LCA TEJAS MK1 & MK1A: News and Discussion

IndianHawk

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2016
Messages
9,058
Likes
37,670
Country flag
This is why I want to cancel MK1A , the base version MK1 is very sluggish , the Air Intake limits it's performance . We should go for ORCA and MWF instead. If we using mk1 only point defence then its acceptable
Eh ! Any jet will be sluggish with that many bombs on pylon. Mk1a will be beast in air to air warfare with it's low rcs , potent aesa and derby ER missile. It will be superior to entire paki airforce including f16 block 52.
It's also superior to j10 of china as Israeli aesa is proven and derby ER is much better than pl15.

Mk1a is air to air is far superior to even upgraded mirage as mirage upg has only pesa radar and mica missile.

In air to ground it already exceeds range of jaguar with similar payload. It has much better avionics than upgraded jags and matches mirage upgrade. It can so balakot type operations with ease once spice is integrated to it. (Should be easy as radar and spice both are Israeli).

Mk1a has powerful ew in elisar system with jam proof aesa and spj wideband elta jammer.

Do not underestimate mk1a . It will be most advanced jet in subcontinent from day 1 barring only rafale untill su30 is upgraded with aesa and long range missiles.
 

Steven Rogers

NaPakiRoaster
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2017
Messages
1,537
Likes
2,416
Country flag
This is why I want to cancel MK1A , the base version MK1 is very sluggish , the Air Intake limits it's performance . We should go for ORCA and MWF instead. If we using mk1 only point defence then its acceptable
Hold on...The performance doesn't match the ASQR requirements (certain requirements)but it's not sluggish either compared to its contemporaries...
 

Bleh

Laughing member
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2017
Messages
6,174
Likes
25,852
Country flag
This is why I want to cancel MK1A , the base version MK1 is very sluggish , the Air Intake limits it's performance . We should go for ORCA and MWF instead. If we using mk1 only point defence then its acceptable
Not really. "Very sluggish" it's not... Frankly T/W ratio of MWF & Mark1 are same (incase they manage to reduce 500kg, then superior in Mark1A).

F414 powered Mark1 would simply be better. But you gotta work with what you got. MWF is to be operational only by 2025.
 

Karthi

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2018
Messages
2,214
Likes
17,753
Country flag
Eh ! Any jet will be sluggish with that many bombs on pylon. Mk1a will be beast in air to air warfare with it's low rcs , potent aesa and derby ER missile. It will be superior to entire paki airforce including f16 block 52.
It's also superior to j10 of china as Israeli aesa is proven and derby ER is much better than pl15.

Mk1a is air to air is far superior to even upgraded mirage as mirage upg has only pesa radar and mica missile.

In air to ground it already exceeds range of jaguar with similar payload. It has much better avionics than upgraded jags and matches mirage upgrade. It can so balakot type operations with ease once spice is integrated to it. (Should be easy as radar and spice both are Israeli).

Mk1a has powerful ew in elisar system with jam proof aesa and spj wideband elta jammer.

Do not underestimate mk1a . It will be most advanced jet in subcontinent from day 1 barring only rafale untill su30 is upgraded with aesa and long range missiles.

Bro you are comparing our brand new Tejas With decade old platforms , these EW suites AAM all are available for other platforms also . One question for everyone if you want a superior Tejas or limited capability Tejas With some excuses , yes we all are know Tejas is better than JF 17 but certainly not superior to F16 . And I told many times it's the potency of Platforms has a significant role in Winning a battle , Two Aircrafts with similar performance will deadly for pilot's , victory depends on the overall situation if he situation favours Enemy our Pilot and platform will loose .


Moreover there is no comparison with PAF but PLAAF , J10 ,Su30s and their illegal copies . Can our Tejas MK1A can defeat them I don't think so . But I believe MWF and ORCA can. We all know Gripen can supercruise , Better manuverablity than Tejas better avionics I want to make Tejas as better as Gripen that only MWF can gave , if all of you happy with current Tejas then its okey . The major reason of IAF didn't interested. Tejas at the first place was it's limitations , HAL failed to fix it . We can excuses like this is our first project , IAF didn't supported etc but these excuses won't help in battlefield ,

I want my country with most advanced Weapons to Kick both China and Pakistan and not an average platform with Excuses thatsall. Don't feel bad
 

HariPrasad-1

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2016
Messages
9,573
Likes
21,018
Country flag
This is why I want to cancel MK1A , the base version MK1 is very sluggish , the Air Intake limits it's performance . We should go for ORCA and MWF instead. If we using mk1 only point defence then its acceptable
Intake can be changed. MK1 A even will keep improving for years like super hornet.
 

IndianHawk

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2016
Messages
9,058
Likes
37,670
Country flag
Bro you are comparing our brand new Tejas With decade old platforms , these EW suites AAM all are available for other platforms also . One question for everyone if you want a superior Tejas or limited capability Tejas With some excuses , yes we all are know Tejas is better than JF 17 but certainly not superior to F16 . And I told many times it's the potency of Platforms has a significant role in Winning a battle , Two Aircrafts with similar performance will deadly for pilot's , victory depends on the overall situation if he situation favours Enemy our Pilot and platform will loose .
Nope they are not available to Pakistan. Europe denied ew and missile to Pakistan for jf17 so pakistan was forced to use inferior Chinese junk.

Mk1a is certainly superior to paki f16 in air to air scenario. It has much less rcs it will always see f16 first and get to shoot first.

The only way paki f16 can match mk1a is if they get aesa and aim120d . Otherwise they can't match mk1a. And USA is not in mood to supply those things anytime soon. Also many of their f16 are very very old ( lots are second hand) and will retire soon. While our 123 mk1a will serve 30 years +.


Moreover there is no comparison with PAF but PLAAF , J10 ,Su30s and their illegal copies . Can our Tejas MK1A can defeat them I don't think so . But I believe MWF and ORCA can. We all know Gripen can supercruise , Better manuverablity than Tejas better avionics I want to make Tejas as better as Gripen that only MWF can gave , if all of you happy with current Tejas then its okey . The major reason of IAF didn't interested. Tejas at the first place was it's limitations , HAL failed to fix it . We can excuses like this is our first project , IAF didn't supported etc but these excuses won't help in battlefield ,
J10 and su30 copies both have much bigger rcs against mk1a . So mk1a again retains advantage in air to air.
Chinese aesa on j10c is one or two generation behind Israeli 2052. Chinese were desperately trying to get Israeli awacs which thanks to USA we got instead.

J11 D is much bigger and more challenging but its rcs is also huge. So mk1a will again see first and shoot first.

Chinese pl15 is also vastly inferior to derby ER . Infact first Chinese missiles were copy of Israeli python.
Pl15 is considered equivalent to Russian r37 . An awacs killer at long range but very heavy to go after fighter jets at distance!

Derby ER is on the other hand much sleeker despite being dual pulsed and has far more effective nez against fighter jets compared to pl15.

Mwf will have Astra mk2 which will be equivalent to derby ER. Untill sfdr comes along both mk1a and mwf will be similarly capable in air to air domain.

Gripen supercruise is a joke. Real suoercruise is at least 1.4 Mach with 4-6 missiles. Gripen can do best 1.1 mech at clean configuration.

Mwf is coming anyway and gripen E is not operational now.

Iaf is buying 83 mk1a for 5 billion dollars . That's the proof of it's capabilities right there. Mwf will be better but mwf won't fit into mig21 hardened sheltor in Frontline bases. Only mk1/ mk1a can do that.

Mk1a will be able to carry two bramhos ng for precision strike while mwf may carry 3.

Stop focusing on size alone and see the actual technical ability.
 

Karthi

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2018
Messages
2,214
Likes
17,753
Country flag
Nope they are not available to Pakistan. Europe denied ew and missile to Pakistan for jf17 so pakistan was forced to use inferior Chinese junk.

Mk1a is certainly superior to paki f16 in air to air scenario. It has much less rcs it will always see f16 first and get to shoot first.

The only way paki f16 can match mk1a is if they get aesa and aim120d . Otherwise they can't match mk1a. And USA is not in mood to supply those things anytime soon. Also many of their f16 are very very old ( lots are second hand) and will retire soon. While our 123 mk1a will serve 30 years +.




J10 and su30 copies both have much bigger rcs against mk1a . So mk1a again retains advantage in air to air.
Chinese aesa on j10c is one or two generation behind Israeli 2052. Chinese were desperately trying to get Israeli awacs which thanks to USA we got instead.

J11 D is much bigger and more challenging but its rcs is also huge. So mk1a will again see first and shoot first.

Chinese pl15 is also vastly inferior to derby ER . Infact first Chinese missiles were copy of Israeli python.
Pl15 is considered equivalent to Russian r37 . An awacs killer at long range but very heavy to go after fighter jets at distance!

Derby ER is on the other hand much sleeker despite being dual pulsed and has far more effective nez against fighter jets compared to pl15.

Mwf will have Astra mk2 which will be equivalent to derby ER. Untill sfdr comes along both mk1a and mwf will be similarly capable in air to air domain.

Gripen supercruise is a joke. Real suoercruise is at least 1.4 Mach with 4-6 missiles. Gripen can do best 1.1 mech at clean configuration.

Mwf is coming anyway and gripen E is not operational now.

Iaf is buying 83 mk1a for 5 billion dollars . That's the proof of it's capabilities right there. Mwf will be better but mwf won't fit into mig21 hardened sheltor in Frontline bases. Only mk1/ mk1a can do that.

Mk1a will be able to carry two bramhos ng for precision strike while mwf may carry 3.

Stop focusing on size alone and see the actual technical ability.
I didn't expected this kind of answer from you. Basically you said Indian Weapons are good Chinese and Pak Weapons are Inferior . Leave it no more arguments
 

Ajax01

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 29, 2020
Messages
360
Likes
1,183
Country flag
J11 radar has a range of less than 120km for 2m^2(Gripen) target as per their own claim vs 165 km for Gripen C/D.
 

Karthi

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2018
Messages
2,214
Likes
17,753
Country flag
Only answering to remove some wild misconceptions.
First of all, unlike what some people on Quora want to believe, Tejas is not designed for dogfight, nor for pure Air Combat. The F-16 has an excellent Air combat record of 76 kills – 1 loss, while Tejas is not yet ‘fully operational’, let alone being battle tested.
It’s one thing to ‘look good on paper’, but another to be ‘good in the Air’.
A dogfight is a very rare event with uncertain results. The one who gets the First-shot is likely to be the winner.

In a WVR combat:

Tejas ‘may’ have better instantaneous turn rates due to Delta wing config. However, it’ll significantly bleed energy (speed), and have poor sustained turn rates. Further, it is currently having a weaker engine & lower Thrust/Weight ratio (<1 or barely ~1 with combat load) – resulting in poor performance in close Air combat.
On the other hand, F-16 is a “pure energy” dogfighter. It’ll bleed less energy & have better sustained Turn rates. Further, it’s having much higher Thrust/Weight ratio & greater range on internal fuel – resulting in greater endurance. So not only will it be retaining energy but can also sustain the fight much longer – something Tejas can’t do. (Also F-16 has a +9g airframe compared to +7–8 g limits for Tejas.)

Although modern WVR combat is fought by the HOBS (off-boresight) missiles. Both Tejas & F-16 Block 50/52+ have HMD & HOBS armament. The F-16 has a slight advantage of having better HOBS missile: AIM-9 with 90° off-boresight capability compared to 60° in R-73 (& lack of active development) in Tejas.

However, as said before, the outcome of a close-WVR combat is unpredictable and for this reason, it’s almost non-existing from decades. Today most of the combat takes place BVR.


BVR Combat


Let’s remove some miss-conceptions first.
“Tejas will have first-look on F-16 because it has smaller RCS”

First of all, we don’t have any valid data on Tejas’s RCS and the RCS doesn’t depend purely on the size or composites, there are a lot of factors – neither is designed as a LO aircraft. Secondly the RCS-difference between the two is in-significant and with a combat (external) load, the RCS difference will be negligible.

Interesting to note that the F-16 is usually more ‘clean’ with combat load than Tejas due to tactical importance of carrying external fuel tanks for Tejas. (F-16 has sufficient range with internal fuel + Conformal Fuel Tanks if needed)


“ELTA 2052 AESA radar on board Tejas will pick up F 16 before it can detect Tejas”
This is another assumption without any source to back it up. It’s important to remember that Teja’s radome is smaller than that of F-16’s – a significant design limitation. And the EL/M-2052 radar is mostly designed for F-15 like aircraft (with bigger radome) – so the marketed capabilities are based on radars for those aircraft, not the one for smaller aircraft like Tejas. The EL/M-2052 for Tejas is likely having ~300–500 T/R modules (based on export data of the radar & the fact that Teja’s small radome can’t accommodate larger T/R modules).

Thus, despite being AESA, such low T/R module count is unlikely to give any “significant” superior detection over a larger MSA radar (although it may have certain performance advantage but nothing ‘too big’). The upgraded APG-68v(9) radar in F-16 Block 50/52+ is quite powerful and is likely to have greater (or at worst similar) range than Teja’s radar.

F-16 Block 52+ is also having better RWR, ECMs/EW capabilities and a distinct advantage of F-16 in BVR combat is again it’s armament – AIM-120D it has a substantially bigger engagement envelop: 160 km+ effective range compared to R-77’s max. range of <110 km for Tejas, combined with better avionics (seeker, ECCMs), datalinks & navigation.

Irrespective of who detects the other first, F-16 has the advantage of “First-shot” – and sometimes, that’s all you need.

The LCA Tejas was never designed nor intended to compete with an Air Superiority fighter like F-16, nor is it capable of. It has a different role & no one except some people on the internet, expect it to fight F-16.

Someone Answered this in Quora , This is exactly what I want to tell,9 0 percentage I m agreeing with him .

F16 AN/APG-68 V9 radar has a range up to 296 km. Range for 5m2 aerial targets is 105 km, some sources says 130-150km vs 5m/s

F16 primary AAMs

AIM-9 L Range: 1.0 to 35.4 km, AIM-120C-7- range 105 Km.

EW Systems.

ALQ-131 Block II Electronic Countermeasures Pods.


ALQ-213 Electronic Warfare Management Systems.

Both EW systems are capable


TEJAS.

Air-to-air missiles:
Astra
I Derby Not Yet
R-73
ASRAAM expected


EL/M-2052 AESA for Mk1A only Range 290 Km. 150 Km for 1or 2 M2 RCS (not Sure )

Mk1 uses ELM 2032 Range - 150KM???Nit sure

UTTAM : 2m2 150 kilometers

EW :- Elta 8200 External Jamming pod

RCS.

Tejas 0.5 without Weapons , with Weapons 2.5 to 3.5 , AAM has typically 0.1 M2 RCS , Carrying 8 Missiles Increases RCS, but how much ???

RCS of F16 C 50/52 - 1.2 M2 With external Weapons ?? Possibly 4-4.5

Note:- most of the Figures are recollected from my memory so need to check
 

porky_kicker

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2016
Messages
6,024
Likes
44,578
Country flag
Only answering to remove some wild misconceptions.
First of all, unlike what some people on Quora want to believe, Tejas is not designed for dogfight, nor for pure Air Combat. The F-16 has an excellent Air combat record of 76 kills – 1 loss, while Tejas is not yet ‘fully operational’, let alone being battle tested.
It’s one thing to ‘look good on paper’, but another to be ‘good in the Air’.
A dogfight is a very rare event with uncertain results. The one who gets the First-shot is likely to be the winner.

In a WVR combat:

Tejas ‘may’ have better instantaneous turn rates due to Delta wing config. However, it’ll significantly bleed energy (speed), and have poor sustained turn rates. Further, it is currently having a weaker engine & lower Thrust/Weight ratio (<1 or barely ~1 with combat load) – resulting in poor performance in close Air combat.
On the other hand, F-16 is a “pure energy” dogfighter. It’ll bleed less energy & have better sustained Turn rates. Further, it’s having much higher Thrust/Weight ratio & greater range on internal fuel – resulting in greater endurance. So not only will it be retaining energy but can also sustain the fight much longer – something Tejas can’t do. (Also F-16 has a +9g airframe compared to +7–8 g limits for Tejas.)

Although modern WVR combat is fought by the HOBS (off-boresight) missiles. Both Tejas & F-16 Block 50/52+ have HMD & HOBS armament. The F-16 has a slight advantage of having better HOBS missile: AIM-9 with 90° off-boresight capability compared to 60° in R-73 (& lack of active development) in Tejas.

However, as said before, the outcome of a close-WVR combat is unpredictable and for this reason, it’s almost non-existing from decades. Today most of the combat takes place BVR.


BVR Combat


Let’s remove some miss-conceptions first.
“Tejas will have first-look on F-16 because it has smaller RCS”

First of all, we don’t have any valid data on Tejas’s RCS and the RCS doesn’t depend purely on the size or composites, there are a lot of factors – neither is designed as a LO aircraft. Secondly the RCS-difference between the two is in-significant and with a combat (external) load, the RCS difference will be negligible.

Interesting to note that the F-16 is usually more ‘clean’ with combat load than Tejas due to tactical importance of carrying external fuel tanks for Tejas. (F-16 has sufficient range with internal fuel + Conformal Fuel Tanks if needed)


“ELTA 2052 AESA radar on board Tejas will pick up F 16 before it can detect Tejas”
This is another assumption without any source to back it up. It’s important to remember that Teja’s radome is smaller than that of F-16’s – a significant design limitation. And the EL/M-2052 radar is mostly designed for F-15 like aircraft (with bigger radome) – so the marketed capabilities are based on radars for those aircraft, not the one for smaller aircraft like Tejas. The EL/M-2052 for Tejas is likely having ~300–500 T/R modules (based on export data of the radar & the fact that Teja’s small radome can’t accommodate larger T/R modules).

Thus, despite being AESA, such low T/R module count is unlikely to give any “significant” superior detection over a larger MSA radar (although it may have certain performance advantage but nothing ‘too big’). The upgraded APG-68v(9) radar in F-16 Block 50/52+ is quite powerful and is likely to have greater (or at worst similar) range than Teja’s radar.

F-16 Block 52+ is also having better RWR, ECMs/EW capabilities and a distinct advantage of F-16 in BVR combat is again it’s armament – AIM-120D it has a substantially bigger engagement envelop: 160 km+ effective range compared to R-77’s max. range of <110 km for Tejas, combined with better avionics (seeker, ECCMs), datalinks & navigation.

Irrespective of who detects the other first, F-16 has the advantage of “First-shot” – and sometimes, that’s all you need.

The LCA Tejas was never designed nor intended to compete with an Air Superiority fighter like F-16, nor is it capable of. It has a different role & no one except some people on the internet, expect it to fight F-16.

Someone Answered this in Quora , This is exactly what I want to tell,9 0 percentage I m agreeing with him .

F16 AN/APG-68 V9 radar has a range up to 296 km. Range for 5m2 aerial targets is 105 km, some sources says 130-150km vs 5m/s

F16 primary AAMs

AIM-9 L Range: 1.0 to 35.4 km, AIM-120C-7- range 105 Km.

EW Systems.

ALQ-131 Block II Electronic Countermeasures Pods.


ALQ-213 Electronic Warfare Management Systems.

Both EW systems are capable


TEJAS.

Air-to-air missiles:
Astra
I Derby Not Yet
R-73
ASRAAM expected


EL/M-2052 AESA for Mk1A only Range 290 Km. 150 Km for 1or 2 M2 RCS (not Sure )

Mk1 uses ELM 2032 Range - 150KM???Nit sure

UTTAM : 2m2 150 kilometers

EW :- Elta 8200 External Jamming pod

RCS.

Tejas 0.5 without Weapons , with Weapons 2.5 to 3.5 , AAM has typically 0.1 M2 RCS , Carrying 8 Missiles Increases RCS, but how much ???

RCS of F16 C 50/52 - 1.2 M2 With external Weapons ?? Possibly 4-4.5

Note:- most of the Figures are recollected from my memory so need to check
What is this bus load of assumptions and concoctions I just read.

This is plain foolishness to compare 2 different aircrafts interms of kinematics without comprehensive idea on relevant information which is mostly closely guarded secret and unavailable in public domain.

If one claims to know so much about LCA , kindly provide the following information on LCA

1.lift to drag ratio
2.lift coefficient
3.sustained turn rate
4.thrust to weight ratio
5.wing loading
6.instantaneous turn rate
7.angle of attack rate
8.climb rate
9.relative energy state
10.drag coefficient
11.specific excess power
12.combat cycle time
13.pitch agility
14.lateral agility
15.axial agility

For all operational configurations


Then we will discuss EW , avionics , RCS etc

Will be eagerly waiting
Reminder : please don't reply again with assumptions
 
Last edited:

Steven Rogers

NaPakiRoaster
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2017
Messages
1,537
Likes
2,416
Country flag
Only answering to remove some wild misconceptions.
First of all, unlike what some people on Quora want to believe, Tejas is not designed for dogfight, nor for pure Air Combat. The F-16 has an excellent Air combat record of 76 kills – 1 loss, while Tejas is not yet ‘fully operational’, let alone being battle tested.
It’s one thing to ‘look good on paper’, but another to be ‘good in the Air’.
A dogfight is a very rare event with uncertain results. The one who gets the First-shot is likely to be the winner.

In a WVR combat:

Tejas ‘may’ have better instantaneous turn rates due to Delta wing config. However, it’ll significantly bleed energy (speed), and have poor sustained turn rates. Further, it is currently having a weaker engine & lower Thrust/Weight ratio (<1 or barely ~1 with combat load) – resulting in poor performance in close Air combat.
On the other hand, F-16 is a “pure energy” dogfighter. It’ll bleed less energy & have better sustained Turn rates. Further, it’s having much higher Thrust/Weight ratio & greater range on internal fuel – resulting in greater endurance. So not only will it be retaining energy but can also sustain the fight much longer – something Tejas can’t do. (Also F-16 has a +9g airframe compared to +7–8 g limits for Tejas.)

Although modern WVR combat is fought by the HOBS (off-boresight) missiles. Both Tejas & F-16 Block 50/52+ have HMD & HOBS armament. The F-16 has a slight advantage of having better HOBS missile: AIM-9 with 90° off-boresight capability compared to 60° in R-73 (& lack of active development) in Tejas.

However, as said before, the outcome of a close-WVR combat is unpredictable and for this reason, it’s almost non-existing from decades. Today most of the combat takes place BVR.


BVR Combat


Let’s remove some miss-conceptions first.
“Tejas will have first-look on F-16 because it has smaller RCS”

First of all, we don’t have any valid data on Tejas’s RCS and the RCS doesn’t depend purely on the size or composites, there are a lot of factors – neither is designed as a LO aircraft. Secondly the RCS-difference between the two is in-significant and with a combat (external) load, the RCS difference will be negligible.

Interesting to note that the F-16 is usually more ‘clean’ with combat load than Tejas due to tactical importance of carrying external fuel tanks for Tejas. (F-16 has sufficient range with internal fuel + Conformal Fuel Tanks if needed)


“ELTA 2052 AESA radar on board Tejas will pick up F 16 before it can detect Tejas”
This is another assumption without any source to back it up. It’s important to remember that Teja’s radome is smaller than that of F-16’s – a significant design limitation. And the EL/M-2052 radar is mostly designed for F-15 like aircraft (with bigger radome) – so the marketed capabilities are based on radars for those aircraft, not the one for smaller aircraft like Tejas. The EL/M-2052 for Tejas is likely having ~300–500 T/R modules (based on export data of the radar & the fact that Teja’s small radome can’t accommodate larger T/R modules).

Thus, despite being AESA, such low T/R module count is unlikely to give any “significant” superior detection over a larger MSA radar (although it may have certain performance advantage but nothing ‘too big’). The upgraded APG-68v(9) radar in F-16 Block 50/52+ is quite powerful and is likely to have greater (or at worst similar) range than Teja’s radar.

F-16 Block 52+ is also having better RWR, ECMs/EW capabilities and a distinct advantage of F-16 in BVR combat is again it’s armament – AIM-120D it has a substantially bigger engagement envelop: 160 km+ effective range compared to R-77’s max. range of <110 km for Tejas, combined with better avionics (seeker, ECCMs), datalinks & navigation.

Irrespective of who detects the other first, F-16 has the advantage of “First-shot” – and sometimes, that’s all you need.

The LCA Tejas was never designed nor intended to compete with an Air Superiority fighter like F-16, nor is it capable of. It has a different role & no one except some people on the internet, expect it to fight F-16.

Someone Answered this in Quora , This is exactly what I want to tell,9 0 percentage I m agreeing with him .

F16 AN/APG-68 V9 radar has a range up to 296 km. Range for 5m2 aerial targets is 105 km, some sources says 130-150km vs 5m/s

F16 primary AAMs

AIM-9 L Range: 1.0 to 35.4 km, AIM-120C-7- range 105 Km.

EW Systems.

ALQ-131 Block II Electronic Countermeasures Pods.


ALQ-213 Electronic Warfare Management Systems.

Both EW systems are capable


TEJAS.

Air-to-air missiles:
Astra
I Derby Not Yet
R-73
ASRAAM expected


EL/M-2052 AESA for Mk1A only Range 290 Km. 150 Km for 1or 2 M2 RCS (not Sure )

Mk1 uses ELM 2032 Range - 150KM???Nit sure

UTTAM : 2m2 150 kilometers

EW :- Elta 8200 External Jamming pod

RCS.

Tejas 0.5 without Weapons , with Weapons 2.5 to 3.5 , AAM has typically 0.1 M2 RCS , Carrying 8 Missiles Increases RCS, but how much ???

RCS of F16 C 50/52 - 1.2 M2 With external Weapons ?? Possibly 4-4.5

Note:- most of the Figures are recollected from my memory so need to check
Dude,the ASQR of IAF which was issued in 80s asked for an "air superiority" fighter..
 

piKacHHu

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2015
Messages
323
Likes
994
Country flag
Only answering to remove some wild misconceptions.
First of all, unlike what some people on Quora want to believe, Tejas is not designed for dogfight, nor for pure Air Combat. The F-16 has an excellent Air combat record of 76 kills – 1 loss, while Tejas is not yet ‘fully operational’, let alone being battle tested.
It’s one thing to ‘look good on paper’, but another to be ‘good in the Air’.
A dogfight is a very rare event with uncertain results. The one who gets the First-shot is likely to be the winner.

In a WVR combat:

Tejas ‘may’ have better instantaneous turn rates due to Delta wing config. However, it’ll significantly bleed energy (speed), and have poor sustained turn rates. Further, it is currently having a weaker engine & lower Thrust/Weight ratio (<1 or barely ~1 with combat load) – resulting in poor performance in close Air combat.
On the other hand, F-16 is a “pure energy” dogfighter. It’ll bleed less energy & have better sustained Turn rates. Further, it’s having much higher Thrust/Weight ratio & greater range on internal fuel – resulting in greater endurance. So not only will it be retaining energy but can also sustain the fight much longer – something Tejas can’t do. (Also F-16 has a +9g airframe compared to +7–8 g limits for Tejas.)

Although modern WVR combat is fought by the HOBS (off-boresight) missiles. Both Tejas & F-16 Block 50/52+ have HMD & HOBS armament. The F-16 has a slight advantage of having better HOBS missile: AIM-9 with 90° off-boresight capability compared to 60° in R-73 (& lack of active development) in Tejas.

However, as said before, the outcome of a close-WVR combat is unpredictable and for this reason, it’s almost non-existing from decades. Today most of the combat takes place BVR.


BVR Combat


Let’s remove some miss-conceptions first.
“Tejas will have first-look on F-16 because it has smaller RCS”

First of all, we don’t have any valid data on Tejas’s RCS and the RCS doesn’t depend purely on the size or composites, there are a lot of factors – neither is designed as a LO aircraft. Secondly the RCS-difference between the two is in-significant and with a combat (external) load, the RCS difference will be negligible.

Interesting to note that the F-16 is usually more ‘clean’ with combat load than Tejas due to tactical importance of carrying external fuel tanks for Tejas. (F-16 has sufficient range with internal fuel + Conformal Fuel Tanks if needed)


“ELTA 2052 AESA radar on board Tejas will pick up F 16 before it can detect Tejas”
This is another assumption without any source to back it up. It’s important to remember that Teja’s radome is smaller than that of F-16’s – a significant design limitation. And the EL/M-2052 radar is mostly designed for F-15 like aircraft (with bigger radome) – so the marketed capabilities are based on radars for those aircraft, not the one for smaller aircraft like Tejas. The EL/M-2052 for Tejas is likely having ~300–500 T/R modules (based on export data of the radar & the fact that Teja’s small radome can’t accommodate larger T/R modules).

Thus, despite being AESA, such low T/R module count is unlikely to give any “significant” superior detection over a larger MSA radar (although it may have certain performance advantage but nothing ‘too big’). The upgraded APG-68v(9) radar in F-16 Block 50/52+ is quite powerful and is likely to have greater (or at worst similar) range than Teja’s radar.

F-16 Block 52+ is also having better RWR, ECMs/EW capabilities and a distinct advantage of F-16 in BVR combat is again it’s armament – AIM-120D it has a substantially bigger engagement envelop: 160 km+ effective range compared to R-77’s max. range of <110 km for Tejas, combined with better avionics (seeker, ECCMs), datalinks & navigation.

Irrespective of who detects the other first, F-16 has the advantage of “First-shot” – and sometimes, that’s all you need.

The LCA Tejas was never designed nor intended to compete with an Air Superiority fighter like F-16, nor is it capable of. It has a different role & no one except some people on the internet, expect it to fight F-16.

Someone Answered this in Quora , This is exactly what I want to tell,9 0 percentage I m agreeing with him .

F16 AN/APG-68 V9 radar has a range up to 296 km. Range for 5m2 aerial targets is 105 km, some sources says 130-150km vs 5m/s

F16 primary AAMs

AIM-9 L Range: 1.0 to 35.4 km, AIM-120C-7- range 105 Km.

EW Systems.

ALQ-131 Block II Electronic Countermeasures Pods.


ALQ-213 Electronic Warfare Management Systems.

Both EW systems are capable


TEJAS.

Air-to-air missiles:
Astra
I Derby Not Yet
R-73
ASRAAM expected


EL/M-2052 AESA for Mk1A only Range 290 Km. 150 Km for 1or 2 M2 RCS (not Sure )

Mk1 uses ELM 2032 Range - 150KM???Nit sure

UTTAM : 2m2 150 kilometers

EW :- Elta 8200 External Jamming pod

RCS.

Tejas 0.5 without Weapons , with Weapons 2.5 to 3.5 , AAM has typically 0.1 M2 RCS , Carrying 8 Missiles Increases RCS, but how much ???

RCS of F16 C 50/52 - 1.2 M2 With external Weapons ?? Possibly 4-4.5

Note:- most of the Figures are recollected from my memory so need to check
Do you realize that you would get away unscathed by spewing "Rant" against Tejas without being verbally-lynched on this thread !
:nono:

Ironically, people will say why to compare F-16 with Tejas ignoring the fact the ASQR (1983) for Tejas was heavily influenced by the development of F-16 only.

"As per the ASR, Light Combat Aircraft is required to be built as a light weight multi-mission fighter aircraft, having contemporary air combat and offensive air support capabilities with excellent maneuverability for close air combat at low and medium altitudes. The aircraft should be able to provide extended Air Defence cover over the forward bases and tactical battle area. "

Reference: 2015 CAG Report https://saiindia.gov.in/sites/default/files/audit_report_files/Union_Performance_Defense_Design__Manufacture_Light_Combat Aircraft_17_2015.pdf

F-16 was outcome of Light Weight Fighter (LWF) program initiated in 1971 whose mandate was very much similar to the ASR tailored for Tejas. But sorry, we can't compare it as Tejas has morphed into something entirely different ! Oh wait, may be because it has a Delta wing profile which makes it different. French came up with Delta + RSS + FBW = Mirage 2K (again in response to F-16 development) a couple of years before when Tejas's problem definition phase was evolving, in fact, Dassault had provided initial stage consultancy for its design. The Dassault designed, produced and shut the production line down for M2K, And yet we are waiting for Mk1A to take first flight. Literally "chasing a Mirage" kind of situation for ADA & HAL.

So what we end up with a bit draggier & shorter air-frame with little scope for expansion vis-a-vis F-16 which is largely keeping its design dimensions same even up to Block 70+ and still being sold like pan cakes to other countries.

Why to evolve further when we have an aircraft with superior flight characteristics parameters in every aspect? Junk MWF program and keep producing Mk1A .

Improvisation comes when we compare it with Jaguar (a CAS/Ground attack aircraft); I must say for Jaguar replacement, Tejas is the best candidate but little we know about the terrain hugging low-flying capability of Tejas in which Jaguar excels.

End of Another Rant !
 

Karthi

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2018
Messages
2,214
Likes
17,753
Country flag
What is this bus load of assumptions and concoctions I just read.

This is plain foolishness to compare 2 different aircrafts interms of kinematics without comprehensive idea on relevant information which is mostly closely guarded secret and unavailable in public domain.

If one claims to know so much about LCA , kindly provide the following information on LCA

1.lift to drag ratio
2.lift coefficient
3.sustained turn rate
4.thrust to weight ratio
5.wing loading
6.instantaneous turn rate
7.angle of attack rate
8.climb rate
9.relative energy state
10.drag coefficient
11.specific excess power
12.combat cycle time
13.pitch agility
14.lateral agility
15.axial agility

For all operational configurations


Then we will discuss EW , avionics , RCS etc

Will be eagerly waiting
Reminder : please don't reply again with assumptions
The entire forum is full of assumptions plus cheap patriotism , you know I can't able to find all these official values but I can calculate some of it with available data . I am not against Tejas I m the only one advocated for ORCA in almost all social media platforms. We must be realistic rather than blind nationalism,
 

Karthi

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2018
Messages
2,214
Likes
17,753
Country flag
Do you realize that you would get away unscathed by spewing "Rant" against Tejas without being verbally-lynched on this thread !
:nono:

Ironically, people will say why to compare F-16 with Tejas ignoring the fact the ASQR (1983) for Tejas was heavily influenced by the development of F-16 only.

"As per the ASR, Light Combat Aircraft is required to be built as a light weight multi-mission fighter aircraft, having contemporary air combat and offensive air support capabilities with excellent maneuverability for close air combat at low and medium altitudes. The aircraft should be able to provide extended Air Defence cover over the forward bases and tactical battle area. "

Reference: 2015 CAG Report https://saiindia.gov.in/sites/default/files/audit_report_files/Union_Performance_Defense_Design__Manufacture_Light_Combat Aircraft_17_2015.pdf

F-16 was outcome of Light Weight Fighter (LWF) program initiated in 1971 whose mandate was very much similar to the ASR tailored for Tejas. But sorry, we can't compare it as Tejas has morphed into something entirely different ! Oh wait, may be because it has a Delta wing profile which makes it different. French came up with Delta + RSS + FBW = Mirage 2K (again in response to F-16 development) a couple of years before when Tejas's problem definition phase was evolving, in fact, Dassault had provided initial stage consultancy for its design. The Dassault designed, produced and shut the production line down for M2K, And yet we are waiting for Mk1A to take first flight. Literally "chasing a Mirage" kind of situation for ADA & HAL.

So what we end up with a bit draggier & shorter air-frame with little scope for expansion vis-a-vis F-16 which is largely keeping its design dimensions same even up to Block 70+ and still being sold like pan cakes to other countries.

Why to evolve further when we have an aircraft with superior flight characteristics parameters in every aspect? Junk MWF program and keep producing Mk1A .

Improvisation comes when we compare it with Jaguar (a CAS/Ground attack aircraft); I must say for Jaguar replacement, Tejas is the best candidate but little we know about the terrain hugging low-flying capability of Tejas in which Jaguar excels.

End of Another Rant !

Hey bro do you really believe F16 never face MK1 in real world , if there is any chance in the world then it is between India Pak dual . What if you ever forced to face against F26 with Tejas Then would you tell Both are different class so no battle .
 

Suryavanshi

Cheeni KLPDhokebaaz
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2017
Messages
16,330
Likes
70,171
Why compare Tejas MK 1 and F 16?
This is senseless and unnecessary, tejas Mk1 is meant to replace Mig 21.
Tejas mk 2 is a fair comparison infront of F 16 I'll say.
 

porky_kicker

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2016
Messages
6,024
Likes
44,578
Country flag
Hey bro do you really believe F16 never face MK1 in real world , if there is any chance in the world then it is between India Pak dual . What if you ever forced to face against F26 with Tejas Then would you tell Both are different class so no battle .
Air combat operations are not one to one wrestling matches

Let me give you a " real life " example

Remember the red flag exercise ?

Su30mki teamed up with bisons to run tactics in order to exploit the potential of both the platforms and cover for each other at the same time . It's the tactics which play a major role , how you exploit your strong points and put yourself in a position where your strong points negates the advantage of the hostiles.

Now replace bison with LCA MK1A , bison doesn't even compare to LCA MK1A .

Do you think it is by accident that most of the LCA pilots are ex bison and Su30mki pilots. Few are from TACDE itself . I hope you realise what it means.
 

Super lca

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
May 22, 2020
Messages
170
Likes
321
Country flag
Only answering to remove some wild misconceptions.
First of all, unlike what some people on Quora want to believe, Tejas is not designed for dogfight, nor for pure Air Combat. The F-16 has an excellent Air combat record of 76 kills – 1 loss, while Tejas is not yet ‘fully operational’, let alone being battle tested.
It’s one thing to ‘look good on paper’, but another to be ‘good in the Air’.
A dogfight is a very rare event with uncertain results. The one who gets the First-shot is likely to be the winner.

In a WVR combat:

Tejas ‘may’ have better instantaneous turn rates due to Delta wing config. However, it’ll significantly bleed energy (speed), and have poor sustained turn rates. Further, it is currently having a weaker engine & lower Thrust/Weight ratio (<1 or barely ~1 with combat load) – resulting in poor performance in close Air combat.
On the other hand, F-16 is a “pure energy” dogfighter. It’ll bleed less energy & have better sustained Turn rates. Further, it’s having much higher Thrust/Weight ratio & greater range on internal fuel – resulting in greater endurance. So not only will it be retaining energy but can also sustain the fight much longer – something Tejas can’t do. (Also F-16 has a +9g airframe compared to +7–8 g limits for Tejas.)

Although modern WVR combat is fought by the HOBS (off-boresight) missiles. Both Tejas & F-16 Block 50/52+ have HMD & HOBS armament. The F-16 has a slight advantage of having better HOBS missile: AIM-9 with 90° off-boresight capability compared to 60° in R-73 (& lack of active development) in Tejas.

However, as said before, the outcome of a close-WVR combat is unpredictable and for this reason, it’s almost non-existing from decades. Today most of the combat takes place BVR.


BVR Combat


Let’s remove some miss-conceptions first.
“Tejas will have first-look on F-16 because it has smaller RCS”

First of all, we don’t have any valid data on Tejas’s RCS and the RCS doesn’t depend purely on the size or composites, there are a lot of factors – neither is designed as a LO aircraft. Secondly the RCS-difference between the two is in-significant and with a combat (external) load, the RCS difference will be negligible.

Interesting to note that the F-16 is usually more ‘clean’ with combat load than Tejas due to tactical importance of carrying external fuel tanks for Tejas. (F-16 has sufficient range with internal fuel + Conformal Fuel Tanks if needed)


“ELTA 2052 AESA radar on board Tejas will pick up F 16 before it can detect Tejas”
This is another assumption without any source to back it up. It’s important to remember that Teja’s radome is smaller than that of F-16’s – a significant design limitation. And the EL/M-2052 radar is mostly designed for F-15 like aircraft (with bigger radome) – so the marketed capabilities are based on radars for those aircraft, not the one for smaller aircraft like Tejas. The EL/M-2052 for Tejas is likely having ~300–500 T/R modules (based on export data of the radar & the fact that Teja’s small radome can’t accommodate larger T/R modules).

Thus, despite being AESA, such low T/R module count is unlikely to give any “significant” superior detection over a larger MSA radar (although it may have certain performance advantage but nothing ‘too big’). The upgraded APG-68v(9) radar in F-16 Block 50/52+ is quite powerful and is likely to have greater (or at worst similar) range than Teja’s radar.

F-16 Block 52+ is also having better RWR, ECMs/EW capabilities and a distinct advantage of F-16 in BVR combat is again it’s armament – AIM-120D it has a substantially bigger engagement envelop: 160 km+ effective range compared to R-77’s max. range of <110 km for Tejas, combined with better avionics (seeker, ECCMs), datalinks & navigation.

Irrespective of who detects the other first, F-16 has the advantage of “First-shot” – and sometimes, that’s all you need.

The LCA Tejas was never designed nor intended to compete with an Air Superiority fighter like F-16, nor is it capable of. It has a different role & no one except some people on the internet, expect it to fight F-16.

Someone Answered this in Quora , This is exactly what I want to tell,9 0 percentage I m agreeing with him .

F16 AN/APG-68 V9 radar has a range up to 296 km. Range for 5m2 aerial targets is 105 km, some sources says 130-150km vs 5m/s

F16 primary AAMs

AIM-9 L Range: 1.0 to 35.4 km, AIM-120C-7- range 105 Km.

EW Systems.

ALQ-131 Block II Electronic Countermeasures Pods.


ALQ-213 Electronic Warfare Management Systems.

Both EW systems are capable


TEJAS.

Air-to-air missiles:
Astra
I Derby Not Yet
R-73
ASRAAM expected


EL/M-2052 AESA for Mk1A only Range 290 Km. 150 Km for 1or 2 M2 RCS (not Sure )

Mk1 uses ELM 2032 Range - 150KM???Nit sure

UTTAM : 2m2 150 kilometers

EW :- Elta 8200 External Jamming pod

RCS.

Tejas 0.5 without Weapons , with Weapons 2.5 to 3.5 , AAM has typically 0.1 M2 RCS , Carrying 8 Missiles Increases RCS, but how much ???

RCS of F16 C 50/52 - 1.2 M2 With external Weapons ?? Possibly 4-4.5

Note:- most of the Figures are recollected from my memory so need to check
Copied from quora
 

Karthi

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2018
Messages
2,214
Likes
17,753
Country flag
Air combat operations are not one to one wrestling matches

Let me give you a " real life " example

Remember the red flag exercise ?

Su30mki teamed up with bisons to run tactics in order to exploit the potential of both the platforms and cover for each other at the same time . It's the tactics which play a major role , how you exploit your strong points and put yourself in a position where your strong points negates the advantage of the hostiles.

Now replace bison with LCA MK1A , bison doesn't even compare to LCA MK1A .

Do you think it is by accident that most of the LCA pilots are ex bison and Su30mki pilots. Few are from TACDE itself . I hope you realise what it means.

Ofcourse I know , But people want to compare , check the earlier comments .
 

Super lca

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
May 22, 2020
Messages
170
Likes
321
Country flag
Only answering to remove some wild misconceptions.
First of all, unlike what some people on Quora want to believe, Tejas is not designed for dogfight, nor for pure Air Combat. The F-16 has an excellent Air combat record of 76 kills – 1 loss, while Tejas is not yet ‘fully operational’, let alone being battle tested.
It’s one thing to ‘look good on paper’, but another to be ‘good in the Air’.
A dogfight is a very rare event with uncertain results. The one who gets the First-shot is likely to be the winner.

In a WVR combat:

Tejas ‘may’ have better instantaneous turn rates due to Delta wing config. However, it’ll significantly bleed energy (speed), and have poor sustained turn rates. Further, it is currently having a weaker engine & lower Thrust/Weight ratio (<1 or barely ~1 with combat load) – resulting in poor performance in close Air combat.
On the other hand, F-16 is a “pure energy” dogfighter. It’ll bleed less energy & have better sustained Turn rates. Further, it’s having much higher Thrust/Weight ratio & greater range on internal fuel – resulting in greater endurance. So not only will it be retaining energy but can also sustain the fight much longer – something Tejas can’t do. (Also F-16 has a +9g airframe compared to +7–8 g limits for Tejas.)

Although modern WVR combat is fought by the HOBS (off-boresight) missiles. Both Tejas & F-16 Block 50/52+ have HMD & HOBS armament. The F-16 has a slight advantage of having better HOBS missile: AIM-9 with 90° off-boresight capability compared to 60° in R-73 (& lack of active development) in Tejas.

However, as said before, the outcome of a close-WVR combat is unpredictable and for this reason, it’s almost non-existing from decades. Today most of the combat takes place BVR.


BVR Combat


Let’s remove some miss-conceptions first.
“Tejas will have first-look on F-16 because it has smaller RCS”

First of all, we don’t have any valid data on Tejas’s RCS and the RCS doesn’t depend purely on the size or composites, there are a lot of factors – neither is designed as a LO aircraft. Secondly the RCS-difference between the two is in-significant and with a combat (external) load, the RCS difference will be negligible.

Interesting to note that the F-16 is usually more ‘clean’ with combat load than Tejas due to tactical importance of carrying external fuel tanks for Tejas. (F-16 has sufficient range with internal fuel + Conformal Fuel Tanks if needed)


“ELTA 2052 AESA radar on board Tejas will pick up F 16 before it can detect Tejas”
This is another assumption without any source to back it up. It’s important to remember that Teja’s radome is smaller than that of F-16’s – a significant design limitation. And the EL/M-2052 radar is mostly designed for F-15 like aircraft (with bigger radome) – so the marketed capabilities are based on radars for those aircraft, not the one for smaller aircraft like Tejas. The EL/M-2052 for Tejas is likely having ~300–500 T/R modules (based on export data of the radar & the fact that Teja’s small radome can’t accommodate larger T/R modules).

Thus, despite being AESA, such low T/R module count is unlikely to give any “significant” superior detection over a larger MSA radar (although it may have certain performance advantage but nothing ‘too big’). The upgraded APG-68v(9) radar in F-16 Block 50/52+ is quite powerful and is likely to have greater (or at worst similar) range than Teja’s radar.

F-16 Block 52+ is also having better RWR, ECMs/EW capabilities and a distinct advantage of F-16 in BVR combat is again it’s armament – AIM-120D it has a substantially bigger engagement envelop: 160 km+ effective range compared to R-77’s max. range of <110 km for Tejas, combined with better avionics (seeker, ECCMs), datalinks & navigation.

Irrespective of who detects the other first, F-16 has the advantage of “First-shot” – and sometimes, that’s all you need.

The LCA Tejas was never designed nor intended to compete with an Air Superiority fighter like F-16, nor is it capable of. It has a different role & no one except some people on the internet, expect it to fight F-16.

Someone Answered this in Quora , This is exactly what I want to tell,9 0 percentage I m agreeing with him .

F16 AN/APG-68 V9 radar has a range up to 296 km. Range for 5m2 aerial targets is 105 km, some sources says 130-150km vs 5m/s

F16 primary AAMs

AIM-9 L Range: 1.0 to 35.4 km, AIM-120C-7- range 105 Km.

EW Systems.

ALQ-131 Block II Electronic Countermeasures Pods.


ALQ-213 Electronic Warfare Management Systems.

Both EW systems are capable


TEJAS.

Air-to-air missiles:
Astra
I Derby Not Yet
R-73
ASRAAM expected


EL/M-2052 AESA for Mk1A only Range 290 Km. 150 Km for 1or 2 M2 RCS (not Sure )

Mk1 uses ELM 2032 Range - 150KM???Nit sure

UTTAM : 2m2 150 kilometers

EW :- Elta 8200 External Jamming pod

RCS.

Tejas 0.5 without Weapons , with Weapons 2.5 to 3.5 , AAM has typically 0.1 M2 RCS , Carrying 8 Missiles Increases RCS, but how much ???

RCS of F16 C 50/52 - 1.2 M2 With external Weapons ?? Possibly 4-4.5

Note:- most of the Figures are recollected from my memory so need to check
Whatever you whine about tejas mk1a will have an edge over f16c block 52 in terms of

Radar- tejas will have elm2052/uttam aesa whereas f16 uses a mmr with only 120km range

Ew suite- mk1a will have digital rwr(drdo), maws(drdo),external ew pods(elta),advanced listening pod(elta),lwr(drdo),spj(elta),towed radar decoy system(ellisra),irst(Bel) whereas f16 lack trd and maws

Bombs and aams- tejas will carry brahmos ng,astra,astra2,derby er,spice,saaw etc whereas PAKISTANI f16 lacks several standard weapons

Availability and maintainability

Other aspect like range,speed,payload,str f16 is a bit superior but don't worry we have other jets to match them
 

porky_kicker

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2016
Messages
6,024
Likes
44,578
Country flag
Ofcourse I know , But people want to compare , check the earlier comments .
Then don't join the wagon

What ever problems are there with LCA is there , every fighter has its own set of problems . No fighter is perfect .

But the ownership of the end-user matters and makes the real difference to what extent any said fighter can become potent .

During IAF trials F16 failed in many requirements , some were shortcomings in kinematic performance yet it is considered best by many , why ? because ownership of end user and inturn resulting favorable perception. Yet a mig 21 shot down a F16 . Food for thought.
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top