc, then you do not need the Growler. These are all like ninjas. Very quiet.

So the Rafale's EW capabilities are built towards conducting such missions, while the Growler is not.

 

[Hydra3]

The Growler has more EW options than the Rafale. Whether that makes it more advanced or not, that depends on how you plan a mission. The only area where Rafale can be supported by the Growler is communication jamming. This is a pretty useful capability in some circumstances. But the best option is to use capabilities that will not alert the enemy, which are next gen capabilities, and the Growler is the most useless aircraft for that.

In simple terms, if you have aircraft like MKI, EFT, F-16 etc, then you need Growler. These aircraft are like horses charging in a battlefield. Very noisy.
But if you have Rafale, F-22, F-35 etc, then you do not need the Growler. These are all like ninjas. Very quiet.

So the Rafale's EW capabilities are built towards conducting such missions, while the Growler is not.

Do rafale with its limited EW suits generate enough powerful jamming signals against land based systems like s300? If yeas, then french guys are light years ahead of entire world. They must be having some alien tech. Look at the growler, how many dedicated jamming pods they are having, with simple logic you can imagine howmuch will be the power out from a single growler, yet you required a minimum four growler formation to tackle s300. Rafale cannot even jam a s300's pesa radar.

Lastly do Rafale can jam AESA radar? The only way to jam an aesa radar is to pump a white noise to jam an aesa radar, but problem with a fighter jet is that it cannot generate enough powerful white noise to jam a fighter jet with aesa radar but growler can.
I am giving you a logical explanation, counter it with logic or technical specifications.

Pity is that rafale may not be able to jan jf17bl3 aesa radar, jamming an aesa radar require that much powerful jammer (means power output).

 

[Assassin 2.0]

Do rafale with its limited EW suits generate enough powerful jamming signals against land based systems like s300? If yeas, then french guys are light years ahead of entire world. They must be having some alien tech. Look at the growler, how many dedicated jamming pods they are having, with simple logic you can imagine howmuch will be the power out from a single growler, yet you required a minimum four growler formation to tackle s300. Rafale cannot even jam a s300's pesa radar.

That's a speculation from your side it's not confirmed that even growler can JAM big radars like S-300 or S-400.
Only strategic bombers type of planes like Chinese XIAN-H6 can be potentially armed with such systems to spoof S-300 or S-400.

Anyways EW suit of rafale is way way ahead of J-junk or for matter Pakistani F-16.
Meteor gives india a total advantage against such junks and please we know how effective Chinese Russian copied Asea radars are.

 

[Chain smoker]

That's a speculation from your side it's not confirmed that even growler can JAM big radars like S-300 or S-400.
Only strategic bombers type of planes like Chinese XIAN-H6 can be potentially armed with such systems to spoof S-300 or S-400.

Anyways EW suit of rafale is way way ahead of J-junk or for matter Pakistani F-16.
Meteor gives india a total advantage against such junks and please we know how effective Chinese Russian copied Asea radars are.

China copied aesa radar from Israel bcz Russians themselves doesnt have good aesa radars.

 

[Assassin 2.0]

That's a speculation from your side it's not confirmed that even growler can JAM big radars like S-300 or S-400.
Only strategic bombers type of planes like Chinese XIAN-H6 can be potentially armed with such systems to spoof S-300 or S-400.

Anyways EW suit of rafale is way way ahead of J-junk or for matter Pakistani F-16.
Meteor gives india a total advantage against such junks and please we know how effective Chinese Russian copied Asea radars are.

S-400 Design Philosophy and Implementation
The most detailed technical paper to date covering the S-400 was produced by Dr Alexander Lemanskiy, Chief Engineer on the S-400, Igor Ashurbeili, General Director, and Nikolai Nenartovich, Chief Engineer, of Almaz-Antey, published in the Russian language Vozdushno-Kosmicheskaya Oborona journal, No.3 (40), 20081. Unfortunately it lacks the detail of later Almaz-Antey disclosures on the S-300PMU2 Favorit, but does provide a good discussion of the rationale behind the S-400 design design, and its key design features.

Lemanskiy et al state that definition of the S-400 design was performed jointly by the designers and the Russian MoD, with specific capability foci in:
Defeating threats at low and very low flight altitudes;
Dealing with the overall reduction of target signatures resulting from the pervasive use of stealth technology;
Dealing with the increase in target quantities resulting from the widspread use of UAVs;
Applying all means to defeat advanced jammers employed by opponents;
Surviving in an environment where PGMs are used widely;
Accommodating an environment where an increasing number of nations are deploying TBMs and IRBMs.
Lemanskiy et al observed that several key imperatives were followed during the design process:
An open system architecture with a high level of modularity, intended to permit follow-on capability growth in the design;
Multirole capabilities and the capacity for integration with legacy IADS technologies;
Suitability for the air defence of fixed infrastructure targets, as well as manoeuvre forces;
Suitability for integration with naval surface combatants;
The ability to exploit legacy missile rounds already in operational use;
High operational mobility and deployability;
High lethality and jam resistance;
There imperatives were applied to the design of configurations for the Russian Armed Forces and for export clients.

Export variants of the S-400 Triumf are intended to destroy opposing stand-off jammer aircraft, AWACS/AEW&C aircraft, reconnaissance and armed reconnaissance aircraft, cruise missile armed strategic bombers, cruise missiles, Tactical, Theatre and Intermediate Range Ballistic Missiles, and any other atmospheric threats, all in an intensive Electronic Counter Measures environment.

The 92N6E Grave Stone data processing subsystem is designed around the Elbrus-90 mikro SPARC multiprocessor system, like the S-300PMU2 30N6E2 Tomb Stone variant. Computing power is exploited to support a diverse range of modes and waveforms. These including:
Sniffing waveforms at varying power levels to establish the presence of interfering emitters at a given angle and frequency;
Adaptive beam control reflecting immediate operational conditions;
Variable PRFs and scan rates for missile and target tracking;
Defeat of high power active noise jammers by the use of “radical measures” in the design.
New Electronic Counter Counter Measures technology was employed in the design of the 92N6E Grave Stone, but was neither described nor named.

Lemanskiy et al described the 48N6E3 missile in some detail, but did not include any disclosures beyond what is already public knowledge.

The authors did state that increased radar power-aperture product performance in both the 92N6E Grave Stone and 91N6E Big Bird increases the capability of the S-400 Triumf to engage low signature or stealth targets, but their cryptic claim of 50 percent of the engagement range remains difficult to interpret.

What is evident is that the fully digital S-400 Triumf displays most if not all of the typical capability gains seen in the latest generation of fully digital systems of Western design.

 

[Hydra3]

That's a speculation from your side it's not confirmed that even growler can JAM big radars like S-300 or S-400.
Only strategic bombers type of planes like Chinese XIAN-H6 can be potentially armed with such systems to spoof S-300 or S-400.

Anyways EW suit of rafale is way way ahead of J-junk or for matter Pakistani F-16.
Meteor gives india a total advantage against such junks and please we know how effective Chinese Russian copied Asea radars are.

I am not telling that growler can jam s400 since it is having immensely powerful aesa radar, but definitely s300( generally they will be using 4 growler for that job).
And regarding jf17, any aircraft with a working aesa radar is difficult to jam, be it jf17 or lca or rafale. No single fighter jet, i repeat fighter jet will be able to jam another aesa fighter jet. No fighter have that muvh power out to produce jamming white noise in all frequency. You need dedicated EW attack systems like Growler.

 

[Chain smoker]

I am not telling that growler can jam s400 since it is having immensely powerful aesa radar, but definitely s300( generally they will be using 4 growler for that job).
And regarding jf17, any aircraft with a working aesa radar is difficult to jam, be it jf17 or lca or rafale. No single fighter jet, i repeat fighter jet will be able to jam another aesa fighter jet. No fighter have that muvh power out to produce jamming white noise in all frequency. You need dedicated EW attack systems like Growler.

Well growler jammed f22................

 

[Chain smoker]

S-400 Design Philosophy and Implementation
The most detailed technical paper to date covering the S-400 was produced by Dr Alexander Lemanskiy, Chief Engineer on the S-400, Igor Ashurbeili, General Director, and Nikolai Nenartovich, Chief Engineer, of Almaz-Antey, published in the Russian language Vozdushno-Kosmicheskaya Oborona journal, No.3 (40), 20081. Unfortunately it lacks the detail of later Almaz-Antey disclosures on the S-300PMU2 Favorit, but does provide a good discussion of the rationale behind the S-400 design design, and its key design features.

Lemanskiy et al state that definition of the S-400 design was performed jointly by the designers and the Russian MoD, with specific capability foci in:
Defeating threats at low and very low flight altitudes;
Dealing with the overall reduction of target signatures resulting from the pervasive use of stealth technology;
Dealing with the increase in target quantities resulting from the widspread use of UAVs;
Applying all means to defeat advanced jammers employed by opponents;
Surviving in an environment where PGMs are used widely;
Accommodating an environment where an increasing number of nations are deploying TBMs and IRBMs.
Lemanskiy et al observed that several key imperatives were followed during the design process:
An open system architecture with a high level of modularity, intended to permit follow-on capability growth in the design;
Multirole capabilities and the capacity for integration with legacy IADS technologies;
Suitability for the air defence of fixed infrastructure targets, as well as manoeuvre forces;
Suitability for integration with naval surface combatants;
The ability to exploit legacy missile rounds already in operational use;
High operational mobility and deployability;
High lethality and jam resistance;
There imperatives were applied to the design of configurations for the Russian Armed Forces and for export clients.

Export variants of the S-400 Triumf are intended to destroy opposing stand-off jammer aircraft, AWACS/AEW&C aircraft, reconnaissance and armed reconnaissance aircraft, cruise missile armed strategic bombers, cruise missiles, Tactical, Theatre and Intermediate Range Ballistic Missiles, and any other atmospheric threats, all in an intensive Electronic Counter Measures environment.

The 92N6E Grave Stone data processing subsystem is designed around the Elbrus-90 mikro SPARC multiprocessor system, like the S-300PMU2 30N6E2 Tomb Stone variant. Computing power is exploited to support a diverse range of modes and waveforms. These including:
Sniffing waveforms at varying power levels to establish the presence of interfering emitters at a given angle and frequency;
Adaptive beam control reflecting immediate operational conditions;
Variable PRFs and scan rates for missile and target tracking;
Defeat of high power active noise jammers by the use of “radical measures” in the design.
New Electronic Counter Counter Measures technology was employed in the design of the 92N6E Grave Stone, but was neither described nor named.

Lemanskiy et al described the 48N6E3 missile in some detail, but did not include any disclosures beyond what is already public knowledge.

The authors did state that increased radar power-aperture product performance in both the 92N6E Grave Stone and 91N6E Big Bird increases the capability of the S-400 Triumf to engage low signature or stealth targets, but their cryptic claim of 50 percent of the engagement range remains difficult to interpret.

What is evident is that the fully digital S-400 Triumf displays most if not all of the typical capability gains seen in the latest generation of fully digital systems of Western design.

Adaptive beam forming hmmmm