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.
enaiel
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 98
Joined: 28 Oct 2004 07:13

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby enaiel » 09 Feb 2016 22:05

Okay, lets assume that the IAF has 100 AWACs aircraft and can identify every Chinese plane in the sky.
How do you plan to shoot them down?

arshyam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3938
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby arshyam » 09 Feb 2016 22:11

Hitesh wrote:PLAAF is mass producing the J-10s and J-11s in numbers. They also have a greater number of AWACs than us. IAF has a depleted number of fighters due to an overly drawn process of procuring planes given the MMRCA trainwreck and the long delay in LCA program. Not to pention the PAF's numbers. So we have to split around 700+ combat planes in two theaters. Remember not all planes are meant for air interdiction such as MiG-23s and Jaguars. Only MiG-29s, M-2000s, MKIs, and MiG-21s are capable of air interdiction/intercept. Based on 200 MKIs, 53 M-2000s, 60 Mig-29s, 200 Mig-21 Bis, that leaves about 500 planes for both theaters. So 250 each.
250 planes in one theater does not mean that 250 planes are in the sky at any given time. You have to account for the down rate for the planes involved so that means 60-70% of planes are available for duties which translates into 175 planes available and since pilots can't fly 24 hours a day 7 days a week since they are, well, humans subject to the very same limitations we have so that means 8 hours per pilot and that translate into 59 planes per 8 hours. Given the long border we share with Pakistan and China and the CAP radius which is around 250 km, that means for the 1800 m/2800km border we share with Pakistan, only 8-12 planes per 200-300 stretch. Likewise with Indo-Chinese border.

First, the Mig-23s were retired a long time ago. Not related to this topic, but correcting your data.

Second, do all the disadvantages you ascribe to the IAF (pilot fatigue, servicing, etc.) not apply to the adversaries? If IAF has 175 fighters at any given point of time, how many can PAF and PLAAF muster? Data should work both ways, unless one wants beat a rhetorical point to death.

Third, any reason why you haven't taken China's limitations into account w.r.t. geography? I hope you know Tibet is at an altitude, so their bases there are not conducive to full spectrum ops unlike us, since we are at sea level. This puts them at a disadvantage since they have to fly their heavy fighters with lesser fuel + stores from Tibetean bases or from locations further away like Kashgar, Urumqi, Chengdu or Kunming (the latter two need to fly over Myanmar to shorten the flight time). So add pilot fatigue, fuel availability, tanker support, etc. as well.

This is OT, so I am stopping right here, but wanted to point out somethings that were obvious even to a layman like me.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2484
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Vivek K » 09 Feb 2016 22:21

Hitesh wrote:And guess what? Today and tommorow is not the 1965 or 1971 war anymore. The air battle/threat environment has changed. PAF now has AWACs or the AEWs whatever you call them. They now have BVR missiles. They now have refueling tankers. You are fighting yesterday's battle when we need to fight tomorrow's battle. I am willing to bet that radar range and missile range would be the deciding factor in winning an air war. Look at the Kargil War. IAF was able to discourage the PAF fighters from engaging in the war by locking on them with MiG-29s radar lock in excess of 50 miles away or 70kms away.


Hitesh - very right - this is not 1971 anymore. This is a different world. Guess what - the Soviet Union does not exist and the world has changed. A two front war is very realistic and fighting and winning with Russian hangar queens would allow the enemy to dictate terms. The LCA is a good multirole fighter - designed from the ground up to be one. We need to order as many LCAs as the Mig-21s. The new radome will come in handy however with the AESA upgrade the fighter will overcome any existing deficiency. Every weapon system is a compromise of some good and some bad. So let us not only harp on the bad points and push the good points under the cover.
Last edited by Vivek K on 09 Feb 2016 22:32, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Viv S » 09 Feb 2016 22:32

Kakarat wrote:Tejas FB : Teaser from the Bahrain International Airshow 2016 | Full Video Coming Soon


This is one of the coolest opening scenes I've ever seen in an aviation video. Who'd have thought that such video would ever feature our very own HAL Tejas!!

:two thumbs up: :D

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

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Viv S » 09 Feb 2016 22:35

Note: please watch in HD. I've downloaded it and am watching it on a loop. :mrgreen:

Also, nice helmet art. Wouldn't have expected it from our relatively staid establishment, but kudos!

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

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Viv S » 09 Feb 2016 22:43

Hitesh wrote:Remember not all planes are meant for air interdiction such as MiG-23s and Jaguars. Only MiG-29s, M-2000s, MKIs, and MiG-21s are capable of air interdiction/intercept.

You've actually got that backwards. The Jaguar and MiG-27 are designed for air interdiction, which refers to strike against tactical ground targets in depth. The MiG-21, in contrast, is the one that's best suited only for interception.

SanjibGhosh
BRFite
Posts: 150
Joined: 30 Jan 2009 18:49

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby SanjibGhosh » 09 Feb 2016 22:51

LCA Tejas at Bahrain International Air Show 2016 - Teaser

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDUI6p04RgA

sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1851
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby sudeepj » 09 Feb 2016 22:58

SanjibGhosh wrote:LCA Tejas at Bahrain International Air Show 2016 - Teaser

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDUI6p04RgA


What a great moment for us! :-)

member_28990
BRFite
Posts: 171
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby member_28990 » 09 Feb 2016 23:00

OK, I found a very interesting article, take it FWIW

http://www.angelfire.com/falcon/fighter ... ghter.html

Official Specs says Zhuk-ME on board Mig-29K & Mig-29SMT upgrade has a detection range of 120km for a 5m2 target. Using the Radar-Range-RCS equation which states that the detection range varies with the fourth root of the RCS((New RCS/Old RCS)^0.25 * Radar Range for Old RCS), it becomes possible to calculate the range of the radar for different RCS values.
For 20m2, Zhuk-ME detection range is 170km
For 15m2, Zhuk-ME detection range is 158km
For 12.5m2, Zhuk-ME detection range is 151km
For 10m2, Zhuk-ME detection range is 143km
For 8.5m2, Zhuk-ME detection range is 137km
For 3m2, Zhuk-ME detection range is 106km
For 1m2, Zhuk-ME detection range is 80km


Official Specs says N-011M BARS onboard Su-30MKI has a detection range of 140km against a clean MiG-29, whose unofficial RCS is 5m2. Further the Radar Manufacturer(NIIP) is offering a BARS radar with a higher power output or a higher power transmitter, if the export client is interested. The basic version which offers a detection range of 140km for clean MiG-29 has a peak power output of 4-5kw, and hence has an 1.2kw average power output. NIIP is offering as high as 5kw average power output, 4 times the power output of the basic version, if the export customer wishes for it. This lead to some speculations that some N-011M BARS radar variants have a high power output, and hence a higher range than the 140km given above. The precise range for this version is not known. Whether this radar is in-service with the Indian Air force is also not known. And even if it is with the IAF, how many of these high powered N-011M BARS radar equipped Su-30MKI there are is also impossible to determine. Hence under these circumstances, only confirmed news and data can be taken into account.
140km detection range for 5m2 target. Hence:
For 8.5m2, BARS detection range is 160km
For 3m2, BARS detection range is 123km
For 1.5m2, BARS detection range is 104km
For 1m2, BARS detection range is 94km


An internet blog of some individual, posted a pic claiming to be the official brochure from CETC. It claims that the KLJ-7 onboard JF-17 has a detection range of 105km for a 5m2 target. However, PAF isn't too fond of this radar eventhough it has the same range as the APG-68(V)9 on F-16block52 & RDY-2 on Mirage-2000-5/-9(both radar's range according to official specs), & more range than RC-400 radar. Even in its most powerful form(meaning the version with the largest antenna, which the JF-17 cannot house due to its relatively small nose), the RC400 has 20% less range than the RDY-2 radar. RC-400 is the radar which the PAF is planning to equip their second block of JF-17 according to current reports. The APG-68(V)9 has a bigger antenna(bigger radar-dish/bigger antenna gives more range) than the KLJ-7, plus it is manufactured by Northrop Grumman, a more mature and advanced Military-Industrial complex than CETC by a large margin. And APG-68(V)9 & APG-68(V)10 are THE best & latest mechanically scanned array type radars on F-16s(Both APG-68(V)9 & APG-68(V)10 have the same range[Reference 17]). Like the APG-68(V)9 & APG-68(V)10, KLJ-7 is also a mechanically scanned array type radar. So the claim that the KLJ-7 has the same range as APG-68(V)9 seems more unlikely. Also is the fact that the PAF preferred a far lesser ranged RC-400 over the KLJ-7 radar. All this is fueling speculation that KLJ-7's true specs is lower than publicized by the closed-to-scrutiny Chinese Defence Establishments. This speculation turned out to be true when Janes Defence Weekly published that the Radar Range of KLJ-7 is actually 75km for a 3m2 Target.[Reference/Source 8]
KLJ-7 has a 75km detection range for 3m2 Target. Hence:
For 20m2, KLJ-7 detection range is 121km
For 15m2, KLJ-7 detection range is 112km
For 12.5m2, KLJ-7 detection range is 107km
For 10m2, KLJ-7 detection range is 101km
For 8.5m2, KLJ-7 detection range is 97km
For 5m2, KLJ-7 detection range is 85km
For 1m2, KLJ-7 detection range is 57km

APG-68(V)9 has a 105km detection range for 5m2 Target. Hence:
For 20m2, APG-68(V)9 detection range is 149km
For 15m2, APG-68(V)9 detection range is 138km
For 12.5m2, APG-68(V)9 detection range is 132km
For 10m2, APG-68(V)9 detection range is 125km
For 8.5m2, APG-68(V)9 detection range is 120km
For 3m2, APG-68(V)9 detection range is 92km
For 1m2, APG-68(V)9 detection range is 70km



RCS figures are confidential. However unofficially there are some figures available on the internet. They are:
Clean(meaning payload/ammunition not loaded) F-16 after Block 30, which includes block 52 - 1.2m2
Clean Mig-29B & Mig-29SMT - 5m2
Clean Su-30MKI - 10m2 to 15m2

JF-17 without RAM, its RCS would be more than a Clean F-16 block 52 which has RAM & is planform. F-16 block25 & the previous variants, which are planform in construction but without RAM, were said to have an RCS of 3m2-5m2, when clean. JF-17's TWR isn't very high, and adding RAM would mean increasing the weight. So we can expect little or no RAM on JF-17. Also, JF-17 isn't very planform in construction but has DSI and is a smaller aircraft. So lets consider a favorable assumption that the RCS of a clean JF-17 is as low as 2.5m2.[Reference 1]

Su-30MKI's RCS when carrying full 8000kgs AG load is said to be 20m2.[Reference 2]

Lets take Su-30MKI's clean RCS as 11.5m2, higher than a standard Su-27, due to canards & the extra seat.

Mig-29K's RCS is officially confirmed to be 4-5 times less than a old Mig-29, due to composites & RAM. So taking an average value between 4 & 5 = 4.5. When the unofficial RCS of 5 is divided by 4.5 we get an RCS of 1.11. "Considerable increase of flight range is also gained due to increased capacity of drop fuel tanks and in-flight refueling capability (with the possibility to refuel from the aircraft of the same type). Due to special coatings Mig-29K radar reflecting surface is 4-5 times smaller than of basic MiG-29."[Reference 3]

It's well known that RCS increases with external payload. JF-17 cannot carry larger payloads. Its load carrying capacity is only 7900lbs or less than 3600kgs. This compared to Su-30MKIs 8000kgs, Mig-29K's 5500kgs, & F-16's 7500kgs. So only a nominal increase of 2.5m2 RCS is taken into consideration for the JF-17. Eventhough Mig-29K carries less payload than a F-16 or Su-30, a RCS increase more than F-16's is considered for calculations, in order to get a uniform RCS. This is done purely for the ease of comparison, but as a result of this the MiG-29K's RCS figure is much more than what it would be been. In the end:

Take the RCS of a Air-Air loaded Mig-29SMT as 8.5m2, 3.5m2 more.
Take the RCS of a Air-Air loaded Mig-29K as 5m2, 3.9m2 more.
Take the RCS of a Air-Air loaded F-16 Block 52 as 5m2, 3.8m2 more.
Take the RCS of a Air-Air loaded JF-17 as 5m2, 2.5m2 more.
Take the RCS of a Air-Air loaded Su-30MKI as 15m2, 3.5m2 more.


With these RCS values and the above radar ranges, you can now see which fighters will be detecting their opponent fighters first... and first tracking which almost linearly follows detection.

Mig-29K will detect:
Su-30MKI at 158km
Mig-29SMT at 137km
F-16 Block 52 at 120km
JF-17 at 120km

F-16 Block 52 will detect:
Su-30MKI at 138km
Mig-29SMT at 120km
JF-17 at 105km
Mig-29K at 105km

Su-30MKI will detect:
Mig-29SMT at 160km
F-16 Block 52 at 140km
JF-17 at 140km
Mig-29K at 140km

Mig-29SMT will detect:
Su-30MKI at 158km
F-16 Block 52 at 120km
JF-17 at 120km
Mig-29K at 120km

JF-17 will detect:
Su-30MKI at 112km
Mig-29SMT at 97km
F-16 Block52 at 85km
Mig-29K at 85km

Mig-29K comes out as the clear winner. If provided with a long range BVR weapon which could match its powerful radar, Mig-29K navalised version will come out as the BVR winner.
Su-30MKI follows the Mig-29K Naval Fulcrum.
Mig-29SMT & F-16 Block-52 are tied at third, followed by the JF-17.


Some other radar related stuff is present in the same article, worth a look

member_29190
BRFite
Posts: 103
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby member_29190 » 09 Feb 2016 23:03

Viv S wrote:
As a matter of rule, take anything that Picard blogs about (and it is a blog not a thinktank, don't buy into the website's formatting) with a huge helping of salt. He has really some kooky ideas (inspired by his idol Pierre Sprey) such as how radars are obsolete (all future combat will fought with IRSTs), and all AFs in the world are conspiring to suppress this 'truth'.

The HMS is just used to cue the missile, it doesn't actually lock onto the target. It basically facilitates a LOAL (lock-on-after-launch) shot; a modern 5th gen missile shouldn't have much trouble locking onto any target visible to the human eye, and falling within its seeker FoV.


The author may be a wacko, but I am interested in the numbers. Are the numbers or quoted incidents wrong? I am view that it is much easier to survive a BVR shot v/s WVR IIR missile.

I presume nowadays WVR missiles have both LOBL & LOAL. Would LCA be easy to spot at say 10 miles? around which LCA can shoot off a WVR missile?

A LCA with switched off radar, cued by AWACS, comes in on the radar blind side of a opponent ....and difficult to spot.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36416
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby SaiK » 09 Feb 2016 23:17

superb kakarat..

Image

can someone read what the helmet says?

ULMER, france?

member_29190
BRFite
Posts: 103
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby member_29190 » 09 Feb 2016 23:19

maxratul wrote:OK, I found a very interesting article, take it FWIW

http://www.angelfire.com/falcon/fighter ... ghter.html

Some other radar related stuff is present in the same article, worth a look


If we believe the number of 4-5 times of old Mig-29 v/s Mig-29K because of composites etc.

Whay will be the level of RCS of LCA, which is small,RAM, composite, S shaped & really really small inlet...!! 3-4 times of Mig-21?
Last edited by member_29190 on 09 Feb 2016 23:19, edited 1 time in total.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9247
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby brar_w » 09 Feb 2016 23:19

nit wrote:
Viv S wrote:
As a matter of rule, take anything that Picard blogs about (and it is a blog not a thinktank, don't buy into the website's formatting) with a huge helping of salt. He has really some kooky ideas (inspired by his idol Pierre Sprey) such as how radars are obsolete (all future combat will fought with IRSTs), and all AFs in the world are conspiring to suppress this 'truth'.

The HMS is just used to cue the missile, it doesn't actually lock onto the target. It basically facilitates a LOAL (lock-on-after-launch) shot; a modern 5th gen missile shouldn't have much trouble locking onto any target visible to the human eye, and falling within its seeker FoV.


The author may be a wacko, but I am interested in the numbers. Are the numbers or quoted incidents wrong? I am view that it is much easier to survive a BVR shot v/s WVR IIR missile.

I presume nowadays WVR missiles have both LOBL & LOAL. Would LCA be easy to spot at say 10 miles? around which LCA can shoot off a WVR missile?

A LCA with switched off radar, cued by AWACS, comes in on the radar blind side of a opponent ....and difficult to spot.


There is a CSBA study performed by well respected analysts and that has been reviewed by nearly all major defense think tanks and media houses alike. Launching at BVR or WVR involves a certain set of scenarios that essentially dictate the probability of a kill..so there are instances where a BVR weapon can be equal or more lethal than a WVR weapon and Vice Versa...Just like SAM's can be virtually impossible to dodge yet can be negated by the right equipment and tactics.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36416
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby SaiK » 09 Feb 2016 23:21

another view http://i67.tinypic.com/2961x8y.png

---

on BVR, the best config would be passive cueing from an active LPI radar from MKI. having the advantage of low detection, LCAs can fire the target from 80kms from target while MKI can cue them from say 150kms in BVR.

member_28990
BRFite
Posts: 171
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby member_28990 » 09 Feb 2016 23:24

nit wrote:
maxratul wrote:OK, I found a very interesting article, take it FWIW

http://www.angelfire.com/falcon/fighter ... ghter.html

Some other radar related stuff is present in the same article, worth a look


If we believe the number of 4-5 times of old Mig-29 v/s Mig-29K because of composites etc.

Whay will be the level of RCS of LCA, which is small,RAM, composite, S shaped & really really small inlet...!! 3-4 times of Mig-21?


from the fb page

And one more thing (from Tech focus February 2011) it says that LCA air frame has been shaped for reduction in Radar and infrared signature/hotspot reduction ( within aerodynamic limits) and canopy has ITO coating.... Is it true?

Tejas - LCA Yes


I really think we might be actually pushing the limits of how stealthy a 4.5 gen fighter can be :mrgreen:

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19839
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Karan M » 09 Feb 2016 23:33

Max, the basic concept is sound but several of those ranges are incorrect.

member_28990
BRFite
Posts: 171
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby member_28990 » 09 Feb 2016 23:51

Karan M wrote:Max, the basic concept is sound but several of those ranges are incorrect.


not surprising, I doubt we will have correct numbers for any of these parameters floating in world wide web

arshyam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3938
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby arshyam » 10 Feb 2016 00:31

SaiK wrote:can someone read what the helmet says?

ULMER, france?

Yes, that's what it says. Looks like these guys: Ulmer Aernautique (http://ulmer-aero.com/)

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36416
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby SaiK » 10 Feb 2016 00:39

O2h!

PratikDas
BRFite
Posts: 1927
Joined: 06 Feb 2009 07:46
Contact:

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby PratikDas » 10 Feb 2016 01:07

SanjibGhosh wrote:LCA Tejas at Bahrain International Air Show 2016 - Teaser

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDUI6p04RgA


Hitesh
BRFite
Posts: 793
Joined: 04 Jul 1999 11:31

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Hitesh » 10 Feb 2016 03:01

enaiel wrote:Okay, lets assume that the IAF has 100 AWACs aircraft and can identify every Chinese plane in the sky.
How do you plan to shoot them down?


Read my post again.

Hitesh
BRFite
Posts: 793
Joined: 04 Jul 1999 11:31

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Hitesh » 10 Feb 2016 03:04

Viv S wrote:
Hitesh wrote:Remember not all planes are meant for air interdiction such as MiG-23s and Jaguars. Only MiG-29s, M-2000s, MKIs, and MiG-21s are capable of air interdiction/intercept.

You've actually got that backwards. The Jaguar and MiG-27 are designed for air interdiction, which refers to strike against tactical ground targets in depth. The MiG-21, in contrast, is the one that's best suited only for interception.


sorry wrong choice of word. I meant intercept in realm of air dominance or supremacy.

Hitesh
BRFite
Posts: 793
Joined: 04 Jul 1999 11:31

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Hitesh » 10 Feb 2016 03:12

arshyam wrote:First, the Mig-23s were retired a long time ago. Not related to this topic, but correcting your data.

Second, do all the disadvantages you ascribe to the IAF (pilot fatigue, servicing, etc.) not apply to the adversaries? If IAF has 175 fighters at any given point of time, how many can PAF and PLAAF muster? Data should work both ways, unless one wants beat a rhetorical point to death.

Third, any reason why you haven't taken China's limitations into account w.r.t. geography? I hope you know Tibet is at an altitude, so their bases there are not conducive to full spectrum ops unlike us, since we are at sea level. This puts them at a disadvantage since they have to fly their heavy fighters with lesser fuel + stores from Tibetean bases or from locations further away like Kashgar, Urumqi, Chengdu or Kunming (the latter two need to fly over Myanmar to shorten the flight time). So add pilot fatigue, fuel availability, tanker support, etc. as well.

This is OT, so I am stopping right here, but wanted to point out somethings that were obvious even to a layman like me.


I am assuming worst case scenario. China has more refueling tankers and AEWs planes than IAF. Even though Tibet is of a higher altitude, Chinese Su-30 MKKs and J-10s with half of their fuel load can take off in Tibet and refuel in the air with its own tankers thus overcoming the disadvantage of being based in Tibet. Don't forget the long legs of Su-30MKks.

My fear is that while we are fighting PLAAF, PAF may see windows of opportunity and get their licks. We would be hard pressed against two enemies. If I had my way, in 2010 I would junk out the MMRCA program, Mig-23s, Mig-21s, Mig-29s, M-2000s, Jaguars, and forego all the upgrade programs and buy more Su-30s up to 350 Su-30s configured for air dominance and 175 configured for interdiction and long range ground strike capability and order 1000 LCAs that would safeguard the border at peacetime and provide support to Su30s in carrying out their missions. I would order 28 AWACs on Airbus 330 airframes and 100 refueling tankers on Airbus 330 airframes. This way, I get the economy of scales and sufficient numbers to safeguard both borders as well being able to police the borders financially affordable during peacetime.

I would improve the radar range of the LCAs and incorporate AESA radars into Su-30s and LCAs and go on upgrade path for both planes. I would junk out the PAK-FA and go full steam with the AMCA program to compete with China's stealth fighter program.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby srai » 10 Feb 2016 03:15

arshyam wrote:^^ Okay Hitesh-ji, considering that you took the time to look up and post the radar figures for the other fighters operated by our neighbours, can you do the same for the LCA as well? Let's talk based on publicly available numbers and brochure-brochure comparison. Also, as Maitya-ji said, we need the numbers for 2 sq m targets; your numbers were for 5 sq m targets.

Also, one hears about the quartz radome for the Tejas, and how it is better than the current composite one. But we don't discuss similar issues with other fighters, we assume that the brochure-published ranges of the radars are 100% applicable to the fighters that use them, and their radomes offer 100% range and visibility.

So in summary, for a full comparison, we need the following:
1. 2sq m range for Tejas and its potential adversaries
2. 5sq m range for Tejas and its potential adversaries
3. Radome used by Tejas and its potential adversaries, with the ranges thereof.

This should put the discussion on a solid data based footing, rather than the 3-legged cheetah rhetoric. It's interesting that the votaries of the 3-legged cheetah statement assume that time has stood still w.r.t. the Tejas since then, so it continues to be one.

P.S. I am no expert, so gurus, please correct if anything I said is wrong/doesn't make sense. Happy to learn.


Good post arshyam! The whole line of argument for radar ranges by Hitesh has been based on incomplete data. It's not accurate to compare radar ranges of 2sq m tracking distances of LCA vs 5sq m tracking distances of others. Radome factor is another data piece that is missing for adversaries.

Hitesh
BRFite
Posts: 793
Joined: 04 Jul 1999 11:31

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Hitesh » 10 Feb 2016 03:17

maxratul wrote:OK, I found a very interesting article, take it FWIW

http://www.angelfire.com/falcon/fighter ... ghter.html



Maxratul,

that is what I am looking for! Thanks a lot! Appreciate the effort in digging this article up.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby srai » 10 Feb 2016 03:32

Viv S wrote:
Hitesh wrote:It is common sense and very basic knowledge to be the person who can dictate the terms of the battle. That is why I asked about the LCA's range and in comparison to the Mig-21s and other contemporary fighters that IAF may be facing against. If it is better than Mig-21s, then I am all for it. But if it is less than the MiG-21 BIS, I would tell the DRDO that the range needs to be improved. That doesn't mean that I am against the LCA. I am all for the LCA. I want the LCAs to be produced in hundreds like 400-600 because it will establish a firm MIC based for India and allow India develop even more advanced planes without having to rely on other countries' tech and be at the mercy of them. But at the same time, I want the radar range to be improved. I want the range to be in excess of 100 kms.


Even if the range were just 'better than the Bison', it wouldn't have been good enough for a fourth gen fighter. Fortunately, the ranges quoted by HAL/DRDO are for a standard 2 sq.m target. And 80 km range for that equates to a range of just over 100 km for a 5 sq.m target. Which again is just about decent, not great. But for the first batch of 20 aircraft, it'll suffice. They can be retrofitted with the EL/M-2052 at a later stage.


Other thing to point out is Cope India 2004 where the MiG-21 Bisons with Elta-8222 jammers were able to get close enough to lodge kills against the "much superior" F-15S with AESA radar.

Cope India: when India’s Russian jets achieved a surprising 9:1 kill ratio against U.S. F-15s
...
The Flanker wasn’t the only aircraft that the Eagle’s drivers faced in mock air-to-air combat: “The two most formidable IAF aircraft proved to be the MiG-21 Bison, an upgraded version of the Russian-made baseline MiG-21, and the Su-30MK Flanker, also made in Russia,” Snodgrass explained to AW&ST.

Low radar visibility, instantaneous turn rate, acceleration and the helmet mounted sight combined with high-off-boresight R-73 air-to-air missiles were among the factors that made the upgraded MiG-21 a deadly adversary for the U.S. F-15s.
...

RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5180
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby RoyG » 10 Feb 2016 04:49

Pilots are going to love the cockpit layout of the 1A. The bison layout looks insanely cramped.

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-p ... 805258.jpg

https://s3.amazonaws.com/images.mentor. ... model5.png

What are the pair of small screens on both ends for?

The MKII is going to be even better. Probably one of the best despite not having just 1 screen like the Gripen NG and F-35. 2 touch screen displays and 1 central.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B9lNTY3IIAMGc7h.jpg

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

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby shiv » 10 Feb 2016 05:54

Unless one bases one's entire view of air warfare on American narratives of how they defeated Iraq and Afghanistan air forces, there will always be situations in which any nation will be faced with better radar and the possibility of shootdown by the other side. There are only two ways of dealing with this. One is to withdraw from the air war or to try and change the disadvantage to an advantage by taking out the other person's defences. The assumption that radar will cover and detect 100% of all aircraft and that BVR missiles will take down 100% of aircraft seen is the big strawman that has been raised right at the beginning.

If any system can detect 100% of intruders and shoot down 100% at BV ranges then all aircraft on the other side are three legged cheetahs, not just LCA.

Merely having 28-32 AWACS and 100 tankers will not make the adversary go blind and helpless as was suggested in the original strawman post that started this discussion. This is not an argument against having 28-32 AWACS and 100 tankers. but I am always amused at such numbers because they are clearly an illustration of internalization of American information and and example of how America fights air wars against weak adversaries thousands of km from American shores. What we see today (terrorism and asymmetric warfare) is a result of this overwhelming military superiority - where an enemy with no air force still manages to fight and keep its head up despite military disadvantages.

Land based radars, simultaneous feints of high flying and terrain hugging aircraft against enemy airfields, masking as done in Cope India, the use of spl forces and Brahmos/Prithvi against radar sites have not even come up because the entire discussion is to prove that enemy radar superiority combined with a three legged LCA means we will lose unless we have 28-32 AWACS and 100 tankers. I would accept that argument and leave it as one person's opinion - after I stop laughing. But then discussion such as this one is so informative both in terms of facts and generally believed myths.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36416
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby SaiK » 10 Feb 2016 06:11

The Mk2 specs should make IAF buy at the minimum of 400.

BTW, I can see 4 wheels on LCA as cheetah.. so it has already 4 legs.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_iGO4cv1GqO0/S ... ejas-7.jpg

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby srai » 10 Feb 2016 06:20

:mrgreen:

Sid
BRFite
Posts: 1653
Joined: 19 Mar 2006 13:26

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Sid » 10 Feb 2016 07:21

A trip down memory lane, LCA's first baby step.



And contrast it with where we are today. Unbelievable.


Hitesh
BRFite
Posts: 793
Joined: 04 Jul 1999 11:31

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Hitesh » 10 Feb 2016 08:43

shiv wrote:Unless one bases one's entire view of air warfare on American narratives of how they defeated Iraq and Afghanistan air forces, there will always be situations in which any nation will be faced with better radar and the possibility of shootdown by the other side. There are only two ways of dealing with this. One is to withdraw from the air war or to try and change the disadvantage to an advantage by taking out the other person's defences. The assumption that radar will cover and detect 100% of all aircraft and that BVR missiles will take down 100% of aircraft seen is the big strawman that has been raised right at the beginning.

If any system can detect 100% of intruders and shoot down 100% at BV ranges then all aircraft on the other side are three legged cheetahs, not just LCA.

Merely having 28-32 AWACS and 100 tankers will not make the adversary go blind and helpless as was suggested in the original strawman post that started this discussion. This is not an argument against having 28-32 AWACS and 100 tankers. but I am always amused at such numbers because they are clearly an illustration of internalization of American information and and example of how America fights air wars against weak adversaries thousands of km from American shores. What we see today (terrorism and asymmetric warfare) is a result of this overwhelming military superiority - where an enemy with no air force still manages to fight and keep its head up despite military disadvantages.

Land based radars, simultaneous feints of high flying and terrain hugging aircraft against enemy airfields, masking as done in Cope India, the use of spl forces and Brahmos/Prithvi against radar sites have not even come up because the entire discussion is to prove that enemy radar superiority combined with a three legged LCA means we will lose unless we have 28-32 AWACS and 100 tankers. I would accept that argument and leave it as one person's opinion - after I stop laughing. But then discussion such as this one is so informative both in terms of facts and generally believed myths.


Rubbish all you want but there is a reason for the numbers. 28 AWACs are needed because that's the number required to maintain an all around all weather day/night radar coverage of the entire border length that India share with her enemies. Not to mention the fact those are needed to project power deep into enemy territory and have some reserves and account for downtime rates. The 100 tankers are needed because one tanker is needed for every 20 planes and and you have to account for downtime rates. Sure ground radar can help but won't cover the gaps. Brahmos are one time weapons. Once fired cannot be used again. So you need more staying power. AWACS and tankers offer that staying power.

Why do you have to rubbish this attainable goal? You remind me of the crab in the story who would hold the other crab back for fear of thinking too much out of the box. If IAF wanted to spend twenty billion dollars for Rafale I would tell them no spend the money on AWACS and tankers and on LCAs and boost MKIs and achieve economy of scale and ownership of the planes inside and out from end to end.

As for the three legged cheetah you have completely blown this out of proportion. I said and indicated that I could see and understand the ACM's comment of a three leg cheetah in a general sense when he feels he is being given a weapon that can only do 3/4 of the job and not quite there. I don't agree with him that he should look somewhere else. He should stick with the LCA and make it work but at the same time demand more improvements. The radome improvement to 80 km doesn't inspire me with a lot of confidence but I will take it what I can get and continue to demand more because that's how you build a MIC base

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19839
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Karan M » 10 Feb 2016 08:53

Dude.. radome improvement to 80km doesn't "inspire you"?
80 km for a 2 sqmt target., comes to 100km for the 5 sq mtr.

Even 80km even a 5 sqmtr one with a lower RCS translates to what current tech can get a light fighter in the class.

The JF-17s KLJ-7 can manage 75km+ for a 5 sq mtr target, but is an all metal platform, larger & will have a bigger RCS.

The MiG-29 which is a medium class fighter, the F-16 likewise get 100-120km ranges for 5 sqmtr targets with conventional MSA.

LCA is to get datalinks (IAF ODL) & with Derby ER/Astra variants may end up with longer reach as well.

AESA on Mk1A will improve performance, more than range etc, its ECCM and speed of TWS will be a critical factor.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby srai » 10 Feb 2016 09:17

Enough with the "3-legged cheetah" analogy. It was said by the ACM back when IOC-1 ceremony was held back in 2011. Much has come to pass since then.

Who in their right mind would call the current LCA IOC-2/FOC a "3-legged cheetah"?
  • CCM - R-73 w/ HMS and Radar (more than 10 firings)
  • BVR - Derby (trials undergoing)
  • PGM - Griffin-3 and Paveway-2 LGB with Litening Pod
  • Bombs - 1000lb GP, 450kg HSLD, 250kg HSLD, and Practice bombs
  • External tanks - 1200ltr, 800ltr and 725ltr tanks
  • ECCM suite - RWR, Chaff/IR decoys
  • Multi-role capability and turn-around proven in Iron Fist
  • Flight envelop and certification -> 8G, 26 degree AoA, M1.6, High altitudes, Hot and Cold temperatures, All-weather

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19839
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Karan M » 10 Feb 2016 09:34

I think even Mk1 will have Python-5

member_28990
BRFite
Posts: 171
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby member_28990 » 10 Feb 2016 10:33

Sid wrote:A trip down memory lane, LCA's first baby step.





this is such an amazing video.

nits
BRFite
Posts: 1012
Joined: 01 May 2006 22:56
Location: Some where near Equator...

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby nits » 10 Feb 2016 13:18

Srilanka tipped to be first Export Customer for LCA-Tejas?

ccording to Sources close to ” India today ” a 24-hour English language television network, Srilanka plans to procure India’s indigenously developed Light Combat Aircraft (LCA)-Tejas after India recently forced Srilanka to pull out of a similar deal to procure JF-17 fighter jet developed by China and Pakistan.

The report also mentions that Srilanka and Pakistan had almost finalised the deal and signing of the contract could have happened during a three-day visit to Sri Lanka last month by Pakistan’s Prime minister Nawaz Sharif but the deal collapsed reportedly due to Indian Governments pressure.

Idrw.org in past had reported that Srilanka plans to retire Israeli-made Kfir fighter jets and both Srilankan and Indian top officials have confirmed to ” India today ” that in next few months formal discussions will take place between both government on the possible sale of LCA-Tejas fighter jets to Srilanka.

HAL Chief T Suvarna Raju while attending Bahrain Airshow earlier this year had confirmed to Indian media reporters that India’s Indigenously developed LCA-Tejas fighter jet which had made its first International debut had received lot of inquiries regarding the fighter jet and HAL along with DRDO will hold official briefing with many interested parties on possible export of LCA-Tejas in coming few months.

LCA-Tejas recently started BVRAAM testing and successfully test fired Israeli supplied Derby Beyond Visual Air-to-Air missile for the first time and more such trials are been scheduled for next couple of days. LCA-Tejas while performing at Bahrain Airshow demonstrated expansions of its flight envelope and pulled more than 8Gs bringing it closer to FOC certification.

Indian Air force recently has placed orders for 106 Upgraded Tejas MK-1A which will be equipped with modern AESA fire control radar along with IFR probe and have better Service maintainability. According to well-informed sources close to idrw.org Indian Air force will receive 6 Tejas MK-1 aircraft for FY2016-2017 and 8 aircraft for FY2017-2018 before new and improved Tejas MK-1A is ready to enter production.

Kailash
BRFite
Posts: 1062
Joined: 07 Dec 2008 02:32

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Kailash » 10 Feb 2016 13:25

These leaks about exports are pretty boring. Every few days there is some "news" on the bandars or lca exports. Let IAF have them before we attempt to sell to others.

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

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby shiv » 10 Feb 2016 14:23

Hitesh wrote:Rubbish all you want but there is a reason for the numbers. 28 AWACs are needed because that's the number required to maintain an all around all weather day/night radar coverage of the entire border length that India share with her enemies. Not to mention the fact those are needed to project power deep into enemy territory and have some reserves and account for downtime rates. The 100 tankers are needed because one tanker is needed for every 20 planes and and you have to account for downtime rates. Sure ground radar can help but won't cover the gaps. Brahmos are one time weapons. Once fired cannot be used again. So you need more staying power. AWACS and tankers offer that staying power.
I asked you a question about the infrastructure for these numbers which you have not bothered to answer. You said we can "pony up the dough" for these planes. Now let me hear some numbers regarding air bases and maintenance and we can then talk about how to pony up the dough for 28 to 32 AWACS and 100 tankers to be kept flying 24x7

Hitesh wrote:Why do you have to rubbish this attainable goal? You remind me of the crab in the story who would hold the other crab back for fear of thinking too much out of the box. If IAF wanted to spend twenty billion dollars for Rafale I would tell them no spend the money on AWACS and tankers and on LCAs and boost MKIs and achieve economy of scale and ownership of the planes inside and out from end to end.
What you think about me is a completely useless argument that does nothing to make your view more convincing. It is only an indicator that you have no better information to support your view than what you think of me. That is laughable and only proves my point that your ability to type words exceeds your supply of useful information
Hitesh wrote:As for the three legged cheetah you have completely blown this out of proportion.
:rotfl: Tell me another one. You did say it. First you say something and then you howl that you are being misunderstood. You mean you said something that you are unable to support in the face of opposition and are now doing a downhill ski? Admit that you are unable to support your "understanding" of the LCA being described as a three legged cheetah. Or else gracefully admit that it was a mistake.

SidSom
BRFite
Posts: 119
Joined: 01 May 2011 07:49

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby SidSom » 10 Feb 2016 14:39

We oft forget that the LCA is supposed to replace the MiG-21. Does it do a better job than the Bison currently?. May be that is not enough for the future, but with us owning the entire plane upto to its nuts and bolts; it means that everything on the plane is updateable. If someone refers to the Tejas as a 3 legged cheetah now... or to say the IAF is not happy with it, would amount to saying that IAF rather stick to MiG 21 as it is not a professional force (it is beyond doubt that Tejas is vastly ahead of 21).

Currently, I doubt we are going to make serious headway in getting range details of the LCA, even from chaiwallas. Once LCA enters squad service, extensive testing would be done to evaluate its radar signature and detection abilities across a range of mission profiles and adversaries. Only then would even IAF know the number forget about HAL info. HAL info would be a copy paste of brochure data or would be the worst case scenerio (based on the ASR/ test point). We can infer nothing from these numbers. The only thing we can assume with some salt is that, ELTA 2032/52 is one of the best radars out there and therefore the results on the Tejas can be tweaked to its maximum (which is good enough).

So although speculation is great (and sometimes is all we can do at BRF), the real truth may take some time to be discovered.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests