LCA TEJAS MK1 & MK1A: News and Discussion

[SwordOfDarkness]

SS tank should've been prioritised above gun. Guns are literally useless in 2020s and beyond.
Even F22 didn't chose to shoot down chinese balloon using gun.

Guns are still usefull in dogfights, mostly in tight one circle turns where distance is not large enough for missiles to work (also called jamming the WEZ).

 

[NutCracker]

Guns are still usefull in dogfights, mostly in tight one circle turns where distance is not large enough for missiles to work (also called jamming the WEZ).

Not a single plane has been brought down using guns since 1990, including desert Strom.

Let's assume there are two fighter jets with 6 missiles each, and there is 50-50 chance of hit probability,(modern IR ccm having 0.7-0.9 hit rate+ BVRs average).

There is 1/ 2^12 ( 1/4096) chance that both jets will end up so close without hitting each other. Very rare and long drawn battle.
Then one also should remember that there has to be enough fuel for further combat. So I don't think Tejas or any jet will ever use a gun in 21st century.

 

[SwordOfDarkness]

Not a single plane has been brought down using guns since 1990, including desert Strom.

Let's assume there are two fighter jets with 6 missiles each, and there is 50-50 chance of hit probability,(modern IR ccm having 0.7-0.9 hit rate+ BVRs average).

There is 1/ 2^12 ( 1/4096) chance that both jets will end up so close without hitting each other. Very rare and long drawn battle.
Then one also should remember that there has to be enough fuel for further combat. So I don't think Tejas or any jet will ever use a gun in 21st century.

Your calculations are ridiculous, though the conclusion is true - Guns are rarely useful, but they ARE useful. And with very little drawbacks.

As for the maths, no, your way of calculating kill probabilities is very wrong.

In most combat situations between roughly equally matched foes, both aircraft go home after the one in weaker situation retreats. Kills only happen when one side has either a tech or information advantage on the other. Dogfights themselves are rare, because a dogfight means only one pilot can go home - There is no "retreat" once a dogfight starts.

However, combat planes still fly with CCMs , because IF the other pilot goes banzai and forces a dogfight, then it is very high stakes (Only K-kills, no mission kills). And air forces will try to have every advantage they can take.

Guns open additional shots you can take at the enemy. They allow for a backup if both CCMs miss. And they weigh a total of 60kgs for a 11,000 kg plane when loaded. Doesnt make sense to not have them.

 

[NutCracker]

Your calculations are ridiculous, though the conclusion is true - Guns are rarely useful, but they ARE useful. And with very little drawbacks.

As for the maths, no, your way of calculating kill probabilities is very wrong.

In most combat situations between roughly equally matched foes, both aircraft go home after the one in weaker situation retreats. Kills only happen when one side has either a tech or information advantage on the other. Dogfights themselves are rare, because a dogfight means only one pilot can go home - There is no "retreat" once a dogfight starts.

However, combat planes still fly with CCMs , because IF the other pilot goes banzai and forces a dogfight, then it is very high stakes (Only K-kills, no mission kills). And air forces will try to have every advantage they can take.

Guns open additional shots you can take at the enemy. They allow for a backup if both CCMs miss. And they weigh a total of 60kgs for a 11,000 kg plane when loaded. Doesnt make sense to not have them.

You can't lock a projectile weapon in modern dogfight involving Supersonic jets, it's literally impossible.

Whichever guns we had/have in 4th gen jets are for slow moving object like helo (now drones too) or maybe small burst for CAS.

F35 has dumped it , and so did J20. You think US and China never thought about getting into fight with a peer foe.
No sane pilot will even continue a dog fight once his missiles are exhausted because he doesn't know if enemy has more missiles or not.

Edit-My calculations are fine mate , I'm ignoring the Paki mentality of firing BVR missiles without getting sufficiently close by.

 

[Satish Sharma]

 

[SwordOfDarkness]

You can't lock a projectile weapon in modern dogfight involving Supersonic jets, it's literally impossible.

I didnt understand this, can you reframe?

Whichever guns we had/have in 4th gen jets are for slow moving object like helo (now drones too) or maybe small burst for CAS.

Absolutely not. In fact, using guns against slow flying targets is much harder than using them against objects flying at similar speeds. Why would you not use a CCM against such a target? In fact, when MQ9 was shot down, it was done with CCM only, as is logical.

And against slow ground targets, guns are again, not a primary weapon (even in dedicated CAS platforms). They are there as versatile backups.

F35 has dumped it , and so did J20. You think US and China never thought about getting into fight with a peer foe.

Wrong, F35 still has guns.

No sane pilot will even continue a dog fight once his missiles are exhausted because he doesn't know if enemy has more missiles or not.

Dogfights once begun cannot be ended without atleast one of the planes getting shot down. The one that does try to run will be a very easy target with no ability to target his pursuer.

Thats the point I was making, that your statistic of small gun kills is irrelevant because dogfights themselves rarely happen, but it is necessary to prepare for them since they are high stakes fights.

Edit-My calculations are fine mate , I'm ignoring the Paki mentality of firing BVR missiles without getting sufficiently close by.

Im not sure what you mean by "sufficiently close".

Pilots usually fire missiles after getting Launch Athourisation (essentially, their on board computer calculating that the missil if fired under current circumstances will hit the enemy if they dont evade). Pilots who are confident about their own and enemy capability can delay firing their missiles in order to maximise the PK even if the enemy maneuvers.

Anyway, my point was that the most likely scenario of missile launch in aerial fight is that of a missile miss. Like in the encounter b/w F16 and Su30MKI, missiles being kinetically defeated by SU30 is the most common scenario in a well trained air force.

Air comabt works by throwing missiles at the enemy while staying out of their (estimated) MAR(minimum abort range) while trying to get close enough to bring them within your own MAR. Most of the times, one person runs out of missiles and turns away.

Which is why I said, your probability figures are wrong for peer air combat. And I still have not seen one good reason why having a 60kg gun on a 11,000 kg airplane, a weapon that cant be jammed, flared, or decoyed, can be employed at practically 0 range, is perfectly predictable in beaviour, is somehow so disadvantageous as to be discarded.

 

[Satish Sharma]

Do you guys think fa50 block 20s radar will be better than Tejas mk1A's uttam ??
tejas mk1A's uttam has 968TR modules..
raytheon is supplying them phantom strike which has 906TR modules.. that too GaN based..

does size of TR modules differ as I have heard that f16 block 60 has around ~1000 TR modules. Very similar to Tejas.. but it's range is more by a big margin.. same is the case with rafale.. less than 900TRms..also depends on engine power output more the dry thrust more the range and better cooling more performance can squeezed out of it...
GaNs temperature does not increase that much compared to GaAs.. it does give better performance with same electric power...

 

[Blood+]

I didnt understand this, can you reframe?



Absolutely not. In fact, using guns against slow flying targets is much harder than using them against objects flying at similar speeds. Why would you not use a CCM against such a target? In fact, when MQ9 was shot down, it was done with CCM only, as is logical.

And against slow ground targets, guns are again, not a primary weapon (even in dedicated CAS platforms). They are there as versatile backups.



Wrong, F35 still has guns.




Dogfights once begun cannot be ended without atleast one of the planes getting shot down. The one that does try to run will be a very easy target with no ability to target his pursuer.

Thats the point I was making, that your statistic of small gun kills is irrelevant because dogfights themselves rarely happen, but it is necessary to prepare for them since they are high stakes fights.



Im not sure what you mean by "sufficiently close".

Pilots usually fire missiles after getting Launch Athourisation (essentially, their on board computer calculating that the missil if fired under current circumstances will hit the enemy if they dont evade). Pilots who are confident about their own and enemy capability can delay firing their missiles in order to maximise the PK even if the enemy maneuvers.

Anyway, my point was that the most likely scenario of missile launch in aerial fight is that of a missile miss. Like in the encounter b/w F16 and Su30MKI, missiles being kinetically defeated by SU30 is the most common scenario in a well trained air force.

Air comabt works by throwing missiles at the enemy while staying out of their (estimated) MAR(minimum abort range) while trying to get close enough to bring them within your own MAR. Most of the times, one person runs out of missiles and turns away.

Which is why I said, your probability figures are wrong for peer air combat. And I still have not seen one good reason why having a 60kg gun on a 11,000 kg airplane, a weapon that cant be jammed, flared, or decoyed, can be employed at practically 0 range, is perfectly predictable in beaviour, is somehow so disadvantageous as to be discarded.

You do realize wasting your energy is all you're accomplishing here, right?? But great explanation never the less.

 

[NutCracker]

I didnt understand this, can you reframe?

Gun is a projectile weapon without any thrust involved . It can't maneuver once fired .

Absolutely not. In fact, using guns against slow flying targets is much harder than using them against objects flying at similar speeds. Why would you not use a CCM against such a target? In fact, when MQ9 was shot down, it was done with CCM only, as is logical.

LoL you are saying exact opposite of common sense. Tell your theory to the makers of A-10 warthog .

As per your own reference about MQ9, If no-one is using guns against such slow targets then forget them coming into the 21st century real war EVER . It's not DCS

Wrong, F35 still has guns.

B AND C don't.

And even A wasn't planned to have it. It was touted as fund guzzling addition.
They probably built hundreds of A variants before gun was first fired in Mid air .

Im not sure what you mean by "sufficiently close".

Pilots usually fire missiles after getting Launch Athourisation (essentially, their on board computer calculating that the missil if fired under current circumstances will hit the enemy if they dont evade). Pilots who are confident about their own and enemy capability can delay firing their missiles in order to maximise the PK even if the enemy maneuvers.

Anyway, my point was that the most likely scenario of missile launch in aerial fight is that of a missile miss. Like in the encounter b/w F16 and Su30MKI, missiles being kinetically defeated by SU30 is the most common scenario in a well trained air force.

Air comabt works by throwing missiles at the enemy while staying out of their (estimated) MAR(minimum abort range) while trying to get close enough to bring them within your own MAR. Most of the times, one person runs out of missiles and turns away.

Which is why I said, your probability figures are wrong for peer air combat. And I still have not seen one good reason why having a 60kg gun on a 11,000 kg airplane, a weapon that cant be jammed, flared, or decoyed, can be employed at practically 0 range, is perfectly predictable in beaviour, is somehow so disadvantageous as to be discarded.

You first asked what "sufficiently close" meant , and then went on answering that.

Authorisation is not Black and white binary. Mission computer does not just tells if you are authorised or not , but also hit probability as per NEZ calculations. It's upto the pilot if he wants to fire at that moment or get closer for better chance.

 

[Bleh]

As per your own reference about MQ9, If no-one is using guns against such slow targets then forget them coming into the 21st century real war EVER . It's not DCS

Neither of you are fully incorrect.
With modern shoot & scoot style of dogfighting gun do have less relevance, but is you're in a rolling scissor you may be fucked without guns if both your CCMs miss & the enemy jet has guns... Plus like Abhinandans case it's never a duel. Another enemy jet is gonna get you & vice versa. That's why IFF & better command-&-control are important.

On the other hand it's true that DCS doesn't simulate 21st century dogfighting. Even in WVR combat you're not supposed to get in a ballet-dance. Guns are relevant for our R-73 carrying jets. But Tejas with ASRAAM & Python-5 has better ways to deal with 1-circle & 2-circle turns.
.
Even near-WVR engagements should be at long stand-off distances... That's why EOTS/IRST are important.

No amount of supermaneuverability beats situational awareness in information age.

 

[standard snowball]

I do not know that but drop tank designed for Tejas are supersonic drop tank which creates minimum drag. Drag upto 2 counts only. There were extensive studies on Improvement of aerodynamic performance of Tejas including redesigning of cockpit (External design) and other small changes in body which will improve trans-sonic acceleration by 20% and highest speed by 2% and fuel capacity by 60 k.g., improvement in AOA and STR.

Source ? I would like to read more about this

 

[Bleh]

Source ? I would like to read more about this

Tracking The Tejas: The Design Evolution Of An Indian Fighter Part-I | Delhi Defence Review

It is no overstatement to say that the Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) program…

delhidefencereview.com

I had the original ADA papers... Will share if i find them

 

[Blood+]

Gun is a projectile weapon without any thrust involved . It can't maneuver once fired .

Nor can a WVR missile if the WEZ is jammed!!

 

[Love Charger]

Guns are needed to engage slow moving targets , to strafe ground targets and for a general sense of reassurance to the pilots.
The point is , when a helo can be brought down by gun fire , why waste a costly missile on it ?
When a ground target can be destroyed by gun shells why waste costly ordinance on it ?

 

[NutCracker]

Nor can a WVR missile if the WEZ is jammed!!

WVR like python ASRAAM can't be jammed , they have independent IR seeker -passive target aquisition at close range (if fighter jet don't have IRST), so only Flares can hinder them , but newer missiles are capable to even look beyond chaffs and aquire target.

 

[SwordOfDarkness]

Guns are needed to engage slow moving targets , to strafe ground targets and for a general sense of reassurance to the pilots.
The point is , when a helo can be brought down by gun fire , why waste a costly missile on it ?
When a ground target can be destroyed by gun shells why waste costly ordinance on it ?

See, main point of a gun is as a dogfight tool, and as a useful, versatile backup.

In ground attack missiles are preferred, as you can avoid VSHORAD systems when engaging threats. And even A10, the biggest gun touting plane, was already incapable of penetrating Soviet MBTs when it was comissioned.
As for why a plane would use a missile on a helo, its simple - Missile vs helo is also cost effective,offers a higher PK and safety than coming into gun range and shooting, and cost effectiveness isnt a big concern for things like helos which enemy will only have ~1000 of. Its mostly for things like artillery and drones that are consumed in hundreds of thousands.

 

[Bleh]

Guns are needed to engage slow moving targets , to strafe ground targets and for a general sense of reassurance to the pilots.
The point is , when a helo can be brought down by gun fire , why waste a costly missile on it ?
When a ground target can be destroyed by gun shells why waste costly ordinance on it ?

It's safer... Lining up for a gun-run jeopardises your much much costlier jet

 

[SwordOfDarkness]

WVR like python ASRAAM can't be jammed , they have independent IR seeker -passive target aquisition (if fighter jet don't have IRST), so only Flares can hinder them , but newer missiles are capable to even look beyond chaffs and aquire target.

Jamming the WEZ

I also said same thing, you ignored.

WEZ - Weapon EMployment Zone

Minimum range needed by missile in order to actually gain speed and maneuver towards target. Inside WEZ, missiles are useless.

Common tactic in one circle fight, like this

or rolling scissor, like this

like @Bleh pointed out

 

[SwordOfDarkness]

Neither of you are fully incorrect.
With modern shoot & scoot style of dogfighting gun do have less relevance, but is you're in a rolling scissor you may be fucked without guns if both your CCMs miss & the enemy jet has guns... Plus like Abhinandans case it's never a duel. Another enemy jet is gonna get you & vice versa. That's why IFF & better command-&-control are important.

On the other hand it's true that DCS doesn't simulate 21st century dogfighting. Even in WVR combat you're not supposed to get in a ballet-dance. Guns are relevant for our R-73 carrying jets. But Tejas with ASRAAM & Python-5 has better ways to deal with 1-circle & 2-circle turns.
.
Even near-WVR engagements should be at long stand-off distances... That's why EOTS/IRST are important.

No amount of supermaneuverability beats situational awareness in information age.

My point was just that there is still a decent use for guns, and its such a small thing it doesnt make sense to remove it anyway.

 

[Love Charger]

Guns are also useful in shooting down unarmed aircrafts like airliners , surveillance planes etc apart from Helos.
Although I can't think of any instance where anyone , even the Soviets shot a unarmed plane without help of missiels .
They either used missiles ,or rammed their planes on the target .