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.
Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9632
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Yagnasri » 10 Feb 2016 15:00

We are going to have LCA in large numbers over a period of time. That is now a given unless UPA comes back to power in 2019. If that happens not having LCA is the least of the damages that will be done to the nation. What we need to look forward is how LCA IA will come up and what will happen to LCA Mk2.

I have great confidence on LCA Mk2 also becoming a success because Navy is also now involved into this and they have a great track record of supporting national efforts.

maitya
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 474
Joined: 02 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby maitya » 10 Feb 2016 16:29

Karan M wrote: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.

Yes, but a few points that I think we need to make from time to time so that people are kept "in-line" wrt getting unduly influenced by shiny brochure claims of various OEMs.

Some of them are as follows:

1) Max Radar range is a 4-th-root eqn with
a) direct proportionality to Transmitted Power, Radar cross-section, Antenna Gain (squared) and Wavelength (squared)
b) inverse proportionality to "smallest" received power (let's call it "Radar sensitivity", for want of any other better term) and Loss Factor (internal attenuation factors of the radar set itself on the transmitting and receiving paths, fluctuation losses during the reflection etc)


2) So if one is going to compare Rmax between two radar sets, they will need to factor in Antenna Gain, Radar sensitivity and Loss Factors of these individual sets.
Good luck, one who tries to do so, as no self-respecting OEM would publish such "dirty secrets" about their products that they want to sell.
Especially so, as the Antenna Gain, the "Radar Sensitivity", Loss due to internal attenuation figures are a direct reflection of their mastery over microwave design and manufacturing competency of the antenna, the back-end signal processors etc etc. User agencies would have a fair idea about these figures, from actually using them against various scenarios, but that information would remain classified under a OEM-user contract anyway.


3) For trying to extrapolate various Rmax figures against various Radar cross-sections is still possible though, as these factor-figures are not going to change for the same set.


4) But there are a few rules of thumb that one needs to understand while talking about airborne offensive radars:
a) For PD sets, the detection range figures are of lesser utility value compared to the tracking range values - and in the older PD sets it was typically 70-75% (somewhere even lesser) of the detection range. In the newer sets this has gone up to 80-85% of the detection range.

Tracking range is more or less dependent upon the capability and maturity of the backend signal processors employed. Without getting into details of monopulse, range-and-angle-gating implementation aspect etc, for A-A modes the tracking range obtained in TWS (healthy number of targets like 8-10-12-16 etc) is what defines how good-or-bad a PD set is.
(and even earlier days, it's look-down modes which truly defined an airborne radar capability etc).

For game-changing aspect of an AESA, where tracking and detection ranges are virtually same, this is not a differentiator anymore.


b) The holy-grail has shifted to the A-G modes ... i.e. Ground mapping (SAR, DBS), GMTI, even ISAR etc.
These multi-PRF based capabilities are more or less directly proportional to the Radar "soft side technological" capability - i.e. the signal processors and Radar Controllers and the software that implements these features on them. The h/w side, once it has provided, the basic PD aspects of the radar, doesn't really influence these.
Any respectful multi-role platform would need these basic A/G modes implemented in them - trouble is everybody would claim fantastic values for these, but in actual usage comes cropper. For e.g what was the actual ground-mapping range achieved in SAR mode in a Kopyo-I on the Bisons was quite unlike what it's shiny brochure claimed about it.


c) The other aspect is the programmable ECCM features that are incorporated into these sets. Stuff like digital Pulse-compression (thus better range resolution etc), sidelobe mgmt, frequency hopping and spread spectrum techniques etc defines the effectiveness of a radar set.


etc etc ... I think enough of theorizing, I should stop here. But the fact remains, the effectiveness of a modern combat radar is much more than plain-vanilla Rmax value comparo style d!$k measuring - and it's frankly a futile exercise in trying to do so.

Oh betw (to everybody), in my previous post, I'd asked exactly how much of multiplicative factor of the BVR AAM range that the platform is going to carry should ideally be the Radar detection range? Any speculation wrt it pls.

putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4438
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby putnanja » 10 Feb 2016 19:12

Beautiful pictures of LCA in 2016 ADA calendar at ADA Gallery. Click on link for high-res pics, posting some smaller pics below

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

arshyam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3474
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby arshyam » 10 Feb 2016 19:35

Hitesh wrote: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
You are right, but have you considered where these tankers will come from? What will be their endurance? Sure, they can carry relief crews and extend loiter time, but what about their hardware endurance? Also, each of these tankers are going to present nice fat targets to our AWACS, something we can try to take out using BVR missiles. So that needs a 4-5 fighters protecting each tanker, not to mention their AWACS units. Those are fighters not doing the fighting. If their tankers need to be out of our missile range, they need to be kept far to the north, which means the fighters will have to travel longer to refuel, etc. That will also reduce their effectiveness. Lastly, they cannot move all their fighters to Tibet and face us. They have been smart enough to piss off most of their other neighbours as well, so while the latter won't go to war on behalf of us, they can be convinced to take up some aggressive patrols to keep the Chinese fighters in those areas occupied. For example, Vietnam. So the Chinese have to keep enough fighters to deal with their eastern seaboard posture, and also their south. Given our investments in the Vietnam's security, I am sure we can ask the Vietnamese to just run some extra airborne patrols during such times to keep the Chinese fighters in that area occupied and not move them to the Tibetean theatre. Maybe even Japan.

Bottomline is, and I am way off topic here, China can throw in as many fighters and tankers as they want, but we still have options to deal with it. That does not mean we sit about doing nothing, but continue to invest in modernizing our fleet. To that extent, I agree on upgrading and keeping the Su-30 and Tejas as the sharp end of the sword.

Lastly, I would recommend reading Vivek Ahuja's (where's he these days?) book Chimera, that games this precise scenario.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4400
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby srai » 10 Feb 2016 21:07

putnanja wrote:Beautiful pictures of LCA in 2016 ADA calendar at ADA Gallery. Click on link for high-res pics, posting some smaller pics below
...

Image

...


Anyone know the advantages of that intake/wing hole design? I can't recall seeing that layout in other fighters.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4400
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby srai » 10 Feb 2016 21:36

LCA Terminator
Image


Best looking LCA
Image

Picklu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2073
Joined: 25 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Picklu » 10 Feb 2016 22:11

@srai, early hornets had those holes iirc

Image

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53910
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby ramana » 10 Feb 2016 22:20

maitya, Also how many case in a2a combat have head on encounters where the min radar cross section is important? Mostly the incoming aircraft will be seen sideways and first detection would be by ground radar which would direct the LCAs.

Bob V
BRFite
Posts: 388
Joined: 26 Jul 2009 04:29
Location: Out at the sea
Contact:

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Bob V » 10 Feb 2016 22:29

srai wrote:LCA Terminator
Image


Wow! Looking great from this angle. For a moment,I thought it looked similar to the erstwhile MAKO jet.

Picklu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2073
Joined: 25 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Picklu » 10 Feb 2016 22:35

^^ thunder thigh :)

nirav
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2020
Joined: 31 Aug 2004 00:22
Location: Mumbai

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby nirav » 11 Feb 2016 00:00

The Under carriage looks hard kaur.

JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2685
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby JTull » 11 Feb 2016 01:29

Looks like NLCA. Under carriage is lot heftier and the aircraft seems to sit a bit higher than other pictures.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36400
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby SaiK » 11 Feb 2016 02:26

Picklu wrote:^^ thunder thigh :)
nirav wrote:The Under carriage looks hard kaur.
H Mot(ta)wani. not my fault to go OT here.

I remember it was one of the breapers who named "Rambha" for MKI beak!

===

ddms have started relaying & relying on idrw.

http://www.ibtimes.co.in/sri-lanka-may- ... ort-666465

and mk2 is 5th gen! :D

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

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby shiv » 11 Feb 2016 03:50

srai wrote:
http://gallery.tejas.gov.in/Gallery/Cal ... 2016-M.jpg


Anyone know the advantages of that intake/wing hole design? I can't recall seeing that layout in other fighters.


I think those holes allow laminar airflow that is close to the fuselage to be vented above the wings without causing the flow to be disrupted.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7889
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Indranil » 11 Feb 2016 06:00

The airflow near the boundary of a plane is turbulent. This air is not ideal for ingestion into the air intake and should be "spilled". All planes do this. LCA spills the air above its wings and below its fuselage. Spilling it above the wing has an advantage. This air is turbulent, aka at lower pressure. Therefore, it has a suction effect on the airflow over the wing, specially at higher AoA.

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

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Singha » 11 Feb 2016 06:41

for a normal RCS jet is there a benefit to a DSI intake like JF17 has?
for JSF I agree the sharp splitter plates would add to RCS.

Karthik S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5376
Joined: 18 Sep 2009 12:12

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Karthik S » 11 Feb 2016 07:15

nirav wrote:The Under carriage looks hard kaur.


:lol:

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53910
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby ramana » 11 Feb 2016 11:25

Deejay
The first 40 LCA can the use a gun pod in a pylon if needed for strike role?

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2886
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby tsarkar » 11 Feb 2016 15:08

If it gives solace to people, IAF just called PAKFA/FGFA third generation :D

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/new ... 932340.cms
Objections that had been raised by the air force - with one senior officer even terming the fighter as a 'third generation' combat aircraft - are likely to be addressed with a collaborative development approach

To be fair, PAKFA engine and radar that will make it 5th Gen is nowhere in the picture.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36400
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby SaiK » 11 Feb 2016 16:43

indranilroy wrote:The airflow near the boundary of a plane is turbulent. This air is not ideal for ingestion into the air intake and should be "spilled". All planes do this. LCA spills the air above its wings and below its fuselage. Spilling it above the wing has an advantage. This air is turbulent, aka at lower pressure. Therefore, it has a suction effect on the airflow over the wing, specially at higher AoA.


I thought it is bleedingdiverting the laminar flow. can't they take vent this air to aft section?

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4460
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby JayS » 11 Feb 2016 17:11

SaiK wrote:I thought it is bleeding the laminar flow. can't they take vent this air to aft section?


They spill the boundary layer part of the incoming flow along the fuselage. The BL flow whether laminar or turbulent is low energy flow and thus will reduce ram recovery of the air intake and also slow moving flow is very prone to separation since its less energetic. Both this factor mean that if the air intakes are made to ingest this BL flow, they will get less than optimum mass flow going inside the engine.

Its difficult to say whether on LCA the BL at the air intake is laminar or turbulent at any given instance since it depends on quite a lot of know and unknown parameters. Assuming it to be turbulent is 'more safe' bet.

The spilling of this air is basically loss and is adding to the drag of the aircraft. So you got to choose a way to minimize it. Getting rid of it quickly is good. If you can use it in innovative way, well and good, but at least you have to make sure it does not affect airflow around the a/c in negative manner. If you vent it till aft end you will only increase losses and wouldn't gain anything is return.

Since there is no conclusive evidence or factual statement about the spillways in case of LCA, this is my best guess based on general aerodynamics - The designers thought of using the spilling air as energiser to the flow on the top of the wing. It works like active flow control mechanism - "blowing" to be more precise (Blown flaps is another example where this principle has been used). So this spilled air helps keeping airflow to be attached on the top side of the wing on the inboard part. Attached flow means better lift, separation means loss of lift.

indranilroy wrote:The airflow near the boundary of a plane is turbulent. This air is not ideal for ingestion into the air intake and should be "spilled". All planes do this. LCA spills the air above its wings and below its fuselage. Spilling it above the wing has an advantage. This air is turbulent, aka at lower pressure. Therefore, it has a suction effect on the airflow over the wing, specially at higher AoA.


Not correct but I guess you are simplifying in layman terms so I'll leave it be. :)

tsarkar wrote:If it gives solace to people, IAF just called PAKFA/FGFA third generation :D


:lol: :lol:

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36400
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby SaiK » 11 Feb 2016 18:32

also note, from the pic in 'srai's posted url' shows the bleed happens bottom as well. so, there is an equilibrium in the air flow [what gains?]

http://aviationweek.com/site-files/avia ... tpromo.jpg

have they chosen the same approach for AMCA model as well? perhaps not as i can't see the bottom here.

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3893
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby deejay » 11 Feb 2016 18:38

ramana wrote:Deejay
The first 40 LCA can the use a gun pod in a pylon if needed for strike role?


Yes, in theory. I am not sure if we have such fighter compatible pods. Helicopter gun pods may not be good for high speed fighters. It will also be bulky with the gun and ammo stored in it.

I searched for some images of external gun pods

Image
Image

All the images I saw, showed under the belly fixtures and not under the wings.

One of the most comprehensive efforts to use a gun pod was by USAF in their efforts to replace the A10 by modifying an F16 and making it an F/A16. These were tried in the First Gulf War with less than satisfying results.

Here is a link on these attempts with more images.
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-f-16-gun-pod-that-tried-to-shoot-down-the-a-10-wart-1597577525

...
The results were less than desirable. In fact, they were horrible. Within the first 48 hours of continuous combat operations the GEPOD30s were proven to be totally unable to satisfy their intended mission. Precision fire was almost impossible with the setup as the F-16s software had not been adequately modified for aiming, and the vibration was so bad when the gun was fired that software tweaks probably would have made little difference anyway and it wreaked havoc on the F-16's sensitive electronics and mechanical components.

The reality is that the system was so ill-suited to the aircraft that just firing the gun multiple times would tweak the pylon it is attached to and thus it would become skewed far off zero. Not to mention that in comparison to the low and slower flying A-10, in actual combat the F-16's high speed made it hard to get a proper sight picture to aim during long strafing runs. Apparently maintainers and pilots had warned that the gun was ill-suited for the light fighter long before the deployment, but their mission was to try and make it work.
...


Alert, this mod was for a heavier 30mm canon like A10. Not for 23mm.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7889
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Indranil » 11 Feb 2016 19:09

nileshjr wrote:
indranilroy wrote:The airflow near the boundary of a plane is turbulent. This air is not ideal for ingestion into the air intake and should be "spilled". All planes do this. LCA spills the air above its wings and below its fuselage. Spilling it above the wing has an advantage. This air is turbulent, aka at lower pressure. Therefore, it has a suction effect on the airflow over the wing, specially at higher AoA.


Not correct but I guess you are simplifying in layman terms so I'll leave it be. :)

Yes, did not want to get into energizing of flows because I don't know the nature of the interactions between the two flows. However, I thought it was a passive mechanism. Why do you feel it is an active control mechanism?

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11202
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Gagan » 12 Feb 2016 01:14

Do also note in the picture of Thunder thighs and Hard Kaur,
there is a single front wheel.

Naval - 3 legged cheetah onlee :)

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36400
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby SaiK » 12 Feb 2016 03:42

when the former chief said "3 legged cheetah", the contention was not on the legs, but it was all about the animal name he mentioned. he knows it has only 3 legs, and perhaps he believed the sparrow will never fly.

he would definitely call it a 3 legged japanese black-bird [mythical bird]. all we need is a black paint to make it feel like Junior JR-71. [after decisive paki victory].. but then, why paint a black story for a transparent program which is highly stealthy, clear and present danger for any country thinking ahead how to face this bird.

this bird will cause yantze river to dry up.. and the chinese will run screaming Jinwu/yangwu attack. Japanese will hail yatagarasu! The koreans will samjako.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4460
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby JayS » 12 Feb 2016 09:35

indranilroy wrote:Yes, did not want to get into energizing of flows because I don't know the nature of the interactions between the two flows. However, I thought it was a passive mechanism. Why do you feel it is an active control mechanism?


The inboard flow is not vortex dominated. It should be attached like normal wing. If you recall the LEVCON paper results, the LEVCON also 'kind of' helps in keeping flow in this part attached and delay its separation. In fact if you spill air like that inside vortex denominated region you might end up causing vortex burst.

And yes its passive method since there is no active element in it. But it "works like" blowing which is an active method. Normal slotted flaps or slats are passive flow control, but you can also have un-slotted flaps with a blowing system inside the wing to blow air along the upper surface. Working principle is same, how you achieve it is where the difference lies. Generally speaking active flow control systems so far have not been able to give enough advantages in real life to justify the added complexities they bring on board. But future will be different.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7889
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Indranil » 12 Feb 2016 13:08

nileshjr wrote:
indranilroy wrote:Yes, did not want to get into energizing of flows because I don't know the nature of the interactions between the two flows. However, I thought it was a passive mechanism. Why do you feel it is an active control mechanism?


The inboard flow is not vortex dominated. It should be attached like normal wing. If you recall the LEVCON paper results, the LEVCON also 'kind of' helps in keeping flow in this part attached and delay its separation. In fact if you spill air like that inside vortex denominated region you might end up causing vortex burst.

And yes its passive method since there is no active element in it. But it "works like" blowing which is an active method. Normal slotted flaps or slats are passive flow control, but you can also have un-slotted flaps with a blowing system inside the wing to blow air along the upper surface. Working principle is same, how you achieve it is where the difference lies. Generally speaking active flow control systems so far have not been able to give enough advantages in real life to justify the added complexities they bring on board. But future will be different.

Agreed.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36400
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby SaiK » 12 Feb 2016 18:19

pl move this to amca dhaaga, and check which is the org that is pedaling the news

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36400
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby SaiK » 12 Feb 2016 23:30


LCA: A chance for Asia to pull out the big guns
India is showing the way by building a fighter jet



By Gopal Sutar Published: February 2016

http://www.indiastrategic.in/topstories ... g_guns.htm


Manama. Much to the delight of the aerospace fraternity in India, the country’s own fighter aircraft — the Light Combat Aircraft Tejas — flew at the three-day Bahrain International Air Show. Perhaps buoyed by its performance and favourable reaction, India’s Defence Minister, Manohar Parrikar said on the same day that full-scale production would begin by next year and that other countries have shown interest in the fighter plane.

As far as the Bahrain show is concerned, according to Chairman and Manging Director of Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. (HAL), T Suvarna Raju, two Limited Series Production (LSP) aircraft took part. The performance covered aerobatic manoeuvres in what is called 8-g pull, vertical loop, slow fly past, and barrel roll in defence parlance. He also pointed out that HAL, which is associated with the design, development and production of Tejas, has set-up a state-of-the-art, environmentally-controlled division in Bengaluru for the production of LCAs and expected to roll-out soon.

However, what is of significance is, participation of this kind brings less-known names to the attention of international customers and media. There is no doubt that for countries facing huge defence manufacturing challenges, it is important that their products — helicopters, trainers, transport and fighter aircraft, and drones of various kinds — must be demonstrated at international air shows to impress upon those who are in need of these products.

The defence sector is completely dominated by Western powers, thanks to their robust manufacturing, research and technology set-ups. Aerospace is a complex area with zero tolerance for the smallest error. While Western countries remain in the forefront, Asia at best could be described as a laggard as it was unable to overcome the investment and technological challenges peculiar to the aerospace sector.
It takes years, even decades, for one product to get accepted in an unforgiving market. Today, although things have improved, these countries are aware that there is still some distance to go to match the skill-sets and R&D set-ups that exist in defence manufacturing in the US or France.

According to one estimate, 54 per cent of India’s population is under 30 years and the ratio of the population in the working age group of 15-59 years is likely to be 64 per cent by 2021. India will thus approximately have 25 per cent of the world’s total workforce by 2025.

One needs to exploit this by creating the right opportunities in different sectors — aerospace is one of them.

It is true that for most of developing countries, it is daunting to aggregate the skill requirements of the industry, address the sub-sectors and regional requirements keeping line with international trends and best practices. But whatever the challenges Asia faces, it is welcome sign that countries like India have debuted in a critical segment such as fighter aircraft.

Tejas is a single-engined, lightweight, highly agile, multi-role supersonic fighter. It is a 4.5 generation aircraft with supersonic capability at all altitudes. It is fly-by-wire and has an open architecture computer for avionics and better weapon and combat capability. With advanced avionics, the pilot load is also reduced.

Already, the Sarang helicopter display team of the Indian Air Force — that flies four HAL-produced Dhruv helicopters — has enthralled visitors at different places including Bahrain. HAL Dhruv is suitable for increased payload at higher altitudes and has been developed for the Indian defence Forces. More than 200 helicopters have been produced so far, cumulatively clocking around 142,000 hours of flying.

In future, one hopes there will be more opportunities to showcase new variants of ‘Make in India’ copters.
Considering that for any Asian country, buying a plane or a helicopter from the West comes at a very heavy price, cost-effective fighters and helicopters manufactured in Asia are bound to impress the potential customers. It also means enormous pressure on those involved in the process ... but then that is the nature of the defence business.

The future course would depend on how the aerospace manufacturing ecosphere evolves in Asia and India in particular. One hopes the Bahrain show paves the way for an Asian emergence, at least on a small scale at the international level.

The writer is Chief of Media Communications at Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. The views expressed are his own.

© India Strategic

Aditya G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3409
Joined: 19 Feb 2002 12:31
Contact:

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Aditya G » 13 Feb 2016 03:12

Image

so they are practising arrested landings as well.

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11202
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Gagan » 13 Feb 2016 03:20

No tail hook on this one...

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3906
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Cain Marko » 13 Feb 2016 04:07

It is encouraging to see the movement on the Tejas...on the development front as well as the orders from the IAF, which came earlier than I had expected (thought it would be at FOC). However, I am surprised that more orders were not placed, more initiative is needed. There is a desperate need for numbers and extra Tejas Mk1As are the best bet at this time considering cost and capability.

The order of 40 more MKI is in the right direction, however, the IAF risks making a fleet that is seriously top heavy with a bulk of twin engined fighters (300MKI + 100 Rafale + fulcrum + 100 Jags and the likelihood of Pakfas + AMCA). It needs single engined birds in a much larger proportion. IIRC, even the mighty USAF and VVS in their heydey produced more light fighters - F-16/MiG-29 vs heavies like the Eagle/Flanker.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36400
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby SaiK » 13 Feb 2016 04:22

the 36 Rafale is itself a damper for LCA Mk2 or AMCA, and exorbitantly expensive.. why why why CM sahib? 100 Rafale?

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3906
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Cain Marko » 13 Feb 2016 06:00

100 ~ 36 rafale + 63 fulcrum is what I meant sorry for being unclear Saikji

member_29258
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 11
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby member_29258 » 13 Feb 2016 07:24

Tejas' Light Combat Aircraft May End Up As Indian Aerospace Morale Booster

By Karthik http://armingindia.com/'Tejas'%20Light% ... ooster.htm

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16489
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby NRao » 13 Feb 2016 07:49

Gauravnegi wrote:Tejas' Light Combat Aircraft May End Up As Indian Aerospace Morale Booster

By Karthik http://armingindia.com/'Tejas'%20Light% ... ooster.htm


Key: "commanded by (the) flamboyant Commodore Jaideep Maolonkar "

India needs more of such. Need a kick in that step.

member_29245
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 59
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby member_29245 » 13 Feb 2016 08:03

shiv wrote:
Hitesh wrote:What's the use of flying a plane which can't even see the enemy first before they spot you? Sure it may be ameliorated with the use of AWACS but I don't see GoI pony up the dough to buy 28-32 AWACs and 100 tankers to keep those planes flying and vector the LCAs. I understand IAF's great desire to avoid and hesitancy of going into a gunfight with a knife and one hand tied behind your back.

I did not follow the bit where 28-32 AWACS and 100 tankers will ensure that the enemy will be spotted before they have spotted us. Could you expand on that please?

I will clarify my question. As regards Pakistan all their asets are so close to the border that we can surely see them, but they can see us too. They can also see those 100 tankers.

With China an LCA flying below the mountaintops will be hidden until it reaches the plains of Tibet. After that its range does not allow much more. Those 100 tankers will be seen from a great distance and be shot out of the sky at leisure.

I believe that you are underestimating the infrastructure requirements for 100 tankers and 28-32 AWACS in terms of air bases. I might be wrong but could you do a brief audit of the air bases we have now compared to what is required to support 100 tankers and 28-32 AWACS, or whether all this is already available because the "dough has already been ponied up" for the infrastructure.

Sorry to be a bother but I have always found it easier to shoot my mouth off than actually think, and I am hoping you can do better


Our AF station in mt Abu has a radar there which can pickup paf planes at 100 ft altitude when they take off from Karachi air base

And all algs in between lookup a map

I am sure we have more such strategically placed radars

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

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby shiv » 13 Feb 2016 09:12

Harin wrote:Our AF station in mt Abu has a radar there which can pickup paf planes at 100 ft altitude when they take off from Karachi air base

Fair enough. This is why attacking Indian planes flew at night at 50 feet altitude in earlier wars. How is Indian radar coverage for planes flying nap of earth at 50 feet?

Planes can take off in pairs, and one climbs to become radar visible at >100 feet while the other stays low.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36400
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby SaiK » 13 Feb 2016 21:32

We can't install radar systems just for the local enemy alone. The same land perhaps may be used by khans for their raptors and commanches


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests