LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

[chaanakya]

Chaanakya,

Please don't write qualitative terms like "swarm effects" etc. Speak in terms of capabilities and then we will have a discussion on our hands. What is it that a Rafale can two LCA Mk2s cannot? Is it range? Is it payload? Is it combat potential? Is it price? What is it?

Have you ever seen swarm of locusts?? I have. So it is not a qualitative term but quantitative term.

[chaanakya]

1. Aerodynamically, it is hard for me to see why 2 LCA Mk2s cannot rival 1 Rafale. I argue that the two LCA Mk2s carrying the same weapons payload as a single Rafale will have same or better range, and same or better TWR. On the other hand 2 LCAs Mk2s will have numerical supremacy over a single Rafale. But wait, one can get 3-4 LCA Mk2s at the price of one Rafale.

2. There are other kind of problems in a light fighter versus a medium weight fighter, aka volume. All the electronics that can be fitted onto a medium sized fighter is difficult to fit inside the more constricted space of a light weight fighter. This can be solved too. Not all LCAs need to be configured the same way.

3. Radar related. While radars on LCA cannot match the radar of the Su-30s (simply by the size), the size of Rafale's radar is a completely different matter. And if the measures taken for RCS reduction on the Rafale are used on the LCA, it will have equivalent or smaller RCS. On the other hand if you can field 3 LCAs in place of 1 Rafale, one has 3 radars scanning the horizon, a much better capability.

4. Technological advancements in terms of LRUs. In this aspect the Rafale is really ahead of the LCA in quiet a few aspects. But hello they is something called MLU. And is there an imminent war on the horizon?

5. There is the difficulty of training two pilots instead of one. This is especially pertinent when training a pilot was a sizeable percentage of the cost of the fighter. But that was 20-30 years ago and with planes like the Mig-21s. Not with planes which cost 200 million dollars a piece!

There used to be reasoning question often put to us in childhood. It kind'a stuck in mind.

You can dry one Dhoti in one hour. How many hours would it take to dry ten dhotis.. Me Dhoti shiver onleee

[chaanakya]

India has already made several engines - staring from the HJE 2500 in the sixties to Kaveri today, and that HAL engine in a few months. We do not have a multi engine test bed to which we can hook up an engine and see what it does. Unless we seriously invest in the infrastructure required to test engines - getting engineers to design and make them is pointless. Hundreds of young Indian engineers have passed through the portals of GTRE and have left in frustration saying "Nothing is happening".

This is what we have ignored all along. We should be doing this immediately.

[chetak]

F18 has a hands off automatic takeoff system.pilot just needs to sit back and get launched

sounds very suggestive onlee. lucky F-18 pilot.

[chetak]

Russian or European retired engineers be willing to relocate and work given enough incentives.

Most sensible programs start like this onlee.

The ALH actually started like this but greedy, thoroughly incompetent and glory hunting Indian guys in the program, who were more politicians than actual goal oriented engineers, completely queered the pitch and thoroughly buggered the program. Many of them are safely rotting in hell. They all crashed and burned, one by one, when they could not produce results as promised. Each worthy grabbing promotions far beyond their capability.

The MBB guys left in sheer disgust.

[chaanakya]

Why do our Engineering institutions are not able to produce "Goal Oriented Engineers" but produce only "Financially Oriented Engineers"?

[chetak]

Chaanakya,

Please don't write qualitative terms like "swarm effects" etc. Speak in terms of capabilities and then we will have a discussion on our hands. What is it that a Rafale can two LCA Mk2s cannot? Is it range? Is it payload? Is it combat potential? Is it price? What is it?

Have you ever seen swarm of locusts?? I have. So it is not a qualitative term but quantitative term.

swarm effects or swarm intelligence??

[chaanakya]

I used the term "Swarm Effect". If it does not exist in text book I will copyright it.

[Karan M]

Chaanakya, reason swarming has negative connotations is it because it is associated with attrition heavy tactics. We can't afford to lose pilots.

[chaanakya]

Why?? It is given that in war there would be casualty. However, I meant in the sense of overwhelming enemy sensors/weapons guidance to the extent that its decision/command system faces overload. Think of electronics and network centric communication oriented decision making.

In respect of China it would make sense.

[chetak]

Why?? It is given that in war there would be casualty. However, I meant in the sense of overwhelming enemy sensors/weapons guidance to the extent that its decision/command system faces overload. Think of electronics and network centric communication oriented decision making.

In respect of China it would make sense.

that's why I mentioned swarm intelligence.

You need total air domination for your scenario. Nothing else will work. You need to be in line of sight of the enemy sensors at all times.

This can easily be done using suitably equipped drones or unmanned aircraft in considerable numbers

[eklavya]

Why?? It is given that in war there would be casualty. However, I meant in the sense of overwhelming enemy sensors/weapons guidance to the extent that its decision/command system faces overload. Think of electronics and network centric communication oriented decision making.

In respect of China it would make sense.

In your view, how many Tejas would it take to "overwhelm" PLA/PLAAF sensors / command systems? Would be interested to understand your analysis / reasoning.

[Gyan]

1. Aerodynamically, it is hard for me to see why 2 LCA Mk2s cannot rival 1 Rafale. I argue that the two LCA Mk2s carrying the same weapons payload as a single Rafale will have same or better range, and same or better TWR. On the other hand 2 LCAs Mk2s will have numerical supremacy over a single Rafale. But wait, one can get 3-4 LCA Mk2s at the price of one Rafale.

2. There are other kind of problems in a light fighter versus a medium weight fighter, aka volume. All the electronics that can be fitted onto a medium sized fighter is difficult to fit inside the more constricted space of a light weight fighter. This can be solved too. Not all LCAs need to be configured the same way.

3. Radar related. While radars on LCA cannot match the radar of the Su-30s (simply by the size), the size of Rafale's radar is a completely different matter. And if the measures taken for RCS reduction on the Rafale are used on the LCA, it will have equivalent or smaller RCS. On the other hand if you can field 3 LCAs in place of 1 Rafale, one has 3 radars scanning the horizon, a much better capability.

4. Technological advancements in terms of LRUs. In this aspect the Rafale is really ahead of the LCA in quiet a few aspects. But hello they is something called MLU. And is there an imminent war on the horizon?

5. There is the difficulty of training two pilots instead of one. This is especially pertinent when training a pilot was a sizeable percentage of the cost of the fighter. But that was 20-30 years ago and with planes like the Mig-21s. Not with planes which cost 200 million dollars a piece!

One Rafale can alone generate bribes, blondes and scotch equal to 100 LCAs. Now what is a better deal for decision makers? The only way LCA will ever see mass production or big orders is when Reliance or Adani gets to set up the production line and "grease" the files.

[SanjayC]

Why?? It is given that in war there would be casualty. However, I meant in the sense of overwhelming enemy sensors/weapons guidance to the extent that its decision/command system faces overload. Think of electronics and network centric communication oriented decision making.

In respect of China it would make sense.

In your view, how many Tejas would it take to "overwhelm" PLA/PLAAF sensors / command systems? Would be interested to understand your analysis / reasoning.

Quantity has its own quality. Even a single LCA is enough to wreck havoc if there is no enemy aircraft available to challenge it.

[shiv]

Why?? It is given that in war there would be casualty. However, I meant in the sense of overwhelming enemy sensors/weapons guidance to the extent that its decision/command system faces overload. Think of electronics and network centric communication oriented decision making.

In respect of China it would make sense.

Why send planes when cheap missiles can do. Would anyone hit targets in China much further away using swarms of Tejas rather than swarms of Brahmos or something else? If a swarm of Tejas can go 300 km into China a swarm of Sukhoi can go 300 km and shoot Brahmos to a range of 600 km no? Yes of course expensive sophisticated machines with precious pilots are "supposed to be lost in war" but in the absence of war it would seem sensible to plan something less suicidal unless you are already convinced that losing is the only option unless we "swarm them". But in that case plan for victory, not suicide. In a desperate situation such things may sound bright - but not as a first planned step.

Please come up with something that sounds less loser-like . I hesitate to make less complimentary comments about the idea, though I am tempted. And please don't try and support what sounds to me like an extraordinarily ill thought out idea just because you came up with it.

[eklavya]

Quantity has its own quality. Even a single LCA is enough to wreck havoc if there is no enemy aircraft available to challenge it.

Well, we have a single LCA. Now we just need the adversary with no aircraft. The plan should work beautifully.

[UlanBatori]

My question is, why can't GoI start two parallel projects to develop custom jet engines from scratch for given specifications using US/EU vendors with the final IP remaining in India? They can pay top $ for these engineers and researchers in time and material basis. By infusing some Indian resources in the mix we should be able to get the final product close to our requirements.
Let's assume the vendor is GE. Would it be interested to bid for such a project? If Yes, will it be able to collect and send those engineers to India to work on I1B visas like H1B visas? Since this is custom product development will it be able to let the IP handed over to India?
Will US/EU laws allow their companies to work in India on such projects? Would it be against WTO? Can A GE go against US/EU to get the business (reminds me of the discussion I had on my blog about this aspect - will US Kshatriya allow the Vaisyas to set their base outside continental US?) and so on...

RamaY, excellent question. The answer is in a slight twist to ITvity thinking to bring in some geopolitical realities.

The point of ITAR is to delay technology development for weapons, and thereby allow the US to maintain a sufficient lead. This is distinct from the standard business sense of denying IP so that one has an open market and good profit margins b4 the cheap imitators come on the scene.

So ITAR interest goes away once (a) a suitable time has elapse OR (b) the foreign nation is already seen to have figured out the essential elements.

Business competitive interest also dictates that once the competitor is close to going into production, there is only a small window left to sabotage their technology, by offering them a slightly superior product at a substantially lower cost - dumping, even.

ITAR sometimes goes against the strategic interests of the US, and often goes against the business interests of US companies. So it is not true that ANYONE in the US likes ITAR. Consider this: there is a lot of business potential for both the Pentagon and the defense industry to be able to say:

Look! Look! China/Russia/India has caught up with the US! We no longer have superiority! Our freedom is threatened!

Far better than saying:

Hain! We are superior to anyone. No one dares take off against our our planes.

which kills the Pentagon test/development programs and the companies' R&D (though it helps stock price in the short term by helping repetitive production of the same stuff with little new risk or investment. There is much more money in Fear than in Complacency.

So one should aim for a Convergence of Interests. IOW, the RESEARCH and DEVELOPMENT with all the failures and measurements and tests and data taking and simulations ****MUST**** take place in India. Papers **MUST** be published, Patents **MUST** be applied for. The myriad technology issues must EACH be seen to be researched, and an **INDIAN** solution developed.

At THAT point, ITAR disappears. The companies rush in. At that point India must have a plan that is **NOT** to scrap the domestic system, but to 'co-manufacture' it, refine it, always maintaining IP co-ownership. And sell cheap even to America, where one could not afford to procure enough systems otherwise. This is why I was arguing for a look-ahead where, say, Modified LCAs would be built **FOR THE AMERICAN MARKET** with American engines. They would allow the numbers of combat aircraft to be multiplied by 5 or 10, with the central Net-Centrif Warfare and Weapons Coordination and all the other electronic gizmo city being run out of the 2 F-35s/ F-22s in each squadron of LCAs, while the LCAs provide the super-maneuverability and general numbers of missile platforms needed to make a massive force. The Indo-American LCAs would have GE F-136-B engines - similar in thrust and T/W to the F-135, so that the LCA has a huge thrust/weight ratio, and can reach Mach 2.3, say. Solves a number of problems simultaneously. Surely the Flying CellPhone aka Joint Sell Fone can guide the missiles launched by their LCA partners? Even when the LCA is weaving its way through canyons where the Joint Sell Fone cannot go because of its clunkiness?

While a massive, distributed Indian program with central testing/refinement testbed facilities, to build several different types of engines. GE collaboration would provide the sales, but Indian R&D provides the Indian IP ownership and the solution to ITAR etc. Plus the assurance of independence which is different from refusal to collaborate down the line.

[Cosmo_R]

..........Why send planes when cheap missiles can do. Would anyone hit targets in China much further away using swarms of Tejas rather than swarms of Brahmos or something else?....

SSGNs. Naturally stealthy. Can creep right up close and fire LACMs. We can't do Ohio class but could possible do 64 per vessel.

Not as sexy as Independence Day stuff and Ride of the Valkyries music but cost effective.

[RamaY]

fanne you are heading into uncharted areas.

I asked similar question in newbie thread after reading a related article by Air Marshal AK Trikha!

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 9#p1797639
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 7#p1802767

IIRC Vivek-Ahujaji gave a hint into the logistics & daily loss metrics in one of his scenarios. I also remember him mentioning about "eyes onlee" egzel file that he used...

Add info from AM Trikha's article and we can kind of figure out the details.

Innovation need not end with aircraft engines and fighters, it can extend into operational, logistics and strategem as well...

[SanjayC]

Quantity has its own quality. Even a single LCA is enough to wreck havoc if there is no enemy aircraft available to challenge it.

Well, we have a single LCA. Now we just need the adversary with no aircraft. The plan should work beautifully.

You are unable to think. If China has 2,000 aircraft and India has 2500, India would have 500 aircraft for which no Chinese plane will be available to confront. Even if you fly second world war planes, those 500 can still cause havoc if left uncontested. Quantity has its own quality (ask the Muslims). Quantity is good to take care of wartime attrition, overwhelm the enemy by sheer numbers, and keep the enemy guessing where the next intrusion may come from. Having a few gold plated, ultra-modern planes in contrast to a large number of planes slightly inferior -- the second strategy will win every time.

[chaanakya]

Why?? It is given that in war there would be casualty. However, I meant in the sense of overwhelming enemy sensors/weapons guidance to the extent that its decision/command system faces overload. Think of electronics and network centric communication oriented decision making.

In respect of China it would make sense.

Why send planes when cheap missiles can do. Would anyone hit targets in China much further away using swarms of Tejas rather than swarms of Brahmos or something else? If a swarm of Tejas can go 300 km into China a swarm of Sukhoi can go 300 km and shoot Brahmos to a range of 600 km no? Yes of course expensive sophisticated machines with precious pilots are "supposed to be lost in war" but in the absence of war it would seem sensible to plan something less suicidal unless you are already convinced that losing is the only option unless we "swarm them". But in that case plan for victory, not suicide. In a desperate situation such things may sound bright - but not as a first planned step.

Please come up with something that sounds less loser-like . I hesitate to make less complimentary comments about the idea, though I am tempted. And please don't try and support what sounds to me like an extraordinarily ill thought out idea just because you came up with it.

It would be really nice to win a war without losing a single soldier. may be we can come up with some plan like that... Why is it that loss pf soldiers is ok but Precious pilot is a strict no. Anyway, any loss of life is tragic and as much as possible better to avoid it. Swarm does not presupposes all loss. It does presuppose overwhelming your enemy with numerical superiority when you can not achieve qualitative superiority. It is meant for Air dominance and not for pulverising the ground. It is meant to deny their own airspace to their fighters so that soldiers on the ground can have free run. Of course Missiles are not suited for air dominance. but then Doc saheb you understand that.



Actually Doc Saheb, it would be very nice to fly few airplanes in absence of war or possibility of war and lose not a single pilot. But then Indian Airforce does not seem to think so. They lose planes regularly and pilots too in peacetime. Sad but true, while preparing for war.

I had in mind one of the scenario in Chimera.

Well Doc saheb you can make less complimentary comments which is your prerogative. Who am I to deny that.

[Indranil]

RamaY, excellent question. The answer is in a slight twist to ITvity thinking to bring in some geopolitical realities.
...

Nicely put. Something for every commentator on this subject to read before commenting.

[chaanakya]

In your view, how many Tejas would it take to "overwhelm" PLA/PLAAF sensors / command systems? Would be interested to understand your analysis / reasoning.

We don't even have planes to counter them on one to one basis. And we don't have indigenous produced planes acceptable to IAF to counter Chinese Bandars nor we have capacity to produce unacceptable planes in large numbers. And sadly we don't have monies to even buy 126 mercs projected by IAF. So your question is irrelevant.

but if you think why countries came up with multiple warheads in missiles?? To counter Anti Missile defence

[ramana]

How many N-LCAs are expected?

Looks like 50 for 2 squadrons per news:

http://www.janes.com/article/49152/indi ... -prototype

[ramana]

I think now that a lot of issues have been fleshed out its time to track progress to FOC.

from wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HAL_Tejas

To obtain FOC, the fighter will have to be certified for six more criteria. Integration of Derby and Python BVR missiles weighing 150 kg, with a range of 70 km, as well as a Gryazev-Shipunov GSh-23 gun will be undertaken. An air-to-air refuelling probe supplied by Cobham will be added. The angle of attack will be increased from 24 to 28 degrees,[93] the braking system will be enhanced, and the existing nose cone radome made of composites will be replaced by a quartz model in a bid to increase the current radar range of 45–50 km to more than 80 km. These modifications are expected to be completed within 15 months of IOC-II.[90][95]

Was IOC-II achieved?

Progress on six criteria?
1) Derby & Python integration
2) GHh-23 gun
3) Air 2 Air refuelling
4) braking system
5) radome
6) new radar
I guess 1, 5, & 6 are linked.
what else?

[shiv]

Why is it that loss pf soldiers is ok but Precious pilot is a strict no. Anyway, any loss of life is tragic and as much as possible better to avoid it.

Well Doc saheb you can make less complimentary comments which is your prerogative. Who am I to deny that.

The statement that soldiers can die but pilots must not is something you have said and are pretending that someone else implied something of the sort. Nobody said that. You are now resorting to rhetoric to support a stupid sounding idea which you have not bothered to flesh out in any way but are not willing to gracefully retract either.

I put it to you that you will not be able to flesh it out and make it look like a good plan and it sounds good only to you and only so long as you are not asked to fill in details which you have scrupulously avoided as you beat about the bush with directionless rhetorical arguments sans any detail of what you mean by a swarm of LCAs attacking the Chinese. What constitiutes a swarm? What Chinese targets would be attacked by this swarm of LCAs? Do you have any specific targets in mind that need such swarming? How would this not necessarily lead to high attrition? Why is swarming needed if it is not to overwhelm defences?

[pragnya]

Was IOC-II achieved?

Progress on six criteria?
1) Derby & Python integration
2) GHh-23 gun
3) Air 2 Air refuelling
4) braking system
5) radome
6) new radar
I guess 1, 5, & 6 are linked.
what else?

ramana,

your point number 5 - improving braking system was taken care of @IOC 2 stage. 1/2/3/5 remain for FOC. there was a delay in delivery wrt 3&5. not sure if that has happened. 6 being Uttam AESA is for the LCA 2 (not speaking of HAL plan to make LCA 1.5 with an israeli AESA and EW gear wrt which there was a recent report).

[SaiK]

there is a deep hole in your thought of relating a pilot being killed is equivalent to a foot soldier being killed. when a pilot goes down on a routine mission, it is even more riskier to put down the whole air force or grounding the whole air platform depending the type of mission failure and subsequent risk analysis to get back into mission mode. it is lot more expensive operation than a foot solider operation.

when it comes to a life loss, it is the same.. a pilot loss == soldier loss. nothing less or nothing more. please don't ask this silly question chaanakya.
when a soldier's life is lost, the whole battalion does not suffer. whereas a pilot comes down, the possibility of the whole mission going down or reducing the operation theater smaller or even mission cancel is at very high probability.

but then, i am just speaking logically onlee. don't take it personally.

[member_27581]

Why do our Engineering institutions are not able to produce "Goal Oriented Engineers" but produce only "Financially Oriented Engineers"?

Let me take a shot at it in English and Gurus like Ulanbatori ji can add tonnes of gold to it. Mods pardon being OT
1.Placement system in most colleges: Everyone goes to these colleges to get placed first, and placed with highest possible salary and not to illuminate and enlighten themselves with fundamentals of Radars, signals, and strength of materials. Tech companies(proper ones and not like the TCS infy) have such high entry barriers due to limited opportunities and stiff competition. At the end of day everyone wants to be rich and rich quickly. As Deng Xiaoping said "To be rich is to be glorious". The news farticles about IIM salaries and the society(parents, aunts and uncles comparing with Sharmaji's son) doesn't let the job of such people easy. Sometimes I feel that we need a bit of propaganda or campaign to glorify these boffin jobs.

2. Lack of adequate faculty, facilities and partially students: Most of the faculty is keen to get the job done by teaching those that come in class. Attendance standards are not rising or staying the same either. Unlike a decade back when I was in college, kids can now access the finest in world through net but then that's not in Indian context. People like Feynmann inspired a generation of people in physics for doing fundamental research. Most of the faculty is PHD with little or no industry experience. A fair chunk still does projects and engages students keen on MS/PHD aspirant students. But what kids are or were not shown is that technical careers can too be a way to get rich. I visit my college (not the Eye Eye Chai ones but still a respectable name in hastinapur) once or twice every two years and talk to random students. Most of them seem to be disillusioned with technology/technical careers and think that MBA is their nirvana. Jobs like DRDO, HAL etc are for people who want a stable non corporate life, those who want to prepare for MBA over there or those who have specific advantage over Aam Admi in selection(if you know what I mean). This might be my specific experience so others can prove me wrong and I will be happiest person on earth. On my recent visit to campus I found things mostly same, although some people wanted to go into start ups and willing to take risks. I also see some of my batch mates too hiring or grooming these kids for start ups as well. So not all gloom and doom but then the critical mass for a chain reaction is still at least half a decade away when people think beyond E-comm and getting a jobs in start ups to create their own start ups. Anyways in such high stakes games fizzle is more likely then sizzle.

3. Practicals being just another way to boost your CGPA: Right from schools practicals were just another way of boosting your grades(anybody remember taking Sanskrit in Xth board CBSE). If marks are given based upon your (theory marks, CP and beauty) then what else can the system churn. Designing simplest electronic circuit on paper is one thing and implementing it in real hardware is another thing, and I am just talking about a circuit, think about a complex system involving PLC/microcontrollers and then think about real hard stuff like engines which would require ultra expensive set up to even test(how much computers can help etc). Doing practicals exposes people to what is achievable given constraints of available (resistors/capacitors) or failures (burnt/exploding PCBs because of putting a device in opposite direction) and where things wont work.

There can be 100s of other reasons as well but then probably it's high time that we focus on what needs to be done right and not what's wrong and probably revisit the lines that "we will do it not because it is easy, but it's the right thing to do"

[chaanakya]

there is a deep hole in your thought of relating a pilot being killed is equivalent to a foot soldier being killed. when a pilot goes down on a routine mission, it is even more riskier to put down the whole air force or grounding the whole air platform depending the type of mission failure and subsequent risk analysis to get back into mission mode. it is lot more expensive operation than a foot solider operation.

when it comes to a life loss, it is the same.. a pilot loss == soldier loss. nothing less or nothing more. please don't ask this silly question chaanakya.
when a soldier's life is lost, the whole battalion does not suffer. whereas a pilot comes down, the possibility of the whole mission going down or reducing the operation theater smaller or even mission cancel is at very high probability.

but then, i am just speaking logically onlee. don't take it personally.

No Saik , it is nothing personal in your argument.

I meant loss of life only and not about its impact on subsequent operations. I would hesitate to draw such equivalences.
If objective is to win at any cost as defeat would have more cost then we do need to factor in such losses.

If we are confident that we can face X number of enemy planes with X/n number of our own and absorb losses and still be combat worthy or ready then it is fine. Perhaps in estimation of others we have planes which outsmart others by a factor of n and also take into account the loss due to missile strikes or combat.

I don't know which airforce plans for no attrition scenario. You can enlighten me.

Ultimately, all said and done, you need Army to hold your ground or occupy one.

[UlanBatori]

Why do our Engineering institutions are not able to produce "Goal Oriented Engineers" but produce only "Financially Oriented Engineers"?

Observation 1: u r going 3 get beaten up by Adminullahs 4 OT. Pls post that in the Tech Forum under Indian Education system, or in GDF.
Sadly, I do think that "swarms" of LCAs over the PRC will be met by far vaster swarms of UCAVs and plain missiles, and it will be like the Swarm of the Light (combat aircraft) Brigade. It is surely a good airplane - could come in second best in most competitions if PRC is the opponent. Also-ran. R.I.P.

But India cannot 'afford' to get anything better, and unless it IS fielded in good numbers, India will never be able to 'afford' anything better. In the case of the LCA, the engine probably has a chip that will make it quit or blow up if GPS shows it to be over the LOC either west or north. In the case of the Rafales, the chips may also be in the ejection seat and the flight controls and the structure and everything else down to the little blue seal that says

"Fabrique en France sans Underwear"

The reason why India cannot make swarms of counter-UCAVs is that India does not engines that are good enough - No country can afford to buy swarms of weapons that won't be all gone inside a week in a war. And then what? Wars are won over months or years or decades unless they are 'wars for a ceasefire' or Israeli wars with nuclear protection. Even Israel cannot fight for very long, everything depends on first-strike effectiveness. After that there is little depth left.

History shows that in both 1965 and 1971, Indian air bases and command structure were targeted, and lots of plane penetrated Indian air defenses and delivered weapons. A surprise attack tomorrow could take out most of the IAF - Indian reaction time is measured in weeks, not seconds, as shown by the IA hijack of Dec. 1999. China border situation is all bad news. PAF with advanced-block F-16s is still very scary.

In any serious war, India will find that the first-line Su030MKIs, MiG-29s, Mirage 2000s, and now the Rafales will be targeted, and will encounter heavy attrition. Once those are gone, what is left? Large numbers of LCAs dispersed all over are the only hope to prevent total air dominance by the enemy, freely pulverizing Indians by the tens of millions. Once engines can be manufactured cheaply and in large numbers, there can be fleets of autonomous or tele-operated versions of LCA and then much larger numbers of cruise and ballistic missiles. To keep the peace with PRC, deep strike capability (with no return trip) must be credible. This means autonomous systems, since the communication structures will be destroyed quickly. Unmanned LCA, built cheap enough, can be used as a high payload-fraction, 1-way strike weapon to reach most of China ("Range" is doubled...). I am sure the same has occurred to designers of the F-17 Thundaar etc., hain?

[Cain Marko]

Ulanbatoriji, what I don't get is why current kaveri with 8 tons thrust can't be used for a twin engine LCA 2.5 / AMCA. 1.0 circa 2025? Similar to the development of the mirage 4000 with F18A/C type weght, Twr, payload capacity and Tejas like planform.

The kaveri can get another 5 odd years to come good for this project. In any case, a twin engined design could be used to compensate for a weaker engine Ala mig29 instead of repeating cycle of dependence on US engines

Just layman thought. ..

[chaanakya]

Why is it that loss pf soldiers is ok but Precious pilot is a strict no. Anyway, any loss of life is tragic and as much as possible better to avoid it.

Well Doc saheb you can make less complimentary comments which is your prerogative. Who am I to deny that.

The statement that soldiers can die but pilots must not is something you have said and are pretending that someone else implied something of the sort. Nobody said that. You are now resorting to rhetoric to support a stupid sounding idea which you have not bothered to flesh out in any way but are not willing to gracefully retract either.

I put it to you that you will not be able to flesh it out and make it look like a good plan and it sounds good only to you and only so long as you are not asked to fill in details which you have scrupulously avoided as you beat about the bush with directionless rhetorical arguments sans any detail of what you mean by a swarm of LCAs attacking the Chinese. What constitiutes a swarm? What Chinese targets would be attacked by this swarm of LCAs? Do you have any specific targets in mind that need such swarming? How would this not necessarily lead to high attrition? Why is swarming needed if it is not to overwhelm defences?

That was in response to Karan who pointed out that "Swarm" concept is associated with attrition and he pointed out we can not afford to lose our pilots.

My response was that in war assumption of casualty is there. And further stated that I meant Swarm "in the sense of overwhelming enemy sensors/weapons guidance to the extent that its decision/command system faces overload" . This overload is certainly going to help our pilots in better survivability while enemy kill is ensured. Chetak told it could be Swarm Intelligence if I am talking of electronics and sensors etc. and he followed it up with another post.

In between you mentioned about "Precious Pilots" . For me everybody else is "precious " as well. I am sure , it is same for you as well. So there is no question of pretending as you assume. It just followed the flow of discussion.


As for you putting it to me to flesh out the idea is to first become receptive rather than ridiculing it howsoever good or bad the idea may sound to your vaunted intelligence which tries to put words in my post where none exists like "using LCA to attack China". From there you go to targets . Do you mean that India would be attacking China first? I did not assume.

I assume that China would be throwing air assets at us in numbers and we have to beat that numbers either by quality or by quantity+ slightly less quality.
"LCA in numbers can give Swarming effect/ phenomena for targeting systems/radars. They have limits." This is what I wrote first.

But of course our Pilots can beat the hell out of everyone with world's best fighter planes that we should obtain if only we could and that we are sure of. Since you are fully aware of capabilities I am sure you could work out the numbers required of such planes and also that of second quality planes and enlighten me. My common sense tell me that if enemy has ten targeting sensors on air assets each targeting three enemy crafts, anything above 30 targets will surely decimate such assets even if it is less capable. So if you have idea about that you can , I don't have raw numbers to work it out.

Of course Swarming could be adopted to overwhelm defences that attacking forces throw at us.

[UlanBatori]

twin engine LCA 2.5 / AMCA

== HF-25. IMO, in brief, it is all about (a) Thrust/Weight ratio (b) Performance at extreme altitudes, temperatures and attitudes (c) engine reliability. When it comes out, it will be an aircraft with engine T/W of ~ 6? Competing against airplanes with engine T/W of 8, 9,.. 12. Trying to survive among missiles of 2025 or 2030. I think this is fine as long as it made at throw-away prices, say INR20Lakhs each in mass quantity, made for 1 mission each. Excellent one-way range. Landing gear optional since few will come back. No pilot, just an autonomous system. They could absorb the entire first and second-line SAM and AA missile inventories of the PRC or anyone else, and give away the locations, and probably do a good job of destroying half the missile sites.

[RamaY]

Batoriji...

I was reading Rafale wiki page and (mis) understood that a modern fighter program has four major parts
- Engine (and associated performance characteristics)
- Aerodynamic body (in all sonic-spectrum) and payloads
- Electronic suite (Radar, counter-measures, pilot-machine ergonomics)
- Weapons systems (A2A-A2G and so on)

If we look at LCA program from this perspective we have
- Aerodynamic body (to maximum extent): 90%
- Weapons systems (Astra and PGM?): 70%
- Engine (not performing, not tested, not integrated to LCA): 30%
- Electronics suite (all projects included): 50%

So at present LCA program is about 60% complete state.

Now the question is at what level it will attract the attention of ITAR-Ayatullahs?

[UlanBatori]

Note that back in 1990s LCA program got blessing of US collaboration. The flight control law development was being done with US collaboration, and 8 ?? GE F404 engines were provided for the first 4 LCAs, which wasn't bad for the time: I don't know if F414 was in service, and P&W best was the one on the F-22. I have heard somewhere that the LCA was chosen as an innocent program for US collaboration to develop some things. Airplane flight control laws were deemed to be in public domain.

I don't think US is too concerned about India overtaking in fighter airplane field. Stealth is a different thing: there is a terrible case where a desi engineer who developed part of Stealth is in jail essentially for life on that account.

[RamaY]

got it, thankoo...

[Karan M]

Batori saar, somethings are better left unsaid.

[ramana]

HAL/ADA should be burning mid night oil to achieve the remaining five milestones.
Gun trials & air to air re-fueling* should be independent of the other three milestones.
Although one would demand missile demonstration with current configuration.
A rule of thumb is if schedule move to right is approved, it will move even more.

* Pragnya, You said a2A refueling is delayed. Did IAF accept that?

[shiv]

As for you putting it to me to flesh out the idea is to first become receptive rather than ridiculing it howsoever good or bad the idea may sound to your vaunted intelligence which tries to put words in my post where none exists like "using LCA to attack China". From there you go to targets . Do you mean that India would be attacking China first? I did not assume.

I assume that China would be throwing air assets at us in numbers and we have to beat that numbers either by quality or by quantity+ slightly less quality.
"LCA in numbers can give Swarming effect/ phenomena for targeting systems/radars. They have limits." This is what I wrote first.

But of course our Pilots can beat the hell out of everyone with world's best fighter planes that we should obtain if only we could and that we are sure of. Since you are fully aware of capabilities I am sure you could work out the numbers required of such planes and also that of second quality planes and enlighten me. My common sense tell me that if enemy has ten targeting sensors on air assets each targeting three enemy crafts, anything above 30 targets will surely decimate such assets even if it is less capable. So if you have idea about that you can , I don't have raw numbers to work it out.

Of course Swarming could be adopted to overwhelm defences that attacking forces throw at us.

Your assumption is that you have come up with a new and brilliant idea to which I should become receptive and you are unable to flesh out the idea because I am unreceptive. Both impressions are wrong.

I have already thought about where "swarms" have been used in the past and where they might be used and cannot be receptive to the word "swarm" when you have not provided any details whatsoever. Clearly you have heard the word "swarm". Please recall that your idea was to send out swarms of LCAs. Please check Google to see under what circumstances swarm attacks have been used in the past and why every war planner is not planning what you suggest as a first step.

I don't even like your example of 30 targets and 10 radars being attacked by 30 plus targets. You have tippytoed around the details so that anything I assume can later be denied. Are you saying that 10 Chinese radars can be attacked by 35 LCA's because they can detect only 30 and will be defeated? What if 30 are shot down but the remaining 5 manage to destroy 10 radars? In a war scenario where there may be 5000 targets to hit - you are suggesting hitting 10 for the loss of 20 or 30 aircraft? You could always apply your earlier rhetoric here and say "Attrition is supposed to occur in war and why should we mourn pilots more than soldiers"

What I am saying is that you are creating scenarios that you are unable to support and either backing them up with pointless rhetoric like "Why should pilots not be lost" or by saying "I don't have the data". But you want me to be "receptive to the idea". More rhetoric. Cut it out please.

Typically an air defence scenario will be able to detect hundreds of threats and prioritise them to shoot down a smaller number of immediate threats. Yes the first days of war will mean "swarms of attacks" but those swarms will not be specially reserved for LCA. they will be conducted by the weapon platforms that are ,most suitable and against the most immediate threats

In order for this discussion to make sense, I will quote the posts that started it off for me

LCA in numbers can give Swarming effect/ phenomena for targeting systems/radars. They have limits.

Chaanakya,

Please don't write qualitative terms like "swarm effects" etc. Speak in terms of capabilities and then we will have a discussion on our hands. What is it that a Rafale can two LCA Mk2s cannot? Is it range? Is it payload? Is it combat potential? Is it price? What is it?

Have you ever seen swarm of locusts?? I have. So it is not a qualitative term but quantitative term.