Tejas and Cold Start Doctrine

[Zebra]

You dont know the meaning of "Multirole". It doesnt mean that the fighter will be able to perform all the tasks satisfactorily, It means that it would be able to perform more than a single one. MiG29K is known as multirole aircraft.But, it was made for A2A , not A2G. So, this means that it can perform A2G , but not in a best way. Same applies to LCA.

1. Who the hell told you Mirage was a Strike Aircraft ? Mirage 2000 bought by IAF had little A2G capabilities. So, they had to be modified to do the task. (easily available at Wiki)
Jaguars did perform strike missions (wiki) . MiG27 also performed , but as Kargil is at very high altitude, it played a limited role.

2. Wow. Just because they are delta-winged, they have same design as LCA?
There is a massive , massive difference between CAS and Strike. (Google it)

3. What's your logic here? Just because They werent able to fly from Leh, they arent good at Strike missions?

Does it mean "Omnirole" aircrafts are not striker aircrafts.....!....?

And those who call them as "Striker" aircraft they are all wrong.

Just asked.

 

[sgarg]

This exactly is my point @Kunal Biswas and @ersakthivel, and that is why I said, LCA is not designed for CAS. The wing profile of the LCA, or for that matter the MiG-21, is a sheer giveaway.

We can do a lot of improvisation with these high-altitude fighters and use them for CAS, just like we fitted rocket-pods to the Mil-17 and called it a "gunship," but it still is a troop transporter.

Can we convert Kiran for anti-tank role - say with helina launchers?

 

[ersakthivel]

This exactly is my point @Kunal Biswas and @ersakthivel, and that is why I said, LCA is not designed for CAS. The wing profile of the LCA, or for that matter the MiG-21, is a sheer giveaway.

We can do a lot of improvisation with these high-altitude fighters and use them for CAS, just like we fitted rocket-pods to the Mil-17 and called it a "gunship," but it still is a troop transporter.

Rafale/Mirage with the same design are said to be good at CAS, by whom? Are they better than the Sukhoi-25 and A-10, or worse?

Here is a comparison of wing shape (credit goes to keptin from another forum, but I am not allowed to post links to other fora):

Now, let us see the wing profiles of some common aircraft.

Mirage-2000

HAL LCA Tejas

MiG-21

Sukhoi-25

Fairchild Republic A-10

Judge for yourselves folks.

You are correct about that.

but you should think about the fact that after jaguar why french and british design another such high wing loading , straight wing fighter exclusively for CAS role.

Reason is with the advent of LGBs ground targets can be struck from higher altitude and greater stand off range nowadays giving the fighter much more protection.

Because air defence has improved so much nowadays that it is a deadly risk for the pilot and plane to fly so low with no reaction time for self defence even from a SAM. And in jaguar days cost effective Laser guided bombs that can be fired from high altitude and longer stand off distance weren't easy and economical to be acquired in large numbers.

Now with UCAVs and attack helis taking over much of the CAS duties it will be a risky affair to send planes and highly skilled pilots into such risky missions with proliferation of modern QWIP equipped heat seeking anti aircraft missiles on the ground .

Thats why french are going to use mirage and rafale for all their CAS needs,

british will use tornado(swing wing) and typhoon in the meanwhile. They too will switch to typhoon once their tornadoes are phased out.

The reason f-35 is facing so much criticism is because of its high wing loading airframe not being able to offer significant performance to match the eurocanard-deltas.

F-35 too exclusively relies on long stand off range LGBs to hit ground target on most critical day one missions.It too has no armor plating and certainly not going to rely on rocket pods for majority of its strike roles.

Even attack helis fire from long stand off range to get away from SAMs and anti aircraft fire.

Even today's infantry has missiles like javelin and pragathi systems to fire from long stand off range.

With the advent of fly by wire low wing loading RSS deltas , most of delta difficulties in low atmosphere terrain hugging flights have been resolved with navigational aids from multi mode radars.

Americans use A-10 when they have complete air superiority and when the enemy is at the brink of extinction , such luxuries wont be there for india in any of its wars with pak or china.

With the N weapons in all three countries , short border fire fights will be the order of the day ,

where having multi role fighters that can do the job of CAS with high altitude long stand off range laser guided weapons and double up as high altitude air superiority fighters giving higher kinematic energy and range to their air to air missiles is more important than having a fleet of low altitude slow flying CAS fighters like jags which can't be used as air superiority fighters on any day.

Especially for india which has to face two front wars more low wing loading multi role fighters like tejas is even more critical.

 

[sgarg]

Can Mig-27 or Jaguar attack a tank from 4-5 km altitude? Can they fire helina?

Watched a lot of Syria videos and the Syrian AF planes are not holding well against hand-held SAMs.

CAS would mean anti-tank (anti-vehicle) or anti-personnel (rocket fire) role. Bomb on a tank seems difficult as tank is moving target. A missile is better.

 

[ersakthivel]

You are literally screaming "BAN ME" to Mods by the use of such language. Occasionally its acceptable, you are doing it regularly.
And its YOU who is posting bullshit arguments .
Tejas is a light combat aircraft. MiG27 and Jaguar are full fledged Ground Attack and Strike Aircraft. Even a Kid knows the difference.
I suggest you use something called "Google" to know the difference.

And the design and operating philosophy behind those full fledged ground attack aircraft has died long ago with proliferation of SAMs and every armor unit getting kitted with mobile air defence units.

Do you think these Mig-27s and jaguars can get away after attacking an armor unit equipped with Akash?

And the advent of high altitude fired long range precision munition has let the high flying deltas do the most critical CAS role of precision strikes without having to fly low and face shoulder fired SAMs.

Please tell me what are the 14 squadrons that were identified by MOD as fit to be replaced with tejas. Does that include Mig-27 or not?

In world war two times even an anti aircraft gun is a luxury so fighters can get away with flying at 16 knots at ground level in surprise sorties.

Now with so much CAPs and AWACs patrols along with sophisticated air defence platforms chugging along with moving armor units it is a deadly risk to expose plane and pilot to such brave flying profiles.

in those days fighters were also cheap with lesser electronics on board.Nowadays the cost of electronics exceed the airframe engine combo's cost. SO it wont be wise to risk a multi million dollar fighter and best trained pilots in these deadly risky roles.

At best we can use attack helis and UCAVs in future for that role.

 

[sgarg]

It seems Mig-21 has to make a dive and come in low for rocketing. It becomes target for ground fire during this maneuver. (Watched some Syria war videos).

The firing from standoff ranges typically means employment of A-S missiles from at least 7-8 kms from the target and min 4 km height.

Can Mig-27 and Jaguar fire anti-tank A-S missiles from stand-off ranges??

 

[ersakthivel]

You dont know the meaning of "Multirole". It doesnt mean that the fighter will be able to perform all the tasks satisfactorily, It means that it would be able to perform more than a single one. MiG29K is known as multirole aircraft.But, it was made for A2A , not A2G. So, this means that it can perform A2G , but not in a best way. Same applies to LCA.

Multi role or omni role means it can perform all roles with a certain degree of satisfaction.It can launch ground strikes with dumb bombs, LGBs and can defend themselves like any air superiority fighter from enemy fighters when attacked while performing this CAS role

1. Who the hell told you Mirage was a Strike Aircraft ? Mirage 2000 bought by IAF had little A2G capabilities. So, they had to be modified to do the task. (easily available at Wiki)
Jaguars did perform strike missions (wiki) . MiG27 also performed , but as Kargil is at very high altitude, it played a limited role.

No one from heaven or hell has to tell us that Mirage is multi role. if it is not then what was the purpose of close to 6 tons of weapon load on mirage-2000? to drop tons of food packets to troops ?.
high wing loading crafts of older vintage like or not suited for high altitude himallayan warfare. Google more to know about which of the strikes performed by Jag or Mirage was effective.

2. Wow. Just because they are delta-winged, they have same design as LCA?

If not, please explain us in how they differ. we will all know something at the end of the day!!!!
It is not for nothing that Air force group captain and award wining test pilot Suneeth krishna has said that tejas mk1 is at least equal to upgraded mirage and NTSE chief Khokar went one further in saying that tejas mk1 scores above mirage in key respects.

There is a massive , massive difference between CAS and Strike. (Google it)

No one denies it. but explain why the british, french and swedes haven't built the successor to high wing loading Jaguar.
Why are they depending on low wing loading rafales and gripens for CAS?

3. What's your logic here? Just because They werent able to fly from Leh, they arent good at Strike missions?

That under lines one very crucial difference between jag and low wing loading tejas.

You could easily look at the map and find that in future india's main frontier airbase expansion and rough landing fields in war time will take place in high himallayan region where you need low wing loading to take off with meaning full load and be able to dive steep and climb rapidly.

jags, Mig-27s lack this crucial traits. they were bought for the days of low tech airdefence days of the 70s and 80s for a war against pakistan on the punjab and rajasthan plains.

But tejas was built from day one as multi role fighter with mirage-2000 DNA that can perform all roles for IAF.

And for guys who are saying that rafale can do something that tejas can not do ,

once all needed weapons are integrated tejas can do much better than rafale in CAs role.
Why CAS roles dont need extended ranges.

And for the cost of one rafale we can easily operate three tejas fighters.

So i these roles for the same cost tejas fleet of three will carry close to 12 tons even in mk1 versions. And will have much better air defence capacity because of three radars flying apart along with three EW suits.

Rafale is better tuned to fly at low altitude and at slower speeds and has additional sensors. These are the only major advantages if we consider even LCA will get all the necessary electronics and weapons. The bigger problem is there is no known roadmap for DIRCM for LCA. Once that issue is sorted out, LCA will be more survivable at low altitudes.

LCA's limited weapons loads is what hurts its strike capabilities.

So we can turn this argument on its head to say high cost of single rafale makes it less effective in delivering larger weapon loads if we compare it with the cost of three tejas.

 

[ersakthivel]

As of now, there is no fighter jet in the World that can perform satisfactorily from Leh. In all three, Tejas , Rafale, Typhoon , modifications were done to make them perform at Leh.
In normal config , they cant take off at such a high altitude.

Are you sure?

To put it correctly while low wing loading fighters can take off with less than max takoof weight from leh and still be able to climb rapidly and dive to reach the targets. low wing loading Jags can not even perform these tasks whatever may be the weapon load. Because they cant climb and dive faster to operate effectively in Himalayas.

Even in the trials high wing loading F-16s and F-18s failed and low wing loading rafale, typhoon , tejas passed from leh.

the modifications you are referring to is fuel line modifications for cold starting conditions nothing to with air frame or wing loading.

 

[sgarg]

"And for the cost of one rafale we can easily operate three tejas fighters."

Actually it is more like one Rafale = 8 Tejas

 

[ersakthivel]

It was the config in which we bought Mirage 2000. After Kargil, subsequent modifications like the ones ongoing , have added good A2G capabilities. I wouldnt say LCA is better than Mirage 2000, they both are equal at this moment. And truly, nobody here believes LCA is bad .

We bought Mirage with nothing but the gun and operated it in that condition for more than three years.
The mirage always had multi role capabilities from its design days. these things are not pizzas to order and add latter.
Either the fighter has that in design stage or not.
For example no amount of altering will make jag work in Himalayan conditions.reason explained in the post above.

 

[ersakthivel]

"And for the cost of one rafale we can easily operate three tejas fighters."

Actually it is more like one Rafale = 8 Tejas

Ofcourse if we include upgradation cost it will be more than three tejas cost. But 8 is a bit of stretch.

 

[ersakthivel]

LCA , in any way cannot replace MiG27 or Jaguar. Its impossible for LCA to accomplish tasks jags and MiGs can .
LCA can replace Mirages, but there is no need as of now.

Jags and Migs are not the swing role fighter like tejas is.
jags and mig27s numbering in heavy hundreds will sit idle on first day air defence ops while tejas can participate in air defence and assume ground strike roles with LGBs and many other bombs.

 

[sgarg]

I think the conclusion is that IAF will employ fighters that are capable of firing at ground targets from stand-off ranges.

IAF will be fighting well-armed adversaries. So the min. is to avoid portable SAMs and ground fire.

If this is the case, armor plating and low speed performance are definitely non-issues.

The critical factor is weapons and the ability to fire the weapons. Can somebody list the weapons that can be fired by Mig-27, Jaguar, Mig-21 etc. that fit the bill.

Example for Mig-21:

Kh-66 radar guided air-to-ground missile
S-5 /M/K unguided air-to-ground missile
S-21 unguided air-to-ground missile
S-24 unguided air-to-ground missile

The above is from Armament of the MiG-21 - MiG-21.de

 

[ersakthivel]

if you go for spec by spec comparision with Mirage 2000 upgrade with LCA mk1 and Mk2

you will find LCA Mk1 and Mk2 will beat mirage 2000 hands down in capabilites

barring payload

avionics radar , radar range etc

cost wise we can have three tejas mk1s for the cost of two upgraded mirages. So pay load doesn't count.
tejas will fire 80 Km and 120 km range akash mk1 and mk2. What will mirage fire?
So in all counts i see no shortage for tejas mk1 compared to mirage.
thats why IAF group captain and award winning test pilot Suneeth krishna has said that tejas mk1 is at least equal to mirage -2000.
Thats why NTSE chief Khokar has said that tejas mk1 is better than mirage-2000 in "key respecs" like TWR and wing loading. And asked IAF to equip 3 or 4 squadrons with tejas mk1 not waiting for tejas mk2 at all.

 

[ersakthivel]

MMRCA nor any twin engine can give the sortie rate needed during war of attrition, attrition is there coz we are not up against a depended nation, This has to be kept in mind ..

That is the very reason IAF is more towards Tejas for near future needs so does this and last goverment ..

And within a decade most of tejas parts will be made in india itself.
that is an added advantage. I hope with in a decade we can even develop SCB tech back home and bring kaveri upto GE-404 status.

thats why for me tejas mk1 is more important that mk2.Because we will have 100 percent of tejas mk1 tech from engine blades , missiles to ASEA radars all in our own hands.

We can make as much as we want with no restrictions and no IP right hassles and no sanction will threaten us.

It is only with the aim of stopping such development that import lobby is crying hoarse that mk1 is just a trainer and mk2 is the real fighter!!!, because with mk2 having higher powered GE-414 , leading to crucial dependency on US for engine parts a bit longer.

 

[sgarg]

Ofcourse if we include upgradation cost it will be more than three tejas cost. But 8 is a bit of stretch.

The current quoted cost of Tejas is 162 crore (26.5M). Ref: HAL pegs price of Tejas fighter at Rs 162 crore | Business Standard News

There is no clear cost available for Rafale but some figures floating on the internet goes to 27B for 126 planes. It is unclear how much of that is lifecycle cost and weapons cost. Upfront cost of Rafale is at least $130M per unit. So per unit cost is clear 1 to 5.

I can wager that maintenance cost and weapons cost ratio between Tejas and Rafale will be far worse than 1:5. Tejas will eventually fly with local missiles and local bombs.

If India succeeds in putting local AESA and Kavery on Tejas, Tejas cost will drop to below 20M.

If you factor in that every dollar or euro spent on defence hurts India in other sectors (for example importing engineering goods), Rafale causes further loss of many billions of dollars to the economy.

 

[ersakthivel]

@PaliwalWarrior

You said that Every NEW Plane that IAF buys
For example RAFALE will need a lot of time for becoming Fully Operational

But there is a lot of Difference between the Rafale and Tejas MK1

Tejas MK1 has LIMITED Abilities

Rafale's abilities are far too greater than Tejas Mk1 and are KNOWN to IAF

The First squadron of BOTH the Rafale and Tejas Mk1
will be ready in THREE Years Time from NOW

In case of Tejas Mk1 IAF has to think and plan HOW to use its LIMITED abilities

UNLIKE the RAFALE which will straight away form the Tip of the IAF spear
ie The FIRST and the MOST meaningful ACTION in ANY offensive
ALONG with the Su 30 MKI

The RECENT Garuda Exercise between Rafale and Su 30 MKI
was for this purpose ie for devising interoperability between the
Su30 MKI and the Rafale

For CAS extended range of rafale doesnot have any advantage compared to tejas as it is performed on the front line.

If you compare the price in fact tejas carries more than rafale for the price to be paid for the fleet.

A 40 tejas fleet is far less in price to 10 rafale fleet.

Each tejas has a larger radome dia than rafale , so we can always fit a bigger dia ASEA radar on tejas than rafale,

And we will have 40 EW suits and sensor fused fleet with 40 bigger ASEA radars carrying tejas mk1 fleet 150 tons of weapons,

compared to 10 smaller ASEA , 10 ew suit , raflae fleet lugging 90 tons of munitions.
With tejas mk1 getting akash mk2 there wont be any difference in missile range as well.

tejas mk2 will also have the interface to fire meteor the same missile fired by rafale, and tejas mk2 will have a bigger ASEA radar than rafale as well.

 

[ersakthivel]

@PaliwalWarrior

The MOST precious Resource of IAF is its Pilots .

Pilots are much safer performing CAS with LGBS of long stand off range from high altitude than doing it at ground level in much lesser crafts like jags and Migs.

They cannot be sacrificed just to boost the EGO of Indian Citizens .

In fact the modernity and safety record of tejas coupled with its ability to carry longest possible ranged BVR missile in combo with much bigger radar is a huge plus. It is no simple Ego ride.

So Tejas Mk1 will ONLY play a Supporting Role
Most probably Combat Air Patrol

Wrong on facts. It is achieving 26 deg AOA as you are writing this post and it has already demoed its swing role capabilityin LIVEFIRE exercise by dropping fuel tanks firing ground bombs and firing R-73 missiles all under 100 seconds.

It is best suited for CAP being armed with Derbys and R 73

It will carry Akash mk1 and mk2 along with 250 kg and 450 kg and rocket pods.

it WILL Definitely Kill the Paki JF 17 ; Mirage III and Mirage V ; Paki Helicopters and UAVs

Just consider this simple fact IAF will send a fleet of twenty five fighters to intercept 10 f-16s sent by pakistan if we go by cost of the fighters..
Even greek air force chief has said that on its day no F-16 pilot can take out a Mirage-2000, because the low wing loading Mirage-2000 has a much better instanantaneous turn rate and will be able to turn tighter in an instant and obtain a lock and fire solution on the first pass to fire its MICA on F-16.
tejas mk1 has much lower wing loading and much better TWR than mirage-2000.
thats why IAF group captain Suneeth krishna and NTSE chief Khokar have said that tejas mk1 is either equal to upgraded mirage-2000 or even better than that.
SO I see no problem for tejas mk1 fleet in this scenario.

Of course Tejas Mk1 is a Multi Role plane and can be used for Bombing missions but that depends
on the overall Situation ;the availability of other assets and the nature of the targets

Ofcourse tejas mk1 is equal to or much better than mirage-2000 and will be competetive against anything PAF or PLAF filed including flankers if we go by cost wise calculation and EW support

If it is a Time sensitive target that has to be neutralised immediately and Tejas is the ONLY available plane
then Tejas can go on a Bombing run also

time sensitivity or not from frontline air fields tejas will be always closer to targets that are within its reach.

IAF also has demonstrated AN 32 and Hawk trainers as being capable for bombing
but that does not mean they will be the first choice

It all depends on the situation

hawk is no comparison with tejas.

 

[ersakthivel]

If CAS is the topic, neither Rafale nor Tejas can be called CAS crafts.

CAS craft needs:
> Turbofans preferred over turbojets for high fuel economy
> Greater than 4hr loiter time
> Capable 30mm autocannon for ground strafing
> Ti tub cockpits & engine covers to protect against upto 50BMG fire
> Maneuverability at slow speeds, as low as 160kmph
> Array of Rockets, PGMs, LGBs, Cluster Munitions.
> Redundant control surfaces & landing gear
> ECM, chaff, flares etc. against MANPADS

From the Indian inventory, Hawk has much higher probability of taking up CAS role, IMO.

From karan's post in BR, the IAF view on kargil bombing,

Firstly, in the area of interdiction of enemy supplies, the successful and incessant attacks on the enemy's logistic machine had, over the last few weeks, culminated in a serious degradation of the enemy's ability to sustain himself in an increasing number of areas.

The series of attacks against Pt 4388 in the Dras sector was an excellent example of how lethal air strikes combined with timely reconnaissance detected the enemy plans to shift to alternate supply routes which were once again effectively attacked. In this the IAF succeeded in strangling the enemy supply arteries, amply testified to by enemy radio intercepts.

The primacy of interdiction targets as opposed to Battlefield Air Strikes (BAS) targets was clearly brought out, as also the fact that air power is not to be frittered away on insignificant targets like machine gun posts and trenches, but on large targets of consequence (like the supply camp at Muntho Dhalo or the enemy Battalion HQ on top of Tiger Hill).

Gone are the days of fighters screaming in at deck level, acting as a piece of extended artillery. The air defence environment of today's battlefield just does not permit such employment of airpower anymore, a significant fact that needs to be understood by soldier and civilian alike.

This is IAF view on CAS after kargil strikes by low wing loading mirage-2000. It feels air power is not to be frittered away on insignificant battle field targets and should be concentrated on timely interdiction .


people saying that jags and mig-27 which are good for these deck level strikes with rocket pods acting like extended artillery should update themselves on these developments and Why IAF from Kargil days is looking for low wing loading multi role planes opposed to dedicated CAS planes like JAGs and Mig-27s.

Tejas is the cost effective new age CAS platform, no doubt about it.

 

[PaliwalWarrior]

the Govt has made the IAF see the light of the day ........

Facebook

source tarmak blog