LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

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: 2483
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Cybaru » 28 Oct 2015 07:17

Chin hardpoint? There is an LDP pod under the left engine inlet. http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/media/Aer ... 1.JPG.html

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4324
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby srai » 28 Oct 2015 07:23

^^^

Most of the time that chin hardpoint would be occupied by a Litening pod as that aids even in non-PGM dumb bomb accuracy.

In any case, Tornados have always carried ECCM pods (BOZ-101 chaff/flare pod and a Cerebrus ECM pod) on two of their hardpoints. Yet they still can carry multiple loads (through multi-carriage hardpoints) to do their job. So out of 7-hardpoints (plus 1 extra for LDP pod) on the LCA there should be enough configuration options to have one of those pylons carry an ECCM/Jammer pod. An additional option is the put another chin hardpoint instead of the gun for certain missions.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53475
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby ramana » 28 Oct 2015 07:36

Don't want to sound harsh but ADA and HAL have been taking people round the garden path. Podded jammer should be interim solution only. Block upgrade after refining the radar should have the internal jammer.

Reasons:

- Messes aero
- Messes weapon stations/hardpoints.
- Messes commitments.

see I put that last!

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18657
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Karan M » 28 Oct 2015 07:36

We have an aircraft smaller than a MiG-21 carrying more missiles and items than our MiG-29s and Mirage 2000s used to. Only in India lol.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18657
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Karan M » 28 Oct 2015 07:38

ramana wrote:Don't want to sound harsh but ADA and HAL have been taking people round the garden path. Podded jammer should be interim solution only. Block upgrade after refining the radar should have the internal jammer.

Reasons:

- Messes aero
- Messes weapon stations/hardpoints.
- Messes commitments.

see I put that last!


Internal jammer is non trivial and a very complex task for a space limited platform. Even MKI doesnt have it. Key issues will be EMI/ EMC, heat and ERP. If you try to centralize transmitter LRUs the losses in Tx will add up .. no easy choice....on the plus side we should be able to use the Elta pods we got for MiG and Su. 27s are retiring so will Bisons and Su30s are moving to russian pods..perhaps thats the easier fix if pods are refurbed.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4324
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby srai » 28 Oct 2015 07:44

^^^

External pod(s) could be more powerful than internal space-constrained jammer and could be used for jamming support for a flight of attacking aircraft. So retaining that option is not a bad idea even when there is an internal one down the road.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18657
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Karan M » 28 Oct 2015 08:28


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

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Viv S » 28 Oct 2015 08:40

srai wrote:^^^

Most of the time that chin hardpoint would be occupied by a Litening pod as that aids even in non-PGM dumb bomb accuracy.

In any case, Tornados have always carried ECCM pods (BOZ-101 chaff/flare pod and a Cerebrus ECM pod) on two of their hardpoints. Yet they still can carry multiple loads (through multi-carriage hardpoints) to do their job. So out of 7-hardpoints (plus 1 extra for LDP pod) on the LCA there should be enough configuration options to have one of those pylons carry an ECCM/Jammer pod. An additional option is the put another chin hardpoint instead of the gun for certain missions.


For the most part, it'll be the ECM pod rather than the LDP that's 'standard' carriage on the aircraft. Even on strike missions, its more likely that just one aircraft in the formation will do the lasing (something that's normal even for NATO ops in the Middle East).

The important thing is to ensure that any Tejas flying AD or escort is packing at least 4 MRAAMs (in addition to the fuel tanks). Which means the multi-point racks need to be dedicated to missile carriage. And we need a quad-packed SDB-analogue (or the SDB itself) integrated ASAP.

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

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Singha » 28 Oct 2015 09:01

the dual racked AAM thing should have been started ages ago (looking at worldwide trends) not in response to this crisis.
with size of A2G weapons decreasing , due to better accuracy and advances in electronics and explosives, even the 2 inner pylons could deliver 6 PGMs. leaving room for 4-6 AAM under wings and maybe more A2G under the fuselage.

Image

HAL/ADA missed the boat on this trick long ago. they should aim to deliver a adapter that can be used on Mig29, M2k and Su30 as well to increase their potency in certain missions. might be aerodynamically superior to have fewer pylons carrying more weapons and deleting some of the more outboard pylons.

vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6046
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby vina » 28 Oct 2015 09:25

All these days, when I did LCA compares, I would always budget for 5 pylons with weapons & 2 with fuel, and even then the LCA would handily outperform the Bison, MiGs etc.

This is how every tactical aircraft have been deployed, right from WWII, when P-51 Mustangs with drop tanks escorted B-17s and B-19s deep into Germany . Before that , the bombers were on their own once past the channel and got massacred by the BF/Me - 109 and FW -190s.

This is from basic physics (think of it as similar to rocket staging, lower stages are dropped when spent), that gives the fighter the agility and manoeuvrability when it is needed, and to actually be able to get to the fight. Building that fuel tank internally will make the fighter unviable (bulky in size and severely compromised)

The IAF OTOH is bent upon employing this plane as an all-up MRCA with all 7 pylons occupied & using IFR for the range.


That kind of thing is pure brouchuritis like the Typhoon photo with all pylons carrying 1000 KG - LGBs. Ridiculous. Probably with zero opposing air and if flying 250 KM from a forward base this makes sense not otherwise. Even operationally , why would someone stock stuff like LGBs and guided offensive weapons at a forward base ? Doesn't make sense. They would be basing strike fighters in the rear and probably using IFR to get them into the fight without staging at a forward base with all the attendant turn around time and logistics and chance of detection.

The plan is probably to use the Su-30 MKIs as gas tankers & that is why Cobham makes sense. They are the Su-30 buddy refuelling pod providers too

Case in point the SU-30. There is no way in hell the SU-30 pulls anything close to it's fully advertised Gs and the sweet displays it does at the airshows at 100% fuel. Sukhoi classifies one of the tanks with close to 25% capacity as an "internal" extra tank or whatever. Until that tank is empty and a further 25% fuel is used up, that plane will have the manoeuvre performance of a barn door. And trouble is, if it is bounced on the way in or interdicted with full fuel, it cannot drop that like a tactical fighter with an external tank can in a jiffy , lighten up and fight. So lets face it, SU-30 entering an area where it will encounter opposition will be carrying something like 50% to 60% fuel.

I have always maintained that the IAF sees the role for the LCA as a strike weapon with pretty sharp A2A teeth sort of like what the F-16 is used in the USAF and Israeli AF. Long range strike ,with terrific A2A capabilities when needed in those roles. The SU-30 will be like the F-15, primarily air dominance and anti air sweeps giving top cover to the strike package with its large sized radar and persistence and manoeuvrability . This is where the AESA radar will help the LCA immensely with it being able to do the A2G and A2A roles simultaneously and once the tanks and A2G weapons are dropped, can swing a fight immediately against any opposition that might be up in the air engaging.
Last edited by vina on 28 Oct 2015 09:30, edited 1 time in total.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2483
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Cybaru » 28 Oct 2015 09:25

Wasn't there some talk of weight shaving in Ajai's previous article? What happened to that?

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

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Singha » 28 Oct 2015 09:39

the nose ballast will be now used by the heavier aesa radar and its back end processors,cooling which will be more meaty.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2483
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Cybaru » 28 Oct 2015 10:01

Singha wrote:the dual racked AAM thing should have been started ages ago (looking at worldwide trends) not in response to this crisis.
with size of A2G weapons decreasing , due to better accuracy and advances in electronics and explosives, even the 2 inner pylons could deliver 6 PGMs. leaving room for 4-6 AAM under wings and maybe more A2G under the fuselage.

Image

HAL/ADA missed the boat on this trick long ago. they should aim to deliver a adapter that can be used on Mig29, M2k and Su30 as well to increase their potency in certain missions. might be aerodynamically superior to have fewer pylons carrying more weapons and deleting some of the more outboard pylons.


Yes, agreed! That way it would have the dumb brochuritis parity that babus are looking for anyways.

I think for single seaters it even makes less sense to task both A2A and A2G role in the same mission. Although a plane can be capable of both, it will be in a strike package which will consist of other elements perhaps like MKI running escorts with jammers, kh-58 and 4 long range missiles to bounce any air to air patrols or shut down any ground based SAM systems (MKI is perhaps the only plane in our inventory that could do a swing role in the same flight). This will allow the single seater pilot to focus on the mission, ensure he has the right target lined up and everyone can co-ordinate and do its deed. I can't imagine LCA's running around solo like rambo behind enemy territory fighting A2A and A2G at the same time. Sure next mission can be A2A but hardly is it gonna carry long range AAMs and A2G at the same time. Perhaps some short range self defense missiles but nothing too serious. And it will have AEW weaving it through forward battle field and watching over it like a hawk that it is meant to be. Why gold plate everything especially if you are building capability to read the battlefield better than your enemy.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2483
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Cybaru » 28 Oct 2015 10:02

Singha wrote:the nose ballast will be now used by the heavier aesa radar and its back end processors,cooling which will be more meaty.


Ah thanks.

pragnya
BRFite
Posts: 728
Joined: 20 Feb 2011 18:41

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby pragnya » 28 Oct 2015 10:02

Singha wrote:the dual racked AAM thing should have been started ages ago (looking at worldwide trends) not in response to this crisis.
with size of A2G weapons decreasing , due to better accuracy and advances in electronics and explosives, even the 2 inner pylons could deliver 6 PGMs. leaving room for 4-6 AAM under wings and maybe more A2G under the fuselage.

Image

HAL/ADA missed the boat on this trick long ago. they should aim to deliver a adapter that can be used on Mig29, M2k and Su30 as well to increase their potency in certain missions. might be aerodynamically superior to have fewer pylons carrying more weapons and deleting some of the more outboard pylons.


Singha, multi ejector pylons are coming as per the TP Suneethkrishna.

viewtopic.php?p=1583419#p1583419

vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6046
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby vina » 28 Oct 2015 10:10

Karan M wrote:We have an aircraft smaller than a MiG-21 carrying more missiles and items than our MiG-29s and Mirage 2000s used to. Only in India lol.

Internal jammer on LCA makes little sense. Even a plane as large as the SU-30MKI and the Israeli F-15s use external jammers. Internal jammers are complex, as the antennas have to be distributed all over both the front and rear of the plane to give full protection on both hemispheres. A underwing podded jammer like the Elta EL/M-8222 has antennas in the front and back of the pod to achieve it in a compact package.

This internal jammer business is clearly a case of IAF trying to get "unobtanium" here. Made little sense.

What does make sense is getting in an OBOGS (IFR with limited oxygen supply makes zero sense, will also improve turnaround time, with one less item to service /refill with either topping up the oxygen bottles /LOX. and also gives weight savings). According to This the only Russian planes with OBOGS is the PAK-FA, so it can safely be assumed that the SU-30 doesn't have it either. And you have the immediate luxury of getting rid of the oxygen plants at the bases.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4324
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby srai » 28 Oct 2015 10:19

pragnya wrote:
Singha wrote:the dual racked AAM thing should have been started ages ago (looking at worldwide trends) not in response to this crisis.
with size of A2G weapons decreasing , due to better accuracy and advances in electronics and explosives, even the 2 inner pylons could deliver 6 PGMs. leaving room for 4-6 AAM under wings and maybe more A2G under the fuselage.

Image

HAL/ADA missed the boat on this trick long ago. they should aim to deliver a adapter that can be used on Mig29, M2k and Su30 as well to increase their potency in certain missions. might be aerodynamically superior to have fewer pylons carrying more weapons and deleting some of the more outboard pylons.


Singha, multi ejector pylons are coming as per the TP Suneethkrishna.

viewtopic.php?p=1583419#p1583419


Probably be this type of arrangement:
Image

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4324
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby srai » 28 Oct 2015 10:35

Image

On the outer most pylon, LCA could carry 1 x CCM and 1 x EL/L-8222 for ground strike configuration since one CCM missile should be sufficient for an emergency self-defense. Rest of the pylons free for regular use.

For air-to-air configuration, 1 x EL/L-8222 could be carried on the chin-pylon since Litening pod won't be necessary for that role. Rest of the pylons free for regular use.
Image
Last edited by srai on 28 Oct 2015 10:47, edited 2 times in total.

nits
BRFite
Posts: 992
Joined: 01 May 2006 22:56
Location: Some where near Equator...

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby nits » 28 Oct 2015 10:37

Never heard of Integrating Bramhos with LCA; is LCA not fit for that role of its only matter of time that we go there in few years from now ?

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2483
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Cybaru » 28 Oct 2015 10:52

nits wrote:Never heard of Integrating Bramhos with LCA; is LCA not fit for that role of its only matter of time that we go there in few years from now ?


Nits,

Folks at brahmos are hard at work to solve the problem. They are hardening the missile to fit the plane on it. Brahmos will take off with the LCA on it. 50 miles south or north of the target, the plane and missile will separate allowing the LCA pilot to ensure that target was hit and return back to the base. Since the LCA won;t be using any fuel inbound, it will have extra long range. It won't also need external fuel tanks and AAR probes allowing it to have a cleaner ride back to the base. IAF senior management will be happy with the extended range this combination can exhibit.

okay being cheeky and nit pickin...Sorry.. :)

Too big a missile for too small a plane.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20155
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Philip » 28 Oct 2015 11:21

Cy brilliant idea! To mate BMos with the LCA,why not? Here's how it could be easily done.

The BMos-M,which will come in the future will be carried thus:3 for the Super-Sukhoi,2 for the MIG-29K and thus an LCA could carry one.How? It could be carried above the fuselage! No hassles about huge wingloading problems and inadequate ground clearance if fitted to the fuselage underbelly.BMos-M's dimensions should enable it to be carried atop the fuselage,with its nose just behind the cockpit,still allowing the pilot to eject in a crisis.A take-off from the over-wing AAMs carried by our Jags.Now how do you launch the huge Bmos from that position?

Zimple.The pilot does a flip-flop rotation,the missile is then underneath the aircraft and "hey press-to",press ze button,the missile is dropped and after a few seconds safely away from the LCA its motor ignites and speeds off to destroy the target! :rotfl:

PS:Loading equally zimple.An "A" shaped wheeled carrier (with the missile carried just below the apex/ridge) moves over the aircraft and when it arrives at the designated spot/line marked on the aircraft,carefully lowers the missile onto the two semi-circular saddles atop the fuselage.The circular "buckles/clasps" are then closed,the missile firmly secured and the A-frame moves on! When the aircraft is in inverted mode,the circular "buckles/clasps" open and the missile is then free to be detached/dropped.

Now remember the unique designs of the Soviet Ekranoplans? These WIGs (wing-in-ground) giant aircraft carried huge supersonic anti-carrier missiles atop the aircraft! Take a dekko here:
https://www.google.co.in/search?q=ekran ... PZbEhJk%3D

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Gyan » 28 Oct 2015 11:35

Karan M wrote:
nileshjr wrote:The HAL chief says the IAF wants the fighter to take maximum 14 minutes between landing after a mission; and taking off for the next mission, fully checked, rearmed and refuelled. Currently, the Tejas takes about 20 minutes.


"The IAF has carried out a 'maintainability evaluation' on the Tejas, and provided requests for action (RFAs) to HAL. Each RFA deals with a particular way to improve maintenance. We will be making 27 modifications in the fighter", says Raju.


Refuelling the Tejas takes just four minutes, and two more to fill drop tanks as well.


Bwahahaha - after all the complaints and huge grouses that LCA was so bad maintenance wise, now we get to know the current turn around time is 20 minutes!! :lol:

Which is where the context matters about how demanding IAF ASRs can be. For context, in peacetime Su-30 sortie rate has been upto 8 daily (http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/indian-a ... uk-1204336) & more can be pulled out at war.

For LCA, if used round the clock, assuming even 30 mins for TAT, detailed checks and what not, mission briefs and 1 hr for the flight/combat, that can translate to around 16 sorties per day. Spares burn etc will be far less than that on the Su-30 and costs likewise.

BTW, Vivek Ahuja's predictions are that the LCA Mk-1 would be a beast at high speeds and fairly credible at low speeds as well. No wonder Mao said re: ITR, STR - "they are enough, let me tell you that". http://thebetacoefficient.blogspot.in/2 ... art-i.html

About the only "compare" that people can crib about is the 8G on the Mk1. And as memory serves, the good old F/A-18 E/F is rated upto something similar as well.

In short, after all the whinging and complaining, looks like all it took for some people to see sense was a Defence Minister actually able to understand the topic and make the IAF & HAL sit together at a table.
[/quote]


To add to what you say, even in intense war the sortie rate per fighter rarely exceeds 4-6 per day and is normally around 2-3. I still say that IAF is cooking up requirements for LCA to delay it and it is re-run of Arjun Mk-1-1994 and Arjun Mk-2-2012
Last edited by Gyan on 28 Oct 2015 11:47, edited 1 time in total.

member_22539
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2022
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby member_22539 » 28 Oct 2015 11:40

^What is the sortie rate as well as TAT for Rafale?

nits
BRFite
Posts: 992
Joined: 01 May 2006 22:56
Location: Some where near Equator...

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby nits » 28 Oct 2015 12:16

Thanks Philip Sir and Cybaru for Morning dose of Humor :)

i was more referring to Mini Brahmos but seems Mini is also Big for LCA; may be this wet dream will get fulfilled in AMCA

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20155
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Philip » 28 Oct 2015 12:23

I'm serious! When we could sue our AN-12s as bombers ,dropping the bombs from the ramp,the LCA BMos is much easier!

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby shiv » 28 Oct 2015 13:30

Why is this thread taking on benis like qualities?

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

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Singha » 28 Oct 2015 14:08

which AF has enough pilots and ground engineers to get into a all out war and find the staff to sortie the plane 5 times a day?

I doubt anyone will be pulling more than 2 sorties.

all this hot refueling 10 min turnaround thing is perhaps for 2 days only in the initial stages of WW3 ?

member_20292
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2059
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby member_20292 » 28 Oct 2015 14:45

Maybe not. Weight wise it may be okay. But the question is that can the LCA take 3+ tons on a single, under body pylon?

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4366
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby JayS » 28 Oct 2015 15:16

Brahmos mini (Brahmos NG) is planned to be 1.5 ton missile. If not MK1, LCA MK2 could definitely carry it on center pylon (if its absolutely necessary requirement) with some strengthening of the structure. There will be severe restrictions on maneuverability though. Also to place it such that the additional 1.5 ton weight would not severely change the CG location (laterally as well as longitudinally) will also be a challenge (the centre pylon is at little offset to accommodate LDP pod, isn't it??). But its not the weight, but the size which is 5mtr length, 50cm diameter which will be more troublesome, aerodynamically speaking.

Its doable with MK2 at least, but "why do it" is the question. They are planning MKI, Rafale and FGFA/AMCA (mig-29??) to have capacity to carry those mini versions. That's large number of fighters right there. How many Brahmos we gonna launch anyway from fighters?? And Brahmos will be launched mainly in first phase of war where airspace is still hotly contested and large stand-off distance is needed. With one Brahmos LCA will be like a pregnant lady - too vulnerable to attack.

For NLCA, ability to launch Brahmos NG as anti-ship missile could be a good asset may be. The effective missile range could be doubled easily. But this is just a wild thought.

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3452
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby kit » 28 Oct 2015 15:42

Cybaru wrote:
nits wrote:Never heard of Integrating Bramhos with LCA; is LCA not fit for that role of its only matter of time that we go there in few years from now ?


Nits,

Folks at brahmos are hard at work to solve the problem. They are hardening the missile to fit the plane on it. Brahmos will take off with the LCA on it. 50 miles south or north of the target, the plane and missile will separate allowing the LCA pilot to ensure that target was hit and return back to the base. Since the LCA won;t be using any fuel inbound, it will have extra long range. It won't also need external fuel tanks and AAR probes allowing it to have a cleaner ride back to the base. IAF senior management will be happy with the extended range this combination can exhibit.

okay being cheeky and nit pickin...Sorry.. :)

Too big a missile for too small a plane.


:rotfl:

good you didnt say the brahmos would lift off the LCA into orbit :mrgreen:

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11195
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Gagan » 28 Oct 2015 15:57

Humble suggestion, and probably not suitable for this dhaga, but
Imagine if ADA designs a twin engined fighter based on the LCA and makes it a true blue MRCA.
I know that aircraft will also have stealth and is called the AMCA, but imagine if they did this without the stealth, just a twin engined MCA

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7699
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby rohitvats » 28 Oct 2015 15:58

Gagan wrote:Humble suggestion, and probably not suitable for this dhaga, but
Imagine if ADA designs a twin engined fighter based on the LCA and makes it a true blue MRCA.
I know that aircraft will also have stealth and is called the AMCA, but imagine if they did this without the stealth, just a twin engined MCA


That would be the next thing to happen to Indian military aviation complex after LCA.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby shiv » 28 Oct 2015 16:06

Singha wrote:which AF has enough pilots and ground engineers to get into a all out war and find the staff to sortie the plane 5 times a day?

I doubt anyone will be pulling more than 2 sorties.

all this hot refueling 10 min turnaround thing is perhaps for 2 days only in the initial stages of WW3 ?

Singha - this has happened on several occasions with the IAF with fighters and helicopters. Pilots fly multiple sorties. Peacetime preparation for war is precisely to be able to do this.

Will try and post links if possible

clicky Date 5 Dec 1971
With a total of four Hunters Jaisalmer was able to launch 17 sorties destroying about 50% of enemy armour around Longewala

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Gyan » 28 Oct 2015 17:30

Hence in one of the most intense conflict of 1971 war, each hunter flew around 4 sorties for total of 17??

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

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Surya » 28 Oct 2015 17:44

Shiv

but Singha has a point - if it is the same crews - at some point exhaustion will creep in

whether it is on the 5th day or 8th day - only IAF knows

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby shiv » 28 Oct 2015 17:51

Surya wrote:Shiv

but Singha has a point - if it is the same crews - at some point exhaustion will creep in

whether it is on the 5th day or 8th day - only IAF knows


Surya - of course exhaustion will creep in. I am not saying that is good. I am saying that is inevitable. All war records speak of exhausted and wounded people fighting. But they get exhausted by responding to desperate situations. If pilots can rotate and fly sorties every 2 hours for a day or two and demand that a plane should be able to turn around in 10 minutes - who are we to come up with excuses like "There is no need for aircraft to have a turnaround time of 10 minutes because pilots will be exhausted"

The demand for a quick turnaround time comes from the very people whom we on BRF are saying will be exhausted and we are saying that such a quick turnaround time is not needed. Where and why do we come up with such ideas that I think are absurd?

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

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Surya » 28 Oct 2015 18:00

agree I am not commenting on the quick turnaround - although I have my thoughts on whether 14 mins or 16 minutes
matters and where it fits in with all the other fighter.

Quick turnaround works well with ample reserves of crews.

Parakaram gave opportunties to test these

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

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Singha » 28 Oct 2015 18:26

not just crews but extra ready engines and consumables too. there would be no time for in-place bugfixing but pull the LRU/engine out and debug/repair offline. the IDF allegedly did that in their wars to up the sortie rates. perhaps everyone can do it in wartime.

and strike sorties these days will get longer as fwd airbases of old will be hammered with cruise missiles and SRBMs. air patrols some of them will get extended with AAR.

JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2658
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby JTull » 28 Oct 2015 19:00

I just don't see the point of LCA with a single Brahmos-M. What can LCA achieve with it's short legs that a ground/ship launched Brahmos Block-III or Nirbhaya cannot? But OTOH imagine during Kargil type situation live TV report of a flight of Su-30MKI taking to air with a load out of 3 Brahmos-M each on offensive patrols would cause brown pants all over the place.

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3888
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby deejay » 28 Oct 2015 19:16

shiv wrote:
Surya wrote:Shiv

but Singha has a point - if it is the same crews - at some point exhaustion will creep in

whether it is on the 5th day or 8th day - only IAF knows


Surya - of course exhaustion will creep in. I am not saying that is good. I am saying that is inevitable. All war records speak of exhausted and wounded people fighting. But they get exhausted by responding to desperate situations. If pilots can rotate and fly sorties every 2 hours for a day or two and demand that a plane should be able to turn around in 10 minutes - who are we to come up with excuses like "There is no need for aircraft to have a turnaround time of 10 minutes because pilots will be exhausted"

The demand for a quick turnaround time comes from the very people whom we on BRF are saying will be exhausted and we are saying that such a quick turnaround time is not needed. Where and why do we come up with such ideas that I think are absurd?


Why would anyone want quick turnaround every time throughout the day for 04-05 days at a stretch. This min time turnaround looks like the best case scenario timing which maybe required even in war, in case of exigencies only, like quick relaunch for CAP etc (I am guessing ofcourse).


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests