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.
Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2435
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Manish_P » 17 Feb 2016 19:29

@Shiv

Even i am not very clear about how 200 or 500 Tejas will deter or defeat the PLAAF

But 200 or 500 Tejas will to some extent help delay the PLAAF/PAF/xyz-AF from achieving air dominance over the indian theatre of operation.

Pardon me if this seems another no-brainer or AOA statement to you.

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

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby SidSom » 17 Feb 2016 19:55

Probably we need to look into the deeper question that Shiv is really asking..

How is the number of squadrons of planes (with break up of types) really determined. what is the magic formula for this.

@Shiv : Commonly fought wars are wars of attrition especially between equal powers. In such cases, the one with higher number wins. But why 500 or why 1000 probably would be determined on many factors like how many can you afford, what about pilots, maintainance, threat situation, what does your tactics team say is the engagement saturation required to bring down your enemies Hi tech fighters. For E.g. F22 can, may be beat 3 MKI at a time, but will succumb to 4. Enemy has 20 F22, we need 80 MKI minimum... etc. Cant even get my head around to think of more factors. I am sure there are tons more.

habal
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6886
Joined: 24 Dec 2009 18:46

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby habal » 17 Feb 2016 20:24

You can never beat numbers in warfare. 500 LCA can take care of entire PAF and can be put on 24x7 loiter duty against PLAAF (so offence against PAF and defence against PLAAF) while relieving Su-30 and any available medium combat a/c for purely offensive duty. This puts huge pressure against likes of potential adversaries like PLAAF or even USAF.

If purely air-superiority role it can be kitted out with 8-16 (twin-rail launchers?) AAMs which can saturate any air superiority fighter with numbers. So PLAAF can field J-20 or even J-30 but what can J-30 do with 8 missiles lock on simultaneously from 4 different positions. How can PLAAF carry out offensive attack in combat patrol saturation scenario ? Thus I am not able to envisage a scenario where numbers cannot help.

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

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Vivek K » 17 Feb 2016 20:38

500 LCAs become a deterrent. Datalinks from the aircraft form a sensor chain that gives advance warning of the enemy's hostile intentions. And 500 LCAs can be available to greet any enemy that crosses over.

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

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby nirav » 17 Feb 2016 20:47

shiv wrote:Sorry to keep pushing the point.

I still have not understood exactly how 200 or 500 Tejas will deter or defeat the PLAAF. Could someone go into a bit of detail and explain exactly what those LCAs will be doing? So far I have only heard obvious no brainer statements like "PLAAF outnumbers IAF" and "Numbers have their own quality/dynamic"

But these statements mean nothing. Everyone keeps repeating them like "Allah ho Akbar" There must be something deeper which everyone seems to know but I don't. Could someone explain? Has someone thought this through or are the same old cliches simply being repeated?


I get it from your post that you dont think 200 or 500 LCAs wont deter PLAAF.
Would appreciate if you could explain your thought process behind it.

200 to 500 is 11 to 27 squadrons @ 18 per squad.
IAF as per their research state that they need squadron strength. 42 Atleast.

Not sure if the many LCAs deter or defeat the Chinese, but will certainly fill up IAF squadron numbers.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54822
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby ramana » 17 Feb 2016 20:54

geeth wrote:It will deter PLAAF as follows...

If they come in large numbers, they have to fire their load from far away ( beyond the reach of LCA). This will force them to carry larger missiles and in turn lesser explosive power..plus they have to keep their maal on ground beyond the LCA range... In effect, their fighters with shorter range and smaller payload will be useless for attack role.


shiv, In late 1980s there were number of articles in Aviation & Space Week, sourced from Beijing and Lhasa about IAF plans to establish air superiority over Tibet in 72 hours by bombing the airfields, runways and make them unusable. The A&SW articles were justification for the PLAF building more airfields. The articles pointed out that PLAF cannot bring all their large numbers to Tibet as they have other threats and no runways to land in. Also due to high latitude of Tibet airfields their planes carrying capacity was reduced drastically and need longer runways to takeoff the planes even.
In mid 90s the SU-30MKIS were proposed mainly as a counter to PLAF modernization.

So all along the IAF has planned for the PLAF threat.

As Eisenhower said "Its important to have a plan. However all plans breakdown at first contact with enemy. Having plans allows quick changes."

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

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby shiv » 17 Feb 2016 20:59

geeth wrote:It will deter PLAAF as follows...

If they come in large numbers, they have to fire their load from far away ( beyond the reach of LCA). This will force them to carry larger missiles and in turn lesser explosive power..plus they have to keep their maal on ground beyond the LCA range... In effect, their fighters with shorter range and smaller payload will be useless for attack role.


In this scenario you envisage the use of the Tejas as an air defence fighter alone, essentially for CAP. That would make its surface attack capabilities redundant. Also - the PLAAF could keep on attacking and eventually we will start losing airfields grounding the Tejas. In other words this scenario suggests no way of achieving air superiority over Tibetan airspace using the LCA at least. That is what will be required both to stop Chinese intrusions and support ground troops.

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

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby shiv » 17 Feb 2016 21:02

nirav wrote:
shiv wrote:Sorry to keep pushing the point.

I still have not understood exactly how 200 or 500 Tejas will deter or defeat the PLAAF. Could someone go into a bit of detail and explain exactly what those LCAs will be doing? So far I have only heard obvious no brainer statements like "PLAAF outnumbers IAF" and "Numbers have their own quality/dynamic"

But these statements mean nothing. Everyone keeps repeating them like "Allah ho Akbar" There must be something deeper which everyone seems to know but I don't. Could someone explain? Has someone thought this through or are the same old cliches simply being repeated?


I get it from your post that you dont think 200 or 500 LCAs wont deter PLAAF.
Would appreciate if you could explain your thought process behind it.

I have said nothing of the sort. Please re read the question

I am perfectly willing to agree that 200 or 500 LCAs' may do the trick if someone is kind enough to go beyond the usual boring rhetoric of "Numbers have their own dynamic" and "We need to match numbers"

I have not understood how those numbers will be used. Can you explain without rewording my question?

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

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby shiv » 17 Feb 2016 21:08

habal wrote:You can never beat numbers in warfare. 500 LCA can take care of entire PAF and can be put on 24x7 loiter duty against PLAAF (so offence against PAF and defence against PLAAF) while relieving Su-30 and any available medium combat a/c for purely offensive duty. This puts huge pressure against likes of potential adversaries like PLAAF or even USAF.

If purely air-superiority role it can be kitted out with 8-16 (twin-rail launchers?) AAMs which can saturate any air superiority fighter with numbers. So PLAAF can field J-20 or even J-30 but what can J-30 do with 8 missiles lock on simultaneously from 4 different positions. How can PLAAF carry out offensive attack in combat patrol saturation scenario ? Thus I am not able to envisage a scenario where numbers cannot help.


How will the LCA in numbers contribute to air superiority over Chinese airspace? Simply using them for air defence over Indian airspace will pose no threat to Chinese airfields and Chinese radars and SAM sites. That is what we need to take out otherwise the Chinese will accept losses and keep on attacking and gradually take out our airfields and radars one by one and achieve air dominance. Where is the plan to actually attack the Chinese and take the battle into their territory rather than swarms of defensive LCAs simply buzzing over Indian airspace waiting for the Chinese to come.

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9866
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Yagnasri » 17 Feb 2016 21:20

Read Vivek Ahuja to know how it is done. :D

By the way where is he?

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4621
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Cain Marko » 17 Feb 2016 21:27

shiv wrote:
habal wrote:You can never beat numbers in warfare. 500 LCA can take care of entire PAF and can be put on 24x7 loiter duty against PLAAF (so offence against PAF and defence against PLAAF) while relieving Su-30 and any available medium combat a/c for purely offensive duty. This puts huge pressure against likes of potential adversaries like PLAAF or even USAF.

If purely air-superiority role it can be kitted out with 8-16 (twin-rail launchers?) AAMs which can saturate any air superiority fighter with numbers. So PLAAF can field J-20 or even J-30 but what can J-30 do with 8 missiles lock on simultaneously from 4 different positions. How can PLAAF carry out offensive attack in combat patrol saturation scenario ? Thus I am not able to envisage a scenario where numbers cannot help.


How will the LCA in numbers contribute to air superiority over Chinese airspace? Simply using them for air defence over Indian airspace will pose no threat to Chinese airfields and Chinese radars and SAM sites. That is what we need to take out otherwise the Chinese will accept losses and keep on attacking and gradually take out our airfields and radars one by one and achieve air dominance. Where is the plan to actually attack the Chinese and take the battle into their territory rather than swarms of defensive LCAs simply buzzing over Indian airspace waiting for the Chinese to come.


Just a guess.....Hence the insistence on mrca by iaf planners, and the setup of a new assembly for an altogether different fighter.it should free up mki for long ranged strikes on Chinese bases. A super hornet or raffle would also be useful

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

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby arshyam » 17 Feb 2016 21:28

No Shiv sir, of course we shouldn't wait for the Chinese to come. My thoughts regarding numbers are, we need enough LCAs to form both credible deterrent and opponent wings against China. Like a core set of fighters on CAP duty, and some dedicated to taking out ground targets in Tibet, and a 3rd set providing ground support. Benefits of true multi-role capability. But before deploying the Tejas or any fighter on an offensive role, we will need to take out their S-300s when thinking of attacking their airfields. The Jags are our DPSAs that can hug the ground and try taking them down, question is (I genuinely don't know and am asking), can the Tejas fly nap-of-the-earth with its current sensors, or does it need more specialist equipment like TFRs? They won't have the range of the Jaguars of course, but perhaps they can be used in a limited sense.

However, I don't have an answer on how to get past the Himalayas without flying high and being detected, except a few pockets in Ladakh. I suppose the best option then is to speed up the Nirbhay programme and use them extensively first. After their initial strikes, the fighters can go in. In such a case, perhaps we won't need 500 LCAs (which anyway can come only if the engines are available).

(Yagnasri-ji, fuly seconded. Full marks to Ahuja-ji's book that helped me understand this problem even to this extent :))

sankum
BRFite
Posts: 944
Joined: 20 Dec 2004 21:45

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby sankum » 17 Feb 2016 22:07

Aeromag Asia Jan-Feb 2016
How is the Tejas Mark-II different?

Mark – II fundamentally attended for the Naval version. This is basically to facilitate aircraft carrier operation, when we have a skijump take-off, the important thing is that we have only 200 meters on an aircraft carrier for us to take-off. So the take-off is entirely thrust dependant, unlike in the air normal land based take-off where even if you have a little lower thrust, then you have travel a little more distance on the runway, which is available and then you continue.

In the Mark-I Naval version, the take-off thrust is limited by the engine and therefore overall machine performance would be restricted. However, to overcome this, we had estimated the minimum thrust required for us to proceed for a carrier take-off and that was possible for 414 engine for the Mark-II engine. That is how it is started that the Mark-II will be Naval version and then once it was decided, we should go ahead with the Naval version.

What is Mark-1A and the enhancements made for IAF?

Weapon integration is a routine up-gradation process because whenever a new weapon comes you keep integrating and even in a line aircraft which is available you keep changing depending on whichever weapon is there. This is a continuous process, which is being done. Then there is the air-to-air refuelling which we are currently undertaking. Including this the Airforce had informed us about the requirement of certain enhancements. This includes maintainability improvements which we had planned in the Mark-II variant. There was certain 43 capability enhancement in terms of maintainability which is being done for the Mark-1A as a parallel activity. Another point they had demanded was survivability. That means we should integrate the Radar Warning Receiver i.e, RWR in the aircraft itself and put a self-protection Jammer on the out board side. Air to air refuelling has already being adhered for FOC configuration. The 4th enhancement that is looking was AESA Radar to be installed on the Mark-1A, which was actually planned for the Mark-2. So the initial work for the Mark-2, was incorporated in Mark1A.

Instead of 20 aircrafts which was ordered will go to 100 aircrafts in the Mark-1A configuration. We had planned several enhancements in Mark-1 for the IAF including a change in the engine. The vision was for Mark-2. But These enhancements could be done in Mark-1 without a change in the engine. So we decided to name the outcome as Mark-1A instead of Mark-2.



CD Balaji interview:- LCA mk2 on backburner/cancelled? while NLCA mk2 is priority.

LCA mk1a will have no engine change i.e, will have GE f404 engine.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54822
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby ramana » 18 Feb 2016 00:29

Do we have a list of 43 capability enhancements being incorporated in LCA Mk1A?

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

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby member_29190 » 18 Feb 2016 00:41

My view is that we are wasting effort on LCA MK2 for the navy. A single engined fighter will not meet the requirements on a naval platform. It will always be handicapped in terms of range, load & safety.

LCA MK2 should be doubled engined pre-AMCA Navy Jet.

Navy will get a double engined fighter and we will be able to de-risk some of the 5th Gen tech before AMCA comes onlines.

They can continue creating LCA prototype for Carrier testing. To be frank Navy is not in a dire need for single engined jet for carrier.

Diverting efforts towards building two engine & single engine , 4.5 gen & 5th jet at the same time really does not make sense.

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

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Karan M » 18 Feb 2016 02:50

Nit do inform the US Navy then. They lack your insight into carrier ops.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5347
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Kartik » 18 Feb 2016 03:00



CD Balaji confirmed what Cdr Sukesh Nagaraj told me during my conversation with him at Aero India 2013 that the IN was the one that required the Mk2 variant and the IAF jumped on the bandwagon stating that the Mk1 didn't meet its requirements and they needed a higher thrust variant as well..now with the Rafale deal going into cold storage, and an impending fleet shrinkage, they're finally coming around to the fact that the demand for the Mk2 was a stalling tactic and that their needs can be met by a more maintainable variant with an AESA radar.

Mark – II fundamentally attended for the Naval version. This is basically to facilitate aircraft carrier operation, when we have a skijump take-off, the important thing is that we have only 200 meters on an aircraft carrier for us to take-off. So the take-off is entirely thrust dependant, unlike in the air normal land based take-off where even if you have a little lower thrust, then you have travel a little more distance on the runway, which is available and then you continue.

In the Mark-I Naval version, the take-off thrust is limited by the engine and therefore overall machine performance would be
restricted. However, to overcome this, we had estimated the minimum thrust required for us to proceed for a carrier take-off and that was possible for 414 engine for the Mark-II engine. That is how it is started that the Mark-II will be Naval version and then once it was decided, we should go ahead with the Naval version.


But this is a bit confusing-

We had planned several enhancements in Mark-1 for the IAF including a change in the engine. The vision was for Mark-2. But these enhancements could be done in Mark-1 without a change in the engine. So we decided to name the outcome as Mark-1A instead of Mark-2


What happened to the drag issues that were reported, due to which the Air Staff Requirements target for STR could not be achieved? With no Outer Mould Line changes, no plug, no increased thrust and with unknown weight reduction, how is this going to be achieved on the Mark-1A?

And later on he mentions that D&D of a higher thrust, improved version of the LCA is in progress..which version is that supposed to be? the Naval or the IAF variant?

What are the new initiatives?

As already brought out, design and development of higher thrust improved version of the Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) is in progress. This will provide further maintainability improvements and capability enhancements



and while the IAF seems to have dropped its interest in the Mk2 in order to expedite the induction into service, the Navy seems to be still backing the N-LCA Mk2. He doesn't say it as much as infer it, since if there isn't going to be N-LCA Mk2, there basically isn't going to be a carrier capable fighter variant.

As early as in Dec 2009, it was recognized that the LCA Navy Mk1, due to the available engine thrust and the penalties in conversion,would have a few shortfalls in the full mission capabilities sought by the Indian Navy when operating from an aircraft carrier with ski jump launch. A new Programme with a higher thrust engine was sanctioned termed LCA Navy Mk2. This Programme is envisaged to minimize the constraints of LCA Navy Mk1 and would have significant changes in design to improve aerodynamics, landing gear & arrester hook optimization, structural design optimization, updated sensors, Avionics, Flight Control System, etc.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5347
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Kartik » 18 Feb 2016 03:01

Karan M wrote:Nit do inform the US Navy then. They lack your insight into carrier ops.


even the French..they're still operating Super Etendards..and the Brazilians with their antiquated Skyhawks.

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

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby srai » 18 Feb 2016 03:07

Basically, the IAF Mk.2 version (if it ever materializes) should be based off of NLCA Mk.2 rather than a different design as previously planned. This way for AF variant of NLCA Mk.2 the only major change would be the landing gear.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54822
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby ramana » 18 Feb 2016 03:52

Karthik, Thanks for the early heads up on LCA.

I think the D&D version is the naval LCA. The Navy cannot use LCA Mk1 or Mk1A doesn't meet the thrust needed. If the plane is being redesigned they will incorporate all those new things into Mk2.
Meanwhile if the 43 cap enhancements are implemented along with IFR, AESA, RWR with SPJ pod, and Derby with ballast reduction IAF will be quite happy with Mk1A.

I think the next set of LCAs beyond the 100 Mk1A will be Mk2 or derivative: Less drag, more powerful engine.

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

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby shiv » 18 Feb 2016 04:33

Kartik wrote:
Karan M wrote:Nit do inform the US Navy then. They lack your insight into carrier ops.


even the French..they're still operating Super Etendards..and the Brazilians with their antiquated Skyhawks.

Not to forget the F 35

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

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby srai » 18 Feb 2016 04:53

ramana wrote:...

srai, Very good blog link. Can you boil his program milestones into one chart summary of LCA program from 1981?


The one chart summary of LCA program you are looking for is here:
Time Lines of LCA – AF MK1

Four stages (8+20+3 years):
  1. Feasibility and Research [1986-1993] (8 years) -> inception, preliminary studies and exploration
  2. Design and Development [1993-2001] (8 years) -> formal approval for R&D 2 TDs leading up to the first flight
  3. Design to Production [2001-2013] (12 years) -> Phase 2 sanctioned for PVs and LSPs; build and flight test to IOC-2; begin standardized production of first lot of 20 IOC-2
  4. Full Capability [2014-2016] (3 years) -> updates and changes based on flight test feedback and user input culminating in FOC
Last edited by srai on 18 Feb 2016 05:09, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby SaiK » 18 Feb 2016 05:07

I think the reason to exclude the 414 from Mk 1A is well understood. Why confusion? it definitely needs lot more redos on the airframe and inlets.
So, it is logical to understand what can be the bang for the buck capabilities that can be part on 1A.

The 43 enhancements sounds like part of "maintainability", and not change in specs. bottom: anything that can be changed without changing the engine will be on 1A.
lab boys agreed, and IAF made a deal for additional 100 a/cs in addition to the 20.

----

but a question from that interview: "stores management system has dedicated data bus for easy role change". the word dedicated meaning can be easily integrated with various stores? mil 1553 std data couplers and stubs reducing the number of unique store handling needs - so, I hope he meant not-dedicated [to particular type(s) of stores]. no?

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

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby shiv » 18 Feb 2016 06:49

arshyam wrote:No Shiv sir, of course we shouldn't wait for the Chinese to come. My thoughts regarding numbers are, we need enough LCAs to form both credible deterrent and opponent wings against China. Like a core set of fighters on CAP duty, and some dedicated to taking out ground targets in Tibet, and a 3rd set providing ground support. Benefits of true multi-role capability. But before deploying the Tejas or any fighter on an offensive role, we will need to take out their S-300s when thinking of attacking their airfields. The Jags are our DPSAs that can hug the ground and try taking them down, question is (I genuinely don't know and am asking), can the Tejas fly nap-of-the-earth with its current sensors, or does it need more specialist equipment like TFRs? They won't have the range of the Jaguars of course, but perhaps they can be used in a limited sense.

However, I don't have an answer on how to get past the Himalayas without flying high and being detected, except a few pockets in Ladakh. I suppose the best option then is to speed up the Nirbhay programme and use them extensively first. After their initial strikes, the fighters can go in. In such a case, perhaps we won't need 500 LCAs (which anyway can come only if the engines are available).

(Yagnasri-ji, fuly seconded. Full marks to Ahuja-ji's book that helped me understand this problem even to this extent :))


There is no doubt that LCAs in numbers will aid CAS over Indian airspace - but as I pointed out this is an effete defensive measure that will do nothing to help get air dominance over Chinese skies. And the Tejas will also be useful for CAS - with mixed role formations - like 2 equipped for attack and 2 for escort. I do not believe the Tejas will have any problem either staying behind mountain cover while getting past the Himalayas or flying nap of earth. In fact "nap of earth" at 15,000 feet over Tibet may give better ranges than at sea level :!: But air dominance over Chinese territory will involve intense offensive to wipe out radars, SAM sites, airfields and make sure that AWACS and refuellers are shot down or kept well away. The Chinese will want to return these same compliments to us.

This is where I start asking if blind numbers like 200 or 500 Tejas are simply guesswork that are not taking into account all the other assets we need for hitting targets 500 to 1000 km away. These would include stand off missiles, SSMs, long range heavy aircraft. The Su 30 has an obvious role here and I am sure the Rafale, if it comes, would be an asset. An investment in radar cover and SAM defence is essential. A large number of extra/ancillary airfields would help prevent the grounding of the IAF in case of loss of airfields, and all these will need SAM cover. An increase in the number of AWACS and air refuellers would be useful. In fact the Tejas could take off with a full load and half fuel, and top up with fuel before crossing the border. But this would be possible even for longer ranged aircraft. The Tejas needs to be proven with newer and better stand off munitions that we don't even have - like ARMs (reported yesterday) and ASMs.

So the point I want to make is that if we ask for 200 Tejas, we will also need about 10-15 more AWACS and 20 more refuellers and another 50-100 heavier aircraft. I am not counting drawing board a/c like AMCA. Also a huge increase in the number and variety of standoff missiles like Brahmos or a future miniBrahmos. Both Brahmos and Prithvi missiles can do a lot of work against radar sites, C&C centers, and airfields. For the same job at closer ranges - say within 100 km Pinaka/artilery would be needed and radar and SAM cover for those. The investment for all of this has to go along with investments for 200 Tejas. As I see it - an IAF planner who asks for 200 Tejas will have to view it holistically and see how much more investment will be needed in ancillary and support infrastructure. Many of the things I have mentioned above go in the IAF budget - like SAMs, Radars, AWACS, refuellers, more airfields, airstrips, Garud airfield security, SAR helicopters, Prithvi sites. So if I find an IAF planner who is not asking for 200 Tejas today, I would not accuse him of being a traitor who wants kickbacks from Rafale. 200 Tejas is good but would be no good without an overall development of a proper war plan. I see too many simplistic wish lists of 200 or 500 Tejas with no mention of the fact that the Tejas alone will not win a war or gain air dominance. It has to be a combination of all the force we can muster and that goes far beyond the Tejas.

To use a very crude analogy - I cannot guarantee that my family can be fed for a year by buying 100 or 500 kg of atta alone. With every Kg of atta I buy I will need salt, water, oil, fuel for stove, regular supply of vegetables and dal etc. I may have money for 100 kg of atta, but when I spread the money around for all the other things - I might find that I can afford only 30 kg of atta along with all the other things.

ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2006
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby ldev » 18 Feb 2016 07:10

^^
In the opening stages of any war with China, Chinese military doctrine calls for the PLA to use it's conventional missile regiments to launch saturation attacks on all IAF bases. The Chinese had stocks of 1500+ of the short range DF-11 and DF-15 missiles. These have been replaced with more modern DF-15B, DF-16 and DF-21 missiles with ranges from 800km to 4000km. Whether any IAF fighter including 200-500 Tejas is able to take-off/land from any IAF base, especially in the north and north/east will depend on the ability of the Akash batteries to handle 1000+ such missiles heading for IAF bases.

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

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby shiv » 18 Feb 2016 08:00

ldev wrote:^^
In the opening stages of any war with China, Chinese military doctrine calls for the PLA to use it's conventional missile regiments to launch saturation attacks on all IAF bases. The Chinese had stocks of 1500+ of the short range DF-11 and DF-15 missiles. These have been replaced with more modern DF-15B, DF-16 and DF-21 missiles with ranges from 800km to 4000km. Whether any IAF fighter including 200-500 Tejas is able to take-off/land from any IAF base, especially in the north and north/east will depend on the ability of the Akash batteries to handle 1000+ such missiles heading for IAF bases.

I have no quibble with this, but your post indicates how the addition of large numbers of Tejas alone does not appear like a valid response to the type of war that may have to be fought. Our own response would have to be to saturate them with our firepower and as I see it - Tejas alone in large numbers does not seem to meet the requirement. Larger numbers of Tejas will form one part of an overall strategy, not an end in itself. That requires to be pointed out before 200 or 500 Tejas are made into a sort of warfighting holy grail. That is why I have been insisting that rhetorical and grossly overused arguments like "numbers have their own power" applied to Tejas alone cannot pass without further clarification about what numbers of what hardware.

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

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby srai » 18 Feb 2016 08:12

SaiK wrote:...

----

but a question from that interview: "stores management system has dedicated data bus for easy role change". the word dedicated meaning can be easily integrated with various stores? mil 1553 std data couplers and stubs reducing the number of unique store handling needs - so, I hope he meant not-dedicated [to particular type(s) of stores]. no?


Pylon Interface Boxes (PIB) (Mk.1) -> Universal Pylon Interface Computer (UPIC) (Mk.1A/2)
Image

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

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Singha » 18 Feb 2016 08:37

Akash has a $2b order book + more lately
Barak8-ER is coming along , perhaps under indian funding
we only have ourselves to blame for the maitri fiasco and the gap-filler spyder purchases

that leaves the offensive G2G missile component and I see no evidence that nirbhay and agni1 and shourya have been given any importance in funding. time has changed and 99% of ballistic missile attacks in future even at long range will be with precision conventional warheads as seen in ASBM concepts. so we ought to let go of the fear of a conventional being mis-id'ed as nuclear. nobody is going to launch n-weapons for SRBM/MRBM strikes until impact occurs. only for ICBMs they might launch on warning.

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

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby SaiK » 18 Feb 2016 08:45

thx srai, that image didn't work for me
Singha wrote:so we ought to let go of the fear of a conventional being mis-id'ed as nuclear. nobody is going to launch n-weapons for SRBM/MRBM strikes until impact occurs. only for ICBMs they might launch on warning.

saar, pakis are pakis! they may go after goats, but they will launch claiming it was a dud-N

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 » 18 Feb 2016 09:03

In the Mark-I Naval version, the take-off thrust is limited by the engine and therefore overall machine performance would be


See, it is important to understand the issues. Long ago, I was reading a critique by the Russians of American weapons and the US operating philosophy.

The Soviet weapons are usually rugged, are able to take a beating in the elements and function under such conditions , just like their space launchers. Bikanour is a high wind area, and there are videos of Soyuz missions taking off in blizzard like conditions with driving snow. A launch in similar wind conditions will not be allowed anywhere else, and the American stuff is are such "Princesses " that a slightly colder than normal weather in Florida results in the Challenger disaster with the O ring seals losing their elasticity and failing as so dramatically shown by Dr Feynman and his team live on TV.

So what does this have to do with the LCA. The critique the Russian Mig 29 drivers made of the US stuff was like this. Look at the F18. It needs a 20 minute engine warm up before taking off. It is impractical! We just get into our planes belt up and go . Back then I thought it possibly could not be true.

Roll forward to this LCA business and "lack of thrust" business take off run and all that nonsense, and the reports that started trickling out, that is when I realised the Russians had a point, but were rather overstating it. And what is it ?

It is like this. The GE F404 series engine, needs a full 20 minute (or near about) warm up before GE guarantees the advertised thrust level. It is not as if the engine cannot be just started up and the plane take off, sure , it can, but it will not deliver the guaranteed thrust. So what you as a designer would do would derate the take off thrust of the engine, and that figures with the derated thrust will what you will put on your performance spec sheet.

Now Natashas and DDM dim wits will go to town on this and the IAF will proclaim "performance shortfalls " .. So the need to stick in a more powerful engine with higher installed thrust for better take off and climb and other performance. And the dog and pony show goes on. For the IAF, that is a non issue. Their take off runs even with a derated take off thrust is simply not limited by runway length (sure you can create extreme scenarios, like what if I need to take off in a runway that is holed exactly in the middle and I have just half the usual length , but like a prof can fail every student in an exam by setting a skewed paper, you can fail every plane by saying what if the runway is hold in exactly 3 places, 1/3rd each along the runway) and it is a non issue in most circumstances.

For the Navy it is a strict no no, because they ARE restricted by runway length in a ski jump carrier. Hence it makes lot of sense for the Navy to ask for the higher thrust engines and variants, for the IAF, it is a convenient me too , jump into it for all sorts of reasons (including probably like you said, to stall for the platforms and put a spoke in the scheme of things).

Remember the better than expected take off performance of the LCA Navy from the Ski jump at Goa as was reported by Shiv Aroor and all, it is just that the engine delivered better than the lower than advertised / derated level thrust !

disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7415
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby disha » 18 Feb 2016 09:25

Coming to Shiv' saars point., the point as I see it is that we fall into the quantity trap. That is go for a maximal overwhelming numbers for every scenario and then create only such futuristic scenarios which require those numbers. In short we fall into quantity bias and into a quantity trap.

Taking a step back, if I say that a single LCA is equivalent to 3.5 Mig 21s., immediately for the *current* scenarios - Instead of 3 squadrons of Migs., we can have 1 squadron of LCA.

We can argue if 1 LCA =~ 3.5 Migs or 1 LCA =~ 1 Mig., but until we have that as a baseline - any discussion of 200x LCA or 500x LCA to deal with this and that is going around in circles.

Why Migs comparison to LCA? Mig is a known fighter/Interceptor with known strategies and can be compared with LCA. Further both are available here., one does not have to compare with relative unknowns like J-20 Fatbox or Bandaars.

Just my two cents.

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

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby srai » 18 Feb 2016 09:37

Just doing simple arithmetic based on current fleet and replacement needs to reach around 40 squadrons:

  • Heavy [14 squadrons] -> Su-30 MKI (will be replaced by FGFA)
  • Medium [12-18 squadrons] -> Rafale?, Mirage-2000, MiG-29 and Jaguar (will be replaced by AMCA)
  • Light [8-14 squadrons] -> LCA Mk.1/1A/2 (replacing MiG-21/27)
Total: 40 squadrons

Around 12 to 14 squadrons would be required for each category if equal 1/3 for each category distribution is desired. It seems the IAF had 6 Rafale MRCA planned for addition to the medium category, which would have had 18 squadrons, while the light category would have been reduced to around 8 squadrons. In any case, 8 to 14 squadrons in the light category total between around 160 to 280 units (i.e. LCA Mk.1/1A/2).

habal
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6886
Joined: 24 Dec 2009 18:46

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby habal » 18 Feb 2016 09:59

I have a question. Why should LCA operate over China ? Was MiG-21 meant to hang around China ?
We had 400 MiG-21s. TSPA is now going to be 200 4 gen a/c within 2 years. 100 f-16 and 100 jf-17.
isn't that what the 500 LCA is meant for !
why this sudden change of plan for LCA.
where did LCA come in direct force projection wrt China ?

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

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby SaiK » 18 Feb 2016 10:22

Vina, but can you provide references for the claim of 20 minutes warmup time for ge engines?

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

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Shreeman » 18 Feb 2016 10:32

Indeed. Habal has finally hit upon the nub. The question of why XX LCA arises from the original requirements analysis. It put the number in neighborhood of 200 and delegated the western AMD southern, south eastern theatres to it. The north and north east were not really asked for. They were not seen as challenges to be met with air power. This was 62 style shortsighted. But what shiv applies here, in trying to send the LCA to chengdu is the same mission creep that has kept the fighter from doing 1:1 vs 21s going out.

The XX number is simply meeting the role originally set for the fighter by sending it to the western command. The western challenge has grown, these numbers should grow. To how much? As many as possible. Things become obsolete overnight. Challenges mutate. Targets grow like mushrooms. Assymetry looms. UAVs and rotaries were not the threat they are today. Nor were cruise missiles a DIY threat. So, can you build 64 a year? 128? Because I am sure that between Jamnagar and jammu there are enough users, infrastructure and parking places. Not to count the sulur and andaman type forgotten places. You can easily count 20 places that can host 20 each. Most are grossly underutilized today.

It also means heavy metal can then stand off, from Leh, to central parts, to north east. Perhaps even in the islands again.

The chinese air threat, say a dozen bases altogether counting even the remotest, is not upto 300 yet. YET. So for today the chinese threat is met, by the upgraded 29s, 30mkis and improved radar coverage.
Sending light loads, even if not short legged, over tibet would be analogous to using $$M pgms on toyotas. That threat needs A12345 combined with 4 engined trucks. Now for some reason the load capacity seems to be capped at 8 tons. Not permitted to carry more except by jugaad via converted transporters. Another glass ceiling. So why talk of china?

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9866
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Yagnasri » 18 Feb 2016 11:13

Maybe it is because China in 2016 is not China in 1960s or 70s.

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

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby member_29245 » 18 Feb 2016 11:30

Shiv

Your point about employing the no is tejas brandied about and the nned for ancillary (Sam / airfields / AWACS / refuellers ) are valid

But

What with 200 or 500 tejas we are limiting ourselves to only 3 options
1. China land border
2. Obsessed with employing of tejas in deep strike role
3. See tejas mk1 / mk1a only in iaf

What we need to do is open up the horizons and options

What we nned to alternatively consider is

1 No matter how many tejas we have we will always be behind china in nos

2 consider tejas mk1 mk1a in coastal / sea defence role either in iaf or in in

So

Primarily these tejas will be used in defensive and limited offensive roles while freeing up su30mki and other planes for offensive roles

Other benefit will be short TO time and high sortie rate they can be put up in the air faster than other planes after an sortie

Second consider 8 sqds of tejas with 3 based in Andaman 1/each in ko olkatta, chennai, odisha and 2/based in lakshadweeps

We get total dominance in
Bay of Bengal

Control of
Straits of mallaca
One third way from andamma / chennai to Diego Garcia

And how many AWACS we need ?

2 AWACS and 3 enbraer based aew&cs

Same way

Let's consider another option

Some member had put up a map of India with 16 s400 systems put close to a big Indian city near the border then drawn a 400 km circle around the placement of s400

The result the coverage of s400 system not only covers all of Indian skies ( not only border areas but also central India ) and extends upto 100 km into enemy airspace

Now consider that combat radius of tejas is 500+ km and we place 1 sqds of tejas along with the placement of s400 such that the tejas is placed no farther than 200-250km from border
Then the tejas will have overlapping cover s400 and other mrsams srsams and qrsams and the tejas will have capability to fight 150-250 km in enemy airspace and by fight I don't only mean a2a but also ground strike


So I believe @20 tejas / sqds we should have at least 500-600 tejas in service in various avataars mk1 / mk1a / mk2 / mk3


Of course we nned to keep on integrating new avionics radar mode and weapons continuously such as
Torpedoes
Antiship missiles - mini nrahmos will not do perhaps a mini mini nrahmos or some other missiles

We may also need to change operating pattern for eg

A tejas taking off from Andaman having combat radius of 500 km should not return to Andaman base but instead use its ferry range 1700+ km to go on direct to either kolkatta / odisha/ chennai and vice versa for best results

rohiths
BRFite
Posts: 399
Joined: 26 Jun 2009 21:51

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby rohiths » 18 Feb 2016 11:36

Keep dreaming on.. Even the most optimistic scenario is 200 LCAs till 2030. I will be happy if the Airforce has a total availability adjusted strength of 500 4+ gen aircraft by 2030.

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

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Vivek K » 18 Feb 2016 11:51

So if we don't have the force multipliers, we shouldn't get the numbers? I cannot agree! The LCAs can datalink and ground controllers could use their sensor info to coordinate attacks and defense.

Since the LCA is a multi role aircraft it gives IAF a significant advantage from its presence in the fleet over the Mig21 that was nowhere as capable. 200-500 LCAs could take over homeland defense and also strike missions. The LCA is more capable than the Jaguar.

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

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby member_29245 » 18 Feb 2016 11:54

rohiths wrote:Keep dreaming on.. Even the most optimistic scenario is 200 LCAs till 2030. I will be happy if the Airforce has a total availability adjusted strength of 500 4+ gen aircraft by 2030.



OK and what are those 4+ gen aircrafts by 2030 ?

Tejas & su30mki


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests