LCA TEJAS MK1 & MK1A: News and Discussion

spacemarine2023

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2023
Messages
996
Likes
4,035
Country flag
You forgot about gravity.
Even 1000km horizontal range won't translate into 300km altitude capability.
Anti-Sat weapons are totally different league.
thats not how it works for sat kills, most sats trajectory can be projected few of them do have some propulsion for smaller busts but most of them follow same path.
All a fighter needs to do is climb to its max sealing and fire on projected path guiding it to a calculated point and sat will come at same place and get hit.

Spy sats low orbit can be as low as 180-200 kms … easy pickings for most long range BVRs… with longer range one can hit 300+ kms
 

spacemarine2023

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2023
Messages
996
Likes
4,035
Country flag
Dude such missile can take down satellites usa did it in 1985, f15 equipped with asm-135 asat shot down a satellite at 550km altitude.
Hitting a satellite is much easier, only issue from a ground based ASAT missile is it needs to be pretty heavy as it needs to be launched from most dense atmosphere, same can be achieved in much lighter missile when fired from 15-20 kms altitude… BVR missiles love the less friction at high altitudes
 

Satish Sharma

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2023
Messages
1,460
Likes
4,132
Country flag
Hitting a satellite is much easier, only issue from a ground based ASAT missile is it needs to be pretty heavy as it needs to be launched from most dense atmosphere, same can be achieved in much lighter missile when fired from 15-20 kms altitude… BVR missiles love the less friction at high altitudes
Yeah but I thinks calling them bvr or long range bvr is wrong even if we consider long range bvrs like pl17 of 400km. They just can't shoot down a satellite if we see the asm 135 which weights 1.2 tons and it was launched from 40k fts altitude. I don't think this long range bvr have even enough fuel to reach 200km altitude. Considering similar class missile r37m weights around 510kg. I think asat missiles are of completely different leagues.. I prove my last point wrong anyways.
 

spacemarine2023

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2023
Messages
996
Likes
4,035
Country flag
Yeah but I thinks calling them bvr or long range bvr is wrong even if we consider long range bvrs like pl17 of 400km. They just can't shoot down a satellite if we see the asm 135 which weights 1.2 tons and it was launched from 40k fts altitude. I don't think this long range bvr have even enough fuel to reach 200km altitude. Considering similar class missile r37m weights around 510kg. I think asat missiles are of completely different leagues.. I prove my last point wrong anyways.
the range of a BVR is directly proportional to the altitude, a long range missile if maintains an avg altitude of 3 kms will have range of max 30-40 kms same missile at 30 km avg altitude can easily go 300 kms plus …
Sat hits are easy but not attempted as they will mess up the orbit for all sats…
But during a full on war thr will be plenty of sat kills through long range BVRs
 

Gyyan

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2022
Messages
1,469
Likes
9,313
Country flag
Alpha defense saying that 65000 crores are for 97 tejas only.
Does that mean tejas costs about 80 million pp?
 

Satish Sharma

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2023
Messages
1,460
Likes
4,132
Country flag
the range of a BVR is directly proportional to the altitude, a long range missile if maintains an avg altitude of 3 kms will have range of max 30-40 kms same missile at 30 km avg altitude can easily go 300 kms plus …
Sat hits are easy but not attempted as they will mess up the orbit for all sats…
But during a full on war thr will be plenty of sat kills through long range BVRs
Nice info but here we don't need to send it 300km away we have to send it against gravity straight away in the orbit. Anyways IF satellites are below 300km altitude I guess then it might be shot downed by LR bvrs.
 

Satish Sharma

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2023
Messages
1,460
Likes
4,132
Country flag
Alpha defense saying that 65000 crores are for 97 tejas only.
Does that mean tejas costs about 80 million pp?
Nice info but here we don't need to send it 300km away we have to send it against gravity straight away in the orbit. Anyways IF satellites are below 300km altitude I guess then it might be shot downed by LR bvrs.
lca tejas is also costing around 83 million dollars i think its already with the weapons and operation support equipments because it barely costs around 40-50 million dollars. Secondly each su30 upgrade is costing around 90 million dollars dude new su35 are cheaper than this. Anyways the industries which are going to supply this kind of equipment are new they have spend alot of money in that so i think once we achieve economies of scale it will be cheaper. For tejas mk2 amca tedbf etc .the supply are new lines alot of money is pumped on it to establish it..
But still we are upgraded many extra things because what is most important for us is Gan based radar, new fly by wire systems to make it all of them brahmos compatible, new ir sensors , and ew suit, anyways i have no idea I'm confused whatever they are doing , they are doing great. Fly by wire is very costly radar too. So people who are saying we should rather buy 145 rafale at the price of upgrading 272 su30s dont know that then this su30s will be waste of money then. with this upgrades it has alot of potential. With this upgrades it's capabilities will boost alot. already alot of money has been spend on them for procurement instead of keeping them outdated ducks we should upgrade it..
Many other flankers users might reach out to us for there upgrades like Vietnam, Malaysia....as Russia is sanctioned we should try it.

The research and development of this avionics and many many systems is paid by su30s upgrades I guess instead of tejas mk2 ,amca, tedbf. As they are the first to order , correct me if I'm wrong
Equipping them with capable radar and astra mk2 & brahmos is must for su30mki to keep it relevant in today's air warfare. Will it surpasse Chinese flankers ??
 
Last edited:

Master Chief

Senior Member
Joined
May 5, 2022
Messages
4,246
Likes
14,587
Country flag
the range of a BVR is directly proportional to the altitude, a long range missile if maintains an avg altitude of 3 kms will have range of max 30-40 kms same missile at 30 km avg altitude can easily go 300 kms plus …
Sat hits are easy but not attempted as they will mess up the orbit for all sats…
But during a full on war thr will be plenty of sat kills through long range BVRs
You are saying a long range BVR can climb up from 20 km altitude to 250 km altitude against gravity ? It's not possible for a 300 km BVR missile to vertically climb 200 km against gravity, even with 0 atmospheric drag..These missiles are not made for the flight profile of a rocket..
 

spacemarine2023

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2023
Messages
996
Likes
4,035
Country flag
You are saying a long range BVR can climb up from 20 km altitude to 250 km altitude against gravity ? It's not possible for a 300 km BVR missile to vertically climb 200 km against gravity, even with 0 atmospheric drag..These missiles are not made for the flight profile of a rocket..
All missiles are rockets and all can climb vertically…
Yes a sufficiently large BVR with enough fuel can climb vertically to hit a low orbit sat 160-300 kms if launched from 15+ kms altitude
 
Last edited:

Samej Jangir

Regular Member
Joined
May 15, 2023
Messages
182
Likes
401
Country flag
Engine upgrade should have been included in the package as well.
Why does Su30 need engine upgrade? It can already carry 12000 litre fuel and 10ton payload with current engines. What purpose will it serve to get a bigger engine? Do we need 15ton payload for a single sortie? Isn't that a bit too much?
Looking at the expenditure, I think airframe might go through complete overhaul , more strengthened airframe to easily carry 3 normal Brahmos variant.
3 Brahmos-A means 2.5x3=7.5tons. There is space for 1 Brahmos by strengthening underbelly but having 3 pylons each of which can hold 2.5ton weight is ridiculous. You can't carry 2.5ton missile under the wing
Because we need economy of scale and we are also facing PAF on another front. When you have 1000 you won't have them all operating but most of them will be operational and the rest would be undergoing maintenance and repair. If you have 1000, you will only have about 750-800 planes in working order and the rest are in maintenance and repair. And you have to consider wartime losses and peacetime operational losses.

Look at USAF. It produced over 2200 F-16s for its own use and lost about 650 jets throughout the years and had about 1253 jets left in 2007. Now it is down to 841 F-16 jets.

And besides China may not have 1000 J10C right now but you can bet your bottom ass that they will get there and well over 1000.
During WW2, USA could make 1 lakh planes/year, USSR & Germany could make 40000/yr, UK & Japan could make 25000/yr. However, during peacetime, making large number of planes is a massive wastage. It results is huge diversion from civilian economy to war economy. Also, considering that the planes won't be shot down or destroyed, all the manufactured planes will need regular servicing which will be a never ending expensive and wasteful endeavour. In wartime, even if 1000 pilots die every day, people will be okay. But during peacetime, even 10 pilot deaths a year will be a sensation. This will further add to expenses to be extra cautious in quality controls.

India should develop the capacity to make large number of planes when war breaks out but should not make them prematurely
 

Satish Sharma

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2023
Messages
1,460
Likes
4,132
Country flag
Why does Su30 need engine upgrade? It can already carry 12000 litre fuel and 10ton payload with current engines. What purpose will it serve to get a bigger engine? Do we need 15ton payload for a single sortie? Isn't that a bit too much?

3 Brahmos-A means 2.5x3=7.5tons. There is space for 1 Brahmos by strengthening underbelly but having 3 pylons each of which can hold 2.5ton weight is ridiculous. You can't carry 2.5ton missile under the wing

During WW2, USA could make 1 lakh planes/year, USSR & Germany could make 40000/yr, UK & Japan could make 25000/yr. However, during peacetime, making large number of planes is a massive wastage. It results is huge diversion from civilian economy to war economy. Also, considering that the planes won't be shot down or destroyed, all the manufactured planes will need regular servicing which will be a never ending expensive and wasteful endeavour. In wartime, even if 1000 pilots die every day, people will be okay. But during peacetime, even 10 pilot deaths a year will be a sensation. This will further add to expenses to be extra cautious in quality controls.

India should develop the capacity to make large number of planes when war breaks out but should not make them prematurely
The only reason initially new engines were considered because to supply enough power to new aesa radar but I guess that was sorted out as we are using Ga nitride based radar and current engines provide enough power to squize all performance from it.

And we are upgrading fly by wire systems I think integration of this heavy brahmos missile has to do something with.
 

Master Chief

Senior Member
Joined
May 5, 2022
Messages
4,246
Likes
14,587
Country flag
All missiles are rockets and all can climb vertically…
Yes a sufficiently large BVR with enough fuel can climb vertically to hit a low orbit sat 160-300 kms if launched from 15+ kms altitude
I don't think such a BVR is operational.. Currently operational BVRs can't perform that role..
A 160 kg 160 km range AIM-120D doesn't have enough fuel to reach orbit.. It's burn time including sustainer would be only 15 seconds..and air to air missile thrust to weight ratio are far lower than RD-180 or Merlin engines which range from 75 to 180.. So, currently operational air to air missiles with rocket motors can't reach orbit..
Missiles like Meteor use Ramjet motor for sustained flight which is useless in Vaccum..
A new class of BVR missiles would have to be built to hit low flying satellites using fighter jets..
 

Blademaster

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2009
Messages
9,351
Likes
27,267
During WW2, USA could make 1 lakh planes/year, USSR & Germany could make 40000/yr, UK & Japan could make 25000/yr. However, during peacetime, making large number of planes is a massive wastage. It results is huge diversion from civilian economy to war economy. Also, considering that the planes won't be shot down or destroyed, all the manufactured planes will need regular servicing which will be a never ending expensive and wasteful endeavour. In wartime, even if 1000 pilots die every day, people will be okay. But during peacetime, even 10 pilot deaths a year will be a sensation. This will further add to expenses to be extra cautious in quality controls.

India should develop the capacity to make large number of planes when war breaks out but should not make them prematurely
Those planes, you could manufacture them in a day. With modern planes, it simply cannot be done in a day. These planes require long lead manufacturing items/components which have to be ordered in years in advance. War will not last that long but attrition will quickly pile up. IAF needs to have a sufficient inventory of such planes to ride out through the war and maintain a cohesive combat capable and ready force.
 

Blood+

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2011
Messages
2,775
Likes
4,334
Country flag
Why does Su30 need engine upgrade? It can already carry 12000 litre fuel and 10ton payload with current engines. What purpose will it serve to get a bigger engine? Do we need 15ton payload for a single sortie? Isn't that a bit too much?

3 Brahmos-A means 2.5x3=7.5tons. There is space for 1 Brahmos by strengthening underbelly but having 3 pylons each of which can hold 2.5ton weight is ridiculous. You can't carry 2.5ton missile under the wing

During WW2, USA could make 1 lakh planes/year, USSR & Germany could make 40000/yr, UK & Japan could make 25000/yr. However, during peacetime, making large number of planes is a massive wastage. It results is huge diversion from civilian economy to war economy. Also, considering that the planes won't be shot down or destroyed, all the manufactured planes will need regular servicing which will be a never ending expensive and wasteful endeavour. In wartime, even if 1000 pilots die every day, people will be okay. But during peacetime, even 10 pilot deaths a year will be a sensation. This will further add to expenses to be extra cautious in quality controls.

India should develop the capacity to make large number of planes when war breaks out but should not make them prematurely
What an effing moron!!
 

Samej Jangir

Regular Member
Joined
May 15, 2023
Messages
182
Likes
401
Country flag
Those planes, you could manufacture them in a day. With modern planes, it simply cannot be done in a day. These planes require long lead manufacturing items/components which have to be ordered in years in advance. War will not last that long but attrition will quickly pile up. IAF needs to have a sufficient inventory of such planes to ride out through the war and maintain a cohesive combat capable and ready force.
Wrong. There was no computer aided machinery in WW2. So, the manhours needed was pretty high. Now there is computer aided machinery which lowers work.
 

Samej Jangir

Regular Member
Joined
May 15, 2023
Messages
182
Likes
401
Country flag
The only reason initially new engines were considered because to supply enough power to new aesa radar but I guess that was sorted out as we are using Ga nitride based radar and current engines provide enough power to squize all performance from it.

And we are upgrading fly by wire systems I think integration of this heavy brahmos missile has to do something with.
The current PESA radar is equally power intensive. AESA, even GAAs is not overly power intensive as it just switches frequencies but does not do increase intensity or range that makes it use extra power. Moreover, with 250kN power available, it should have more power than F35 for diversion to electricity
 

Blademaster

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2009
Messages
9,351
Likes
27,267
Wrong. There was no computer aided machinery in WW2. So, the manhours needed was pretty high. Now there is computer aided machinery which lowers work.
You are quite wrong. Please review the countless articles of how long it takes HAL to manufacture the LCA planes and how they need advanced notice to be able to deliver the planes on time and advanced deposits to pay for the manufacturing of the long lead items.
 

Blood+

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2011
Messages
2,775
Likes
4,334
Country flag
The current PESA radar is equally power intensive. AESA, even GAAs is not overly power intensive as it just switches frequencies but does not do increase intensity or range that makes it use extra power. Moreover, with 250kN power available, it should have more power than F35 for diversion to electricity
Aap elementary school mein wapas se varti ho jao.
 

spacemarine2023

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2023
Messages
996
Likes
4,035
Country flag
I don't think such a BVR is operational.. Currently operational BVRs can't perform that role..
A 160 kg 160 km range AIM-120D doesn't have enough fuel to reach orbit.. It's burn time including sustainer would be only 15 seconds..and air to air missile thrust to weight ratio are far lower than RD-180 or Merlin engines which range from 75 to 180.. So, currently operational air to air missiles with rocket motors can't reach orbit..
Missiles like Meteor use Ramjet motor for sustained flight which is useless in Vaccum..
A new class of BVR missiles would have to be built to hit low flying satellites using fighter jets..
Behind paywall but this missile can certainly reach low orbit sats…
F-22 climbs at 20 km and launches can hit ~160+ kms sat orbits.
its basically AMRAAM ER version adapted to F-22/F-35 internal bay..

 

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top