LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2607
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Cybaru » 20 Jan 2015 05:09

Vivek,

Agree with you. My argument is that it aint no show stopper and lets not call it one. We don't really have tanker fleet that can support 400 aircraft at war. Surely we need it and every type needs to be able to do it, but it certainly aint a show stopper like every news article claims it is.

sarang
BRFite
Posts: 131
Joined: 16 Jun 2007 11:23
Location: India

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby sarang » 20 Jan 2015 06:06

How many refuellers do we need to support 400 aircrafts at war times?

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54454
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby ramana » 20 Jan 2015 06:31

Indranil, Did the wake penetration tests occur?

Also is there a chart by ADA showing the tests and the objectives?

Thanks, ramana

vivek_ahuja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2223
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby vivek_ahuja » 20 Jan 2015 06:32

sarang wrote:How many refuellers do we need to support 400 aircrafts at war times?


Without getting bogged down in specifics, (and assuming that every aircraft needs to be refueled mid-air, which is not true!) it comes down to the following:

If you have ~400 fighters in your air-force, you *may* be able to get about 100 of them in the air for a major offensive. This assumes that for every airplane in the air on the front, some are either en-route, departing or on the ground for a turnaround (being rearmed or repaired).

Each tanker can, depending on the size and type of aircraft involved, refuel between 4-6 fighters for a two way mission.

So 100 aircraft at the front require around 15-20 tankers to keep the cycle going. Add to that the turnaround of the tankers themselves, plus the need to refuel much bigger aircraft such as AWACS etc., and that number becomes 25-40 for a major air campaign.

Now granted that the Indian air force is only going to fight the local war in its neighborhood, and that airbases will be available close by, the number comes down for the tankers. So about 10-15 tankers might do the job.

We have, what... 4-6 tankers?

As a data point to the above model, consider that during Operation Iraqi Freedom, the USAF needed 182 tankers forward-deployed (not counting another 110 tankers that were supporting the inter-theater airlifts) to support ~1500 coalition aircraft in theater (not counting tankers). The ratio for shooter-to-tanker is somewhere around 8:1. Assuming the IAF had closer airbases, 100 aircraft (not counting tankers) would need about 12-13 tankers. So that it fits in the back-of-the-envelope analysis I posted above.

-Vivek
Last edited by vivek_ahuja on 20 Jan 2015 06:52, edited 2 times in total.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2607
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Cybaru » 20 Jan 2015 06:35

Sarang,

Dunno, but here is something to think about.

http://www.amc.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123256315

hanumadu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4715
Joined: 11 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby hanumadu » 20 Jan 2015 07:37

When will LSP 6 fly? What happened to the spin tests? Aren't they more important than other tests?

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8161
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Indranil » 20 Jan 2015 08:00

ramana wrote:Indranil, Did the wake penetration tests occur?

Yes
ramana wrote:Also is there a chart by ADA showing the tests and the objectives?

No.

hanumadu wrote:When will LSP 6 fly? What happened to the spin tests? Aren't they more important than other tests?

There will be no LSP 6. All tests envisioned for it have been taken care of with other LSPs.

Shreeman
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3762
Joined: 17 Jan 2007 15:31
Location: bositiveneuj.blogspot.com
Contact:

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Shreeman » 20 Jan 2015 08:18

vivek_ahuja wrote:
Shreeman wrote:My continuing nitpick re. refuelers. All Su30, 29k and in the near future 29s can refuel. There is no delivering fuel at 500nm in the IN/IAF equation. There is no point in doung TFTA equal-equal unless wanting to go fight in south china sea.


I think the whole requirement for the in-flight refueling requirement for the LCA stems from the argument that the IAF wants to have the option for it, should the need arise. Does not mean, however, that they will be using it a lot.

Especially given a pathetically small tanker fleet, there is never going to be the luxury of refueling every fighter over the front-line. But if required, the LCA should have that option, no?

In-flight refueling is not just for ferrying flights at long ranges. It is possible that the aircraft engaged in combat and evasive maneuvers might be low on fuel even a couple hundred kilometers from the airbase. In flight refueling gives the pilot and air-force some options in that scenario.

But I do agree that it should be lower down the priority list. Certainly not enough to justify delaying the induction of the aircraft.

-Vivek


vivek,

My nitpick is the reverse.

The aircraft are plumbed for refueling and getting refueled. Heavy forward deployed tankers are needed for expeditionary campaigns. Otherwise, for your scenario a few Su30 with refueling pods will serve the role fine.

This shortage of il78 type tankers does not envision where they will be used and when. There is not a lot beyond 500km west. Certainly very little beyond 750km. So except for ferrying to far-off exercises, the role for the light aircraft just doesnt warrant X,000 km range. But that is a separate discussion.

My nitpick is, if needed, there are 300 tankers with refueling pods.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby NRao » 20 Jan 2015 08:55

The two scenarios that I have come across is MKIs leaving Pune for Andaman and back. And, in the event of a two front war planes needing to switch between the two front.

In both cases refuelers would be well within Indian air space.

To get to the other end of TSP, refuel over the Arabian Sea - if at all.

vivek_ahuja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2223
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby vivek_ahuja » 20 Jan 2015 09:01

Shreeman,

Considering the OT nature of this discussion, I have responded to your post in the Military Aviation thread. Let us take the discussion there and leave this thread for LCA-specific topics.

-Vivek

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20741
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Philip » 20 Jan 2015 11:59

The LCA programme was doomed for delay the moment it was envisioned to be a mini-maxi-multi-role aircraft ,capable of punching well above its weight. Had the programme stuck to its original plan of replacing the MIG-21s with some limited added strike capability ,but an aircraft primarily for air combat with BVR missiles to boot,we would perhaps by now have had a couple of sqds. in service.The more complex the tasks ,the more time it is taking to develop the same,especially within such a tight airframe. With the rest of the fleet capable on in-flight refueling,and such a slow prod rate initially,as mentioned above in some posts,what is the advantage to be gained right now adding to development time when the IAF is in deep sh*t with so few sqds combat capable?

The gloomy pic just reported about the Fin Min cutting down across the board funds for all 3 services will also cast its shadow on the LCA programme. in some manner.One must wait to see the repercussions.

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1676
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Khalsa » 20 Jan 2015 13:32

Check out the first mid air refuelling
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/2015011 ... n-aviation

hanumadu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4715
Joined: 11 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby hanumadu » 20 Jan 2015 18:45

indranilroy wrote:
hanumadu wrote:When will LSP 6 fly? What happened to the spin tests? Aren't they more important than other tests?

There will be no LSP 6. All tests envisioned for it have been taken care of with other LSPs.


Thanks Indranil.

jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5095
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby jamwal » 20 Jan 2015 20:53

Is mid-air refueling a vital necessity for LCA considering it's role as a point defense interceptor ?

fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3431
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby fanne » 20 Jan 2015 20:59

I think stealth and supercruise is also needed, else IAF should not accept MK-1

Raveen
BRFite
Posts: 770
Joined: 18 Jun 2008 00:51
Location: 1/2 way between the gutter and the stars
Contact:

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Raveen » 20 Jan 2015 22:14

fanne wrote:I think stealth and supercruise is also needed, else IAF should not accept MK-1


Please include a /s if you are being sarcastic
and if not, I'll include the details of the nearest psyc clinic for you

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2607
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Cybaru » 20 Jan 2015 22:19

Raveen its sarcasm. Fanne has been around for too long for it be anything else.

fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3431
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby fanne » 20 Jan 2015 22:48

Thing is two big things (at least from newspapers) left are new quartz radome and in flight fuel probe. The first one is not even an issue. It should not stop any induction activity. When the new one is certified, old ones get overhauled. But in flight fuel probe can stop the show. What if it does not work out? Then one has to redesign, restest and certify, few years delay. As everyone pointed out, LCA being a point defense, our lowest end plane, may not be priority for refullers (we have grand total of 6, that number may go up. but then again, it would be more fruitful to refuel other planes than this). Maybe a good to have in future varient, but not a must have.

sarang
BRFite
Posts: 131
Joined: 16 Jun 2007 11:23
Location: India

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby sarang » 20 Jan 2015 23:01

Vivek,
It seems the second purchase(Airbus); if it happens :| will moderately suffice the needs of IAF.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19551
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Karan M » 20 Jan 2015 23:04

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/o ... 804951.ece

Headline apart (which has little to do with the article)

Scope of new technology

Air Chief Marshal (Retd) S. Krishnaswamy said: “LCA is a very well-designed aircraft. There is lot of scope as new technology appears. We should not leave the LCA platform. It is state of the art now and it is responsibility to keep it so by bringing in new variants based on the original platform. Mig-21 had 5 variants since inception in 1963 and each variant better than the other.”

LCA falls in the lower tier of the evolving conventional force structure of the IAF. At the upper end is the Su-30MKI, a heavy fighter of which 272 will be eventually inducted. The middle rung will be formed by the 126 Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft likely to be the Dassault Rafale which India is currently negotiating with France.

“Tejas will form the lower end of the strike package complimenting the heavy Sukhoi’s and the medium Rafale’s. It is ideal for point defence and strikes at low to medium ranges,” said Manmohan Bahadur, former Air Vice-Marshal and distinguished fellow at the Centre for Air Power Studies.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36415
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby SaiK » 20 Jan 2015 23:06

it all depends on empowerment.. LCA today is baseline for MCA tomorrow. so, I am practically removing Rafale as medium combat for long term use... i'd rather wait for MCA than Rafale for all practical purpose.. there is no such impending and present danger with regards to security that which can't be supported by MKI.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Viv S » 21 Jan 2015 03:02

Philip wrote:Unless real "nut-squeezing" pressure is applied to the "hanging fruit" of the DPSU heads,progress will remain IST. The requirement of a gun is an absolute for the aircraft.IT is short legged,will have to carry drop tanks until the refiuelling probe is installed on the Mk-2,and at the most will be able to effectively carry 4 AAMs.

A (non-retractable) refueling probe will be available on the Mk1. And it will be able to carry 6 AAMs with drop tanks;

4 x Astra Mk2 (tandem pylons) + 2 x Python Vs on the outboard points.

Exactly the same as the Mirage 2000, except that the Tejas' weaponry is a lot more capable (BVR - Astra Mk2 over MICA-EM, WVR - Python V over MICA-IR). Both can be equipped with a jamming pod on the remaining hard-point.

Its chief advantage is small size,low rcs and dogfighting ability,where the requirement of a gun is vital. Testing the gun from the aircraft is the most important,gas ingestion,vibration,etc. are factors that need to be sorted out. It looks like the ADA has been trying to fudge the issue. Time for the "nutcracker" to be used.

The DASH-Python V combination is outstanding. A gun is fine as a last resort in exceptional circumstances, but only a foolish or desperate pilot would rely on his gun in the WVR regime (instead of bugging out when his missile load is expended) when the opposition consists of fighters equipped with HMS and HOBS weapons.

Philip wrote:The LCA programme was doomed for delay the moment it was envisioned to be a mini-maxi-multi-role aircraft ,capable of punching well above its weight.

It costs $26 million. It punches well above its weight.

Getting greater numbers of the aircraft is primarily a matter of sanctioning the requisite production capacity. And having done that, the aircraft will deliver a far better return on investment than the Mirage upgrade or imported MiG-29/35s.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8161
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Indranil » 21 Jan 2015 04:12

Viv S wrote:4 x Astra Mk2 (tandem pylons) + 2 x Python Vs on the outboard points.

There are multiple ways that I can imagine an LCA (in the future) can carry more than 6 AAMs besides 3 fuel tanks. As you said, the mid-wing pylons can carry 2-3 AAMs. On missions where the LDP is not required, the central fuselage hardpoint capable of carrying 1200 kgs can be loaded with a pylon to carry the 750 ltr fuel tank and 2 AAMs (like in the picture shown below). But, none of them will be tandem IMHO. The only tandem setting that I can think of is 2 unguided bombs.
Image

Viv S wrote:
Philip wrote:The LCA programme was doomed for delay the moment it was envisioned to be a mini-maxi-multi-role aircraft ,capable of punching well above its weight.

It costs $26 million. It punches well above its weight.

Well said. It really punches well above its weight and much-much above its price.

Wickberg
BRFite
Posts: 255
Joined: 01 Jul 2008 18:45

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Wickberg » 21 Jan 2015 10:47

Philip wrote:The LCA programme was doomed for delay the moment it was envisioned to be a mini-maxi-multi-role aircraft ,capable of punching well above its weight. Had the programme stuck to its original plan of replacing the MIG-21s with some limited added strike capability ,but an aircraft primarily for air combat with BVR missiles to boot,we would perhaps by now have had a couple of sqds. in service.The more complex the tasks ,the more time it is taking to develop the same,especially within such a tight airframe. With the rest of the fleet capable on in-flight refueling,and such a slow prod rate initially,as mentioned above in some posts,what is the advantage to be gained right now adding to development time when the IAF is in deep sh*t with so few sqds combat capable?

The gloomy pic just reported about the Fin Min cutting down across the board funds for all 3 services will also cast its shadow on the LCA programme. in some manner.One must wait to see the repercussions.


Why is this a reason for it to be this much delayed? Do you really think someone would start on thinking "we will build a 1950s MiG-21" in the 1980s ? No, there were all multi-roles and several projects started at that time area. The only lightweight project that succeded was the Gripen which has been in service for almost 20 years. So why was LCA doomed for delay?

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8161
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Indranil » 21 Jan 2015 11:40

1. Because, we had no design experience. SAAB had sixty years of continued design experience.
2. Because, we had to build up an entire range of industry. And yes a lot of the work came from the largely inefficient public sector.
3. Because, we wanted to maximize indeginization with minimum development cost (It has cost us less the $3 billion, including the development cost of Kaveri, setting up of the entire infrastructure, and development of 14 land-based and 2 naval prototypes).
4. Because, we were and are still denied technology based on sanctions.
5. Because, our customer is not integrated with our developer. Heck, they are at loggerheads.
6. Because, our customer will not accept anything below Gripen E/F level from day 1! Full flight envelop tested with all weapons. Extended range and fully multirole!

By the way, Gripen E/F will arrive in 2018, LCA Mk2 by 2022. Similar timelines for the TA-50. Not much difference if you ask me!

Wickberg
BRFite
Posts: 255
Joined: 01 Jul 2008 18:45

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Wickberg » 21 Jan 2015 12:24

indranilroy wrote:1. Because, we had no design experience. SAAB had sixty years of continued design experience.
2. Because, we had to build up an entire range of industry. And yes a lot of the work came from the largely inefficient public sector.
3. Because, we wanted to maximize indeginization with minimum development cost (It has cost us less the $3 billion, including the development cost of Kaveri, setting up of the entire infrastructure, and development of 14 land-based and 2 naval prototypes).
4. Because, we were and are still denied technology based on sanctions.
5. Because, our customer is not integrated with our developer. Heck, they are at loggerheads.
6. Because, our customer will not accept anything below Gripen E/F level from day 1! Full flight envelop tested with all weapons. Extended range and fully multirole!

By the way, Gripen E/F will arrive in 2018, LCA Mk2 by 2022. Similar timelines for the TA-50. Not much difference if you ask me!


The full multirole Gripen became operational in 1995, the first fully operational division in SwAF in 1997. I have no idea what you are talking about. From day 1. Was´nt the demand from IAF to purchase an aeroplane to replace the MiG-21 fleet starting in the 1990s? IF their demand in the 1980s was to replace it with a copy of that ancient plane I can hardly believe it considering all projects at the time was multi-role.
But I can´t blame the IAF. Seeing all your "Beacuse"-arguments, what should the IAF do, what are their main job? To protect India as a country or be a lab rat to support Indian aviation industry?

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Singha » 21 Jan 2015 12:35

what is the BVR missile and radar combo on Tejas mk1? is it under testing?

Jaeger
BRFite
Posts: 325
Joined: 23 Jun 2004 11:31
Location: Mumbai, India

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Jaeger » 21 Jan 2015 13:19

Wickberg wrote:But I can´t blame the IAF. Seeing all your "Beacuse"-arguments, what should the IAF do, what are their main job? To protect India as a country or be a lab rat to support Indian aviation industry?


Hey I don't know, maybe both? And before you laugh that off, I invite you to consider the "import to indigenous" progression of the Indian Navy. What is the Indian Navy's main job - to protect India as a country or be a lab rat to support Indian naval industry?

We are at a place where our two biggest threats are right on our borders and we can rest assured that NO ONE is going to support us outright in the event of a conflict with either.

In fact, I would argue that the IAF is NOT doing its job. It is focused on "shooting down enemy fighters", "conducting interdiction strikes", "close air support" etc. Those are not its job. Those are tasks. Its job is "protecting India as a country" as you say. And therefore, for any branch of our armed forces to "protect India as a country" they should've invested from August 16, 1947 in the creation, growth, support and beyond of India's military-industrial complex as a VITAL part of their overall strategy to protect this nation so that we are dependent on NO ONE for anything - from a bullet to fighter plane to a nuclear bomb. Then we are truly, truly secure.

Jaeger
BRFite
Posts: 325
Joined: 23 Jun 2004 11:31
Location: Mumbai, India

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Jaeger » 21 Jan 2015 13:19

Also, what is knowingly or unknowingly being left out here is the simple point that we are neither someone's MuNNa nor are we a "neutral" nation that leans so much one way that they are handed key technologies (engines, e.g.) on a platter right from the start - J21R: dH Goblin, J29: dH Ghost, J32 & J35: RR Avon, J37: P&W JT8D, J39: F404/414.

P Chitkara
BRFite
Posts: 355
Joined: 30 Aug 2004 08:09

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby P Chitkara » 21 Jan 2015 15:00

I agree to most indranils Because ifs. Don't you think there is a difference between building a plane from scratch when the aerospace industry is practically non existent and the manufacturing base itself is not much to talk about (80s and 90s)? Also, you be at loggerheads with US and voila!

Wiki may not be a 100% reliable source but isn't that unreliable either. Quoting from there

In 1979, the Swedish government began development studies for an aircraft capable of fighter, attack and reconnaissance missions to replace the Saab 35 Draken and 37 Viggen. A new design from Saab was selected and developed as the JAS 39, first flying in 1988. Following two crashes during flight development and subsequent alterations to the aircraft's flight control software, the Gripen entered service with the Swedish Air Force in 1997. Upgraded variants, featuring more advanced avionics and adaptations for longer mission times, began entering service in 2003.


This is when Sweden has a long and pretty successful history of building military aircrafts. Everything takes time, more for some and less for others by virtue of past experience which in India's case didn't exist.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19551
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Karan M » 21 Jan 2015 15:39

I don't get why you guys explain yourself to someone who has been told this a million times before but just comes here to preen and wind y'all up. Ignore him.

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2842
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby abhik » 21 Jan 2015 16:55

[Offensive language against IAF deleted and user warned; banned for 3-days - rohitvats]

vishvak
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5835
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 21:19

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby vishvak » 21 Jan 2015 17:23

Wasn't there news about how Tejas is testing an indigenous AESA radar suit, too?
viewtopic.php?p=1778054#p1778054
Also read the next relevant 7-8 messages down till the end of page.

I do not understand why there is utter lack of even minimal chest beating and self-confidence in media about recent development around time of Sankranti festival in India, where reports came out about R&D within. At times, it is very important to know actual strength and not just believe good-cop/bad-cop arguments.

I think we need to do more and more testing - in different testing fields - even when inducting more and more indigenous products. It can only add to the teeth and confidence.

arijitkm
BRFite
Posts: 137
Joined: 12 Oct 2009 23:23

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby arijitkm » 21 Jan 2015 17:41

As per Mr. Ajai Shukla 50 GE F 404 Engine in the purchase list from US.

is IAF getting one more sq. (total 3 sq.) Tejas Mk1 from HAL ?

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Viv S » 21 Jan 2015 17:48

Wickberg wrote:The full multirole Gripen became operational in 1995, the first fully operational division in SwAF in 1997. I have no idea what you are talking about. From day 1.


As of 'Day 1', the Gripen A/B had

- no BVRAAM
- no HMD
- no LDP
- no in-flight refueling
- no Aim-9M (only old Aim-9Ls)
- no trainer variant (that came in Batch 2)

And three quarters of the Gripen A/B fleet was retired after barely 15 years of service.

tushar_m

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby tushar_m » 21 Jan 2015 18:54

Actually there was a news that IAF will buy 16 LCA Mk1 Trainer aircraft.

The 50 F404 maybe for them + reserves.

Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Surya » 21 Jan 2015 19:15

Guys

stop wasting your time

Kartik , Victor others have trashed his arguments

No point arguing or comparing with munnas - He posts again - let the mods know

Wickberg
BRFite
Posts: 255
Joined: 01 Jul 2008 18:45

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Wickberg » 21 Jan 2015 20:10

Viv S wrote:
Wickberg wrote:The full multirole Gripen became operational in 1995, the first fully operational division in SwAF in 1997. I have no idea what you are talking about. From day 1.


As of 'Day 1', the Gripen A/B had

- no BVRAAM
- no HMD
- no LDP
- no in-flight refueling
- no Aim-9M (only old Aim-9Ls)
- no trainer variant (that came in Batch 2)

And three quarters of the Gripen A/B fleet was retired after barely 15 years of service.


It actually could fire AIM-120, the SwAF just had´nt bought any major stock from day 1. (The JA 37 was still in use)
The "B" in "A/B Gripen" is the two-seater trainer. However, how does that or any of your other claims makes a fighter multi-role is beyond me. How does IFR make a fighter multi-role?
But you missed one thing. The first recon/camera-pod was´nt introduced with the Gripen in SweAF until 2002 (I think). So until then it was´nt a truelly multirole fighter (in the SweAF at least). Which recon/camera-pod will the LCA have once it becomes operational with IA?

Victor
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2628
Joined: 24 Apr 2001 11:31

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Victor » 21 Jan 2015 20:44

Philip wrote: Had the programme stuck to its original plan of replacing the MIG-21s with some limited added strike capability ,but an aircraft primarily for air combat with BVR missiles to boot,we would perhaps by now have had a couple of sqds. in service.

There was little chance of the program sticking to its original air defense role as the mig-21 itself had morphed into a multirole fighter by the 80s. Point taken of course and it would have a historical precedent--the delay caused by Hitler's insisting the Me-262 become a fighter-bomber arguably lost Germany the war.

Regarding why the delay, there are reasons galore but none of us here can claim to know for sure. That is left to the Mod, IAF and PMO. Their words and actions speak loudest.

Wickberg
BRFite
Posts: 255
Joined: 01 Jul 2008 18:45

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Wickberg » 21 Jan 2015 21:22

Victor wrote:
Philip wrote: Had the programme stuck to its original plan of replacing the MIG-21s with some limited added strike capability ,but an aircraft primarily for air combat with BVR missiles to boot,we would perhaps by now have had a couple of sqds. in service.

There was little chance of the program sticking to its original air defense role as the mig-21 itself had morphed into a multirole fighter by the 80s. Point taken of course and it would have a historical precedent--the delay caused by Hitler's insisting the Me-262 become a fighter-bomber arguably lost Germany the war.

Regarding why the delay, there are reasons galore but none of us here can claim to know for sure. That is left to the Mod, IAF and PMO. Their words and actions speak loudest.


Hitler would have lost the war regardless of the outcome of Me-262. He lost the war at Alexandria, or when Japan attacked Pearl Harbour even. But this is not the right part of this forum to discuss that....


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests