LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

[vina]

The LCA model at Minsk square has Astra as the radar guided weapon, the R-73 as infra red guided weapon and a drop tank in each of the inner pylons. So, there you are. The IAF is waiting for the Astra!

[raghava]

Havent heard of R77 in the test schedule thus far. Its been Derby and Astra

Derby, Astra and the Python-5 according to FB

[JTull]

Tejas: The flight of freedom

KOTA HARINARAYANA AND V S ARUNACHALAM

The news from Bahrain Air Show is exhilarating. The Indian Light Combat Aircraft, Tejas, captured everybody’s imagination by its flight manoeuvres. The two ace pilots Commodore Maolankar and Group Captain Rangachari made the nation proud with impressive aerobatics that pushed the aircraft against eight times the gravity pull, the so-called 8G. If we have to believe the rumour mills of the air show, a few countries have shown interest in acquiring our Tejas for their fleet.

The dream of every Indian aircraft designer is now being realised. It has been a long time coming, almost two decades after the country decided to design and build an indigenous fighter aircraft.

The story of indigenous design in those decades before the LCA programme was launched was a depressing one. After the HF-24 Marut, there were no indigenous design efforts to speak of. India lost a generation of aeronautical engineers to other countries since we had no aircraft programmes of our own worth speaking about. In spite of Bengaluru having many aeronautical laboratories, there was no programme to integrate the expertise. In the early ’80s, the country’s political leadership realised the importance of an indigenous aircraft to replace the MiG fleet.


In 1982, one of us (V.S. Arunachalam) was appointed as a scientific adviser to the defence minister. His appointment was considered unusual at that time as this was the first time a DRDO scientist was appointed to that post, was much younger than the conventional appointee to the post of secretary. He in turn chose a young design engineer (Kota Harinarayana) as programme director for an indigenous aircraft programme.

There were many steps that were considered unusual at that time. We insisted that this programme should not be run by a government department or by a corporation, but by a society. Unlike a government programme with the attendant bureaucracy, the society format provided both financial and organisational flexibility.

Thus, the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) was born. As we wanted the programme to start immediately, we bypassed the conventional methods of recruitment. We invited and took on deputation over hundreds of professionals from HAL and many scientists and engineers from DRDO and Council of Scientific & Industrial Research laboratories.

Overnight, ADA became a viable dynamic society with a clear mandate to build an outstanding fighter aircraft. This was also one of the rare occasions where the laboratory, industry and academia, irrespective of their organisational structure, worked as a single unit. The political and administrative leadership, enthused by ADA’s commitment and the speed of implementation, joined in the chorus.


The administrative and financial decisions came fast and in affirmation. For validating our designs we planned to work with a few foreign design bureaus and also gain access to some of their facilities and design tools. This was during the Cold War. Foreign countries jealously guarded their technical capabilities and refused to share it.

They were also not confident of India’s capability of building an aircraft. A few other countries sent their senior defence officials, ostensibly to persuade us to abandon the programme: “Too hard and too difficult to build good aircraft”, they argued. Newspaper articles were also plenty, criticising ADA’s reckless ambition with little competence and track record. But we persevered.

For the design, our engineers chose a compound tailless delta configuration, different from other aircraft of this class. We also chose advanced carbon composite material for most of the airframe and airwings that made the aircraft light with minimal radar image. The cockpit was designed to be most up-to-date where everything was digital and software driven. For the fly-by-wire system that controls the flight, we chose a digital system with sufficient redundancy. Our foreign consultants were hesitant to recommend this design and, in fact, walked out.

All these technologies were subject to embargos and denials by Western nations. In fact, at one stage, the US prevented our acquiring even normal electronic components in reaction to the Pokhran tests. These denials and embargos only made us determined. The Tejas’ carbon composite airframe, utility systems, quadruplex digital flight control system, and the weapon management system — all considered complex — were designed and built in India. Thanks to the indigenous capabilities, all the core technologies were developed here.


Thousands of men and women, have worked tirelessly for over two decades to bring the aircraft to this stage. Thus, the LCA programme not only enabled design and development competence in ADA, but also setup the National Flight Test Centre to test the aircraft’s flight performance. At the time of writing, the Tejas has flown 3,061 sorties totalling 1,954 flight hours without a single accident. This may be a world record in prototype development. Soon, it will enter service and perform on the frontline. Our responsibility now is to provide the defence services with aircrafts in adequate time.

[member_22539]

The AN/APG-68 Radar System for the F16 C/D has 105km range for 5m2 aerial target

Saurav Jha ‏@SJha1618 2h2 hours ago
RCS targets of 2 sqm are considered when Tejas radar range is evaluated.

There you have it. I hope this will satisfy the pretend ignorance of some people.

[Sid]

^^
Both radars have similar performance, even Elta 2032 has range of 100km against 5m2 targets. Israeli radar is known to have better SAR performance.

IAF will be testing it against 2m2 because it's range is limite to 50Km because of radome issue.

P.S. We desi folks will keep on seeking acceptance from outsiders, and one way to cope that is by comparing everything we do with everything out there.

[Suresh S]

KOTA HARINARAYANA AND V S ARUNACHALAM

The nation should take a bow to these real heroes of india rather than the fake heroes of bollywood and presstitutes. The clearly overcame enormous odds to push the nation of India forward.

[Hitesh]

Maitya, take a chill pill, geez.

Yes I did google but the numbers are all over the map regarding radar ranges so it is hard to pinpoint what is the actual range given the radome limitations placed on the birds aforementioned. So I asked the BRF's collective knowledge and expertise to tell me which numbers are right unless you want me to rely on Wiki numbers?

Maitya, I am sorry ( ) if I ruffled your feathers when I asked for the comparable ranges and my remark of IAF not wanting the bird if its like a 3-legged cheetah. When I read the radar range limitation because of radome issues, I was like, that can't be right, because we keep hearing about the long range of Su-30 MKIs, F-22 raptors, F-35s, rafales, MiG-29s, that are well in excess of 100 km. If the LCA is to survive in a first sight, first shot, first kill environment, it needs to improve its radar range to compete with the big boys. No two way about it.

I am all for the LCA programme and have been rooting for it ever since the inception but that won't stop me from asking the questions that one may not like to hear. So we need to ramp up the radome improvement program and restart the kaveri project. We, as a nation, cannot afford to rely on other countries for these critical technologies. I'd rather spend the money that was gonna be spent on Rafales on those programs and improve the LCA and start the AMCA project and even pay the penalty for canceling the MMRCA. I have become disillusioned with the PAK-FA project and feel that we need to do it on our own even it means taking much longer.

[tsarkar]

Wasn't it the IAF that wanted BVR capability for LCA FOC, but it seems they haven't even selected a BVR missile for integration (if FB posts are accurate)!

http://www.cag.gov.in/sites/default/fil ... 7_2015.pdf

It was only in December 2009 the Air HQ communicated the requirement of specific BVR missiles viz. Derby and Python-5 Missiles on LCA as part of the FOC. ADA placed (December 2011) a Purchase Order on M/s Rafael Advanced and Defence Systems Ltd, Israel for supply and Integration of Derby & Python Missile on LCA-Air Force / Navy at a total cost of 21.2 Million US dollars (equivalent to `99.64 crore) with a delivery schedule of 20 months which was revised (June 2013) to 34 months (i.e. up to October 2014).

[SaiK]

What's the use of flying a plane which can't even see the enemy first before they spot you?

It is a fashion to compare one plane to another. Does that really happen in reality? Do you actually expect one LCA to fly out and depend on only its radar?

It would be very silly on the part of the IAF to expect that.

I am betting that the IAF gets to know pretty much anything that flies within a 150 kms of the border. Pakistan will move most assets to Iran or Afghanistan.

no need to argue a premise that itself is wrong! ask how does hitesh knew the enemy has spotted you?

[Hitesh]

When you have a missile up your tailpipe or you are sitting on your command chair at a ground control station and you are seeing your birds being shot down without being able to do something about it. Do you really want to be in that position?

[SaiK]

you are again chasing after wrong premise.. answer the first question?

[Hitesh]

Considering the amount of AWACs they have on station, yes there would be situations where LCA would be depending on its radar for gaps that ground radar cannot cover. IAF only has 3 in its inventory. I know they were supposed to get 2 more but it hasn't been confirmed that they have received it. So they would only have one AWACs on station at any given time and one is not enough to cover the entire breadth of the border between Pakistan and India or China and India or even in the northeastern sector. Yes, if I was a IAF squadron commander, I would be really concerned if my planes don't have the radar range that allows me to see the enemy before they spot me in their missile range.

Are you really that dense or you need a helping hand to guide you to where the water trough is?

[shiv]

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

[SaiK]

you are ignoring a big factor that is advantage to LCA than any other fighter jets in your array list. maitya pointed that to you in the long post - RCS.

so, don't you hitesh, assume LCA will be spotted first.

[shiv]

Yes, if I was a IAF squadron commander, I would be really concerned if my planes don't have the radar range that allows me to see the enemy before they spot me in their missile range.

Sorry. From your earlier post I thought you were really a senior air force officer, perhaps retired. Your analytical ability is that dazzling. Have you actually asked any IAF officers about this?

I am fairly ignorant about all this but I was somehow under the impression that there are certain ways of avoiding radar and using feints, but then I am just an amateur and my own IAF friends were never very smart, so I would like to know what the real smart people think.

[Hitesh]

Radar ranges of fighters that IAF would encounter in a combat situation:

From Wiki:
JF-17 radar:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAC/PAC_J ... r#Avionics

The first forty-two PAF production aircraft are equipped with the NRIET KLJ-7 radar,[70][71] a variant of the KLJ-10 radar developed by China's Nanjing Research Institute of Electronic Technology (NRIET) and also used on the Chengdu J-10. Multiple modes can manage the surveillance and engagement of up to forty air, ground, and sea targets; the track-while-scan mode can track up to ten targets at BVR and can engage two simultaneously with radar-homing AAMs. The operation range for targets with a radar cross-section (RCS) of 5 m2 (54 sq ft) is stated to be ≥ 105 km (65 mi) in look-up mode and ≥ 85 km (53 mi) in look-down mode

F-16 radar: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/APG-68

Range: 296.32 km, 184 miles
Range for 5m2 aerial target is 105km

J-10 radar: http://china-pla.blogspot.com/2007/09/r ... hters.html
Radar specs on PLAAF fighters

Since, the specs are so hard to come by, I've made a list of the following information:
1. As mentionned in the last article, J-10's radar has a 150 km detection range
2. I read that when China was trailing Irbis, it found the detection range vs 0.1 m^2 targets to be around 100 km. The same source went on to say that J-11B's radar performance (the one in service) is comparable to this.
3. JF-17's radar had a baseline requirement of 75 km detection range in front hemisphere and 45 km in the rear hemisphere. (and the export version to PAF has supposedly exceeded that). The actual performance is still under trial.
4. JH-7A was said to be able to detect bridge on yellow river from 370 km away.

Su-27 radar range since J-11 is actually Su-27: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mech_radar

N001VE (RLPK-27VE)
Fitted to Chinese Su-30MKK. This will substantially improve air-to-air performance, and increase air-to-ground resolution. N001VE incorporated the moving target indication (MTI) and mapping capabilities, and capability to detect low flying or hovering helicopters. Processor replaced Baguet series BCVM-486-6, capable of simultaneously engaging two of ten targets tracked with semi-active radar homing air-to-air missiles, and Tracking distance is extended up to 70 km.
N001VEP (RLPK-27VEP)
Processor replaced Baguet series 55-04.02, able to concurrently track 10 targets, and engage four air targets or two ground targets of the 10 tracked, and Detection range against fighter aircraft, 150 km detection range against bomber extended to 300 km. which gives R-77 compatibility.
N001VEP+Pero
N001VEP's Twist cassegrain antenna replaced the new Pero passive phased array antenna, developed by NIIP and Ryazan GRPZ.[1] The radar simultaneously engage 6 aerial targets, or 4 ground targets, and Extended up to 190 km detection range against fighter. Also called "Panda".

Based on the above, I am well justified in asking the question whether the LCA can detect the enemy fighters before they get into missile range and be able to do something about it.

[Hitesh]

Yes, if I was a IAF squadron commander, I would be really concerned if my planes don't have the radar range that allows me to see the enemy before they spot me in their missile range.

Sorry. From your earlier post I thought you were really a senior air force officer, perhaps retired. Your analytical ability is that dazzling. Have you actually asked any IAF officers about this?

I am fairly ignorant about all this but I was somehow under the impression that there are certain ways of avoiding radar and using feints, but then I am just an amateur and my own IAF friends were never very smart, so I would like to know what the real smart people think.

Oh really? I have rather seen long obviating posts by you on the merits of combat or whatever topics you seem fit to comment by using your experience as a surgeon. Did you ever actually think that you may not be qualified to bring those points up but noone did because they wanted to encourage discussion as rather opposed to shooting down and rubbishing any kind of talk? We are on a forum that is not actually visited by IAF personnel and yet we talk about IAF and criticize IAF and HAL for everything they do. If you are gonna criticize myself for asking the questions and bringing up some concerns, then you, sir, should look in the mirror and criticize yourself 10 times harder because you have done the very same thing.

Yes there are ways to get around it but that is still ignoring the fact that the enemy has an advantage over us and will seek to employ that advantage. As the saying goes, "Don't give up the high ground." Sure there are ways about it but that doesn't mean any commander wouldn't be thinking about getting the high ground first. Same thing goes for range. It is about systematic advantages. Look at the Kosovo War. Serbia had advanced MiG-29s but had no AWACs and range advantages. Sure they said there were ways around that situation but still they were at serious disadvantages and had to let the enemy, i.e., USA dictate the terms of the battle.

What you are effectively saying is that let the enemy dictate the terms of the battle. I don't know about you, Sherlock Holmes, but that is a stupid thing to do. If you can, do not let the enemy dictate the terms of the battle and giving the range advantage to the enemy is allowing the enemy to dictate the terms of the battle.

So, respectfully, get off your high horse.

[shiv]

Based on the above, I am well justified in asking the question whether the LCA can detect the enemy fighters before they get into missile range and be able to do something about it.

Of course your question is justified, but with respect may I point out that you are applying the combat paradigm that the US and western coalition forces used in their "exclusion zones" where they simply spotted enemy aircrfat taking off from a distance and shot them down.

May I also respectfully point out that India faced the same problems with excellent Pakistani radar cover in 1965 and 1971 and still coped with it and did what they needed to do - albeit with some losses.

May I recommend that you read both of Jagan's books - the 1965 air war book. the Bangladesh air war book and PC Lal's autobiography. Based on my detailed reading of all three of the above books I am justified in saying that you are underinformed about air war in the Indian subcontinent and are basing you statements on reading western/American accounts of their air wars against enemies whom they dominated from the outset.

[Hitesh]

you are ignoring a big factor that is advantage to LCA than any other fighter jets in your array list. maitya pointed that to you in the long post - RCS.

so, don't you hitesh, assume LCA will be spotted first.

RCS may ameliorate the effects of a shorter range but not all of it because you are still giving up the high ground to the enemy, so to speak. You still have to hug the ground to get close to the enemy to do any recon and killing and that puts you very well within their missile range. Right now the modern air battlefield is First sight, first shot, and first kill. If the enemy can spot you before you spot them, that gives them very enormous advantage and thus being able to dictate the terms of the battle, i.e., angling for the high energy vector and kill shot and then firing the missiles away and readying up the second salvo of missiles to kill you in the areas that you would maneuver into to get away from the first salvo of the missiles. By then, you as a combat pilot would be overwhelmed with trying to survive the first clash whereas the enemy has complete domination of the OODA loop. Read up the OODA doctrine and you will see why USAF has placed such a high importance on radar range and reducing the ability of enemy fighters to detect you at the same time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OODA_loop and http://www.jvminc.com/boydsrealooda_loop.pdf

[Hitesh]

Based on the above, I am well justified in asking the question whether the LCA can detect the enemy fighters before they get into missile range and be able to do something about it.

Of course your question is justified, but with respect may I point out that you are applying the combat paradigm that the US and western coalition forces used in their "exclusion zones" where they simply spotted enemy aircrfat taking off from a distance and shot them down.

May I also respectfully point out that India faced the same problems with excellent Pakistani radar cover in 1965 and 1971 and still coped with it and did what they needed to do - albeit with some losses.

May I recommend that you read both of Jagan's books - the 1965 air war book. the Bangladesh air war book and PC Lal's autobiography. Based on my detailed reading of all three of the above books I am justified in saying that you are underinformed about air war in the Indian subcontinent and are basing you statements on reading western/American accounts of their air wars against enemies whom they dominated from the outset.

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.

[SaiK]

I'd keep the RCS of LCA along with EF2K and Rafale, with some variance.

so, if you take F16 of detecting 5m2 target at 105km would read like detecting LCA at around 55km so to speak [not exactly (none will know), but I am doing a logical guess based on technology that went in].

so, if I have my quartz radome, I would be safe in spotting my enemy first. furthermore, Mk1a would court 2052.

assuming IAF will not think in these terms would be silly, hence my argument is stronger.

[shiv]

Oh really? I have rather seen long obviating posts by you on the merits of combat or whatever topics you seem fit to comment by using your experience as a surgeon. Did you ever actually think that you may not be qualified to bring those points up but noone did because they wanted to encourage discussion as rather opposed to shooting down and rubbishing any kind of talk? We are on a forum that is not actually visited by IAF personnel and yet we talk about IAF and criticize IAF and HAL for everything they do. If you are gonna criticize myself for asking the questions and bringing up some concerns, then you, sir, should look in the mirror and criticize yourself 10 times harder because you have done the very same thing.

Yes there are ways to get around it but that is still ignoring the fact that the enemy has an advantage over us and will seek to employ that advantage. As the saying goes, "Don't give up the high ground." Sure there are ways about it but that doesn't mean any commander wouldn't be thinking about getting the high ground first. Same thing goes for range. It is about systematic advantages. Look at the Kosovo War. Serbia had advanced MiG-29s but had no AWACs and range advantages. Sure they said there were ways around that situation but still they were at serious disadvantages and had to let the enemy, i.e., USA dictate the terms of the battle.

What you are effectively saying is that let the enemy dictate the terms of the battle. I don't know about you, Sherlock Holmes, but that is a stupid thing to do. If you can, do not let the enemy dictate the terms of the battle and giving the range advantage to the enemy is allowing the enemy to dictate the terms of the battle.

So, respectfully, get off your high horse.

I request you to stop telling me what to do. What I choose to sit on is my prerogative, not your choice.

Thanks for exposing with your evasive and angry non reply that your ability to speak about what the airforce should do or can do is as pathetically underinformed as mine, so your criticism is mainly blather. I just wanted to make sure because your blather sounds confident as if you really know. Here is what you wrote:

I can easily understand why the IAF termed it as a three leg cheetah and may not want the LCA at all.

So much for your "understanding". Thanks for the interlude. I apologise for unhiding your normally hidden posts, but I did that only because I think others who responded to your posts actually know much more than you do and wanted to see what you had said that made them respond the way they did.

[shiv]

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.

This post is not a good enough excuse for ignorance of how an air force copes with a situation in which the other air force has a radar advantage. You know only one half of the story and do not want to read anything outside of what you already know. That of course is your prerogative.

An assumption that a radar advantage for us would simply help us knock the PLAAF or PAF out of the sky would be silly if you assume they do not have tactics to neutralize our radar advantage. But then you need to want to know. That is only for people who do not believe they already know.

[member_29190]

This is a nice read to see how really effective BVR's are.

https://defenseissues.wordpress.com/201 ... vr-combat/

In summary, BVR's are yet to come close to being effective as WVR missiles.

Even F22 is as good as the BVR it carries. Jet's & radar's dont kill, missiles do.

About Serbian Mig-29

“The fifth and last MiG-29 to get airborne on that night was 18106, flown by Maj. Predrag Milutinovic. Immediately after take-off his radar failed and even the electrical generator malfunctioned. Shortly after, he was warned by SPO-15 of being acquired, but he evaded the opponent by several evasive manoeuvres. Attempting to evade further encounters and searching for an airfield where a landing was possible, he finally ended over Ribarska Banja, when his RWR warned him of acquisition by a ground-based radar. Seconds afterward the aircraft was hit and Milutinovic forced to eject. ”

Radar failure, electric generator malfunction. Evaded several enemy missiles and was shot down by friendly SAM.

[Hitesh]

Oh really? I have rather seen long obviating posts by you on the merits of combat or whatever topics you seem fit to comment by using your experience as a surgeon. Did you ever actually think that you may not be qualified to bring those points up but noone did because they wanted to encourage discussion as rather opposed to shooting down and rubbishing any kind of talk? We are on a forum that is not actually visited by IAF personnel and yet we talk about IAF and criticize IAF and HAL for everything they do. If you are gonna criticize myself for asking the questions and bringing up some concerns, then you, sir, should look in the mirror and criticize yourself 10 times harder because you have done the very same thing.

Yes there are ways to get around it but that is still ignoring the fact that the enemy has an advantage over us and will seek to employ that advantage. As the saying goes, "Don't give up the high ground." Sure there are ways about it but that doesn't mean any commander wouldn't be thinking about getting the high ground first. Same thing goes for range. It is about systematic advantages. Look at the Kosovo War. Serbia had advanced MiG-29s but had no AWACs and range advantages. Sure they said there were ways around that situation but still they were at serious disadvantages and had to let the enemy, i.e., USA dictate the terms of the battle.

What you are effectively saying is that let the enemy dictate the terms of the battle. I don't know about you, Sherlock Holmes, but that is a stupid thing to do. If you can, do not let the enemy dictate the terms of the battle and giving the range advantage to the enemy is allowing the enemy to dictate the terms of the battle.

So, respectfully, get off your high horse.

I request you to stop telling me what to do. What I choose to sit on is my prerogative, not your choice.[

Oh really? then do the same thing as you demand for yourself.

Thanks for exposing with your evasive and angry non reply that your ability to speak about what the airforce should do or can do is as pathetically underinformed as mine, so your criticism is mainly blather. I just wanted to make sure because your blather sounds confident as if you really know. Here is what you wrote:

I can easily understand why the IAF termed it as a three leg cheetah and may not want the LCA at all.

So much for your "understanding". Thanks for the interlude. I apologise for unhiding your normally hidden posts, but I did that only because I think others who responded to your posts actually know much more than you do and wanted to see what you had said that made them respond the way they did.

IAF was on record ( I think it was a ACM that said that) saying that and all I said was that I can understand their reticence and the basis for calling the LCA a three legged cheetah if the radar range data are to be taken as facts. I didn't put words in the IAF's mouths. I just quoted the famous 3 legged cheetah remark and you got all so riled up about it. You were the one that got angry about me saying that. It is funny that you comment on my "ability to speak about what the airforce should do...." or my criticsm was blather when you are blathering about on how I act like the IAF when I have no grounds to do so. I brought up your long obviating posts full of blather to show what doublespeak you engage into. It actually shows a lot about yourself given the way you responded to my posts.

[Hitesh]

This is a nice read to see how really effective BVR's are.

https://defenseissues.wordpress.com/201 ... vr-combat/

In summary, BVR's are yet to come close to being effective as WVR missiles.

Even F22 is as good as the BVR it carries. Jet's & radar's dont kill, missiles do.

Interesting read but it does ignore the point that the getting off the first shot allows you to dominate the OODA loop and then you close up for the kill with WVR missiles. The article ignores that the enemy had very little kills against the USAF. Sure you can put that at the feet of overwhelming numbers and all spectrum domination but it goes to show my point that why do you want to give that advantage away when you need to even the playing odds.

[shiv]

IAF was on record ( I think it was a ACM that said that) saying that and all I said was that I can understand their reticence and the basis for calling the LCA a three legged cheetah if the radar range data are to be taken as facts. I didn't put words in the IAF's mouths. I just quoted the famous 3 legged cheetah remark and you got all so riled up about it. You were the one that got angry about me saying that. It is funny that you comment on my "ability to speak about what the airforce should do...." or my criticsm was blather when you are blathering about on how I act like the IAF when I have no grounds to do so. I brought up your long obviating posts full of blather to show what doublespeak you engage into. It actually shows a lot about yourself given the way you responded to my posts.

You did quote what an IAF person said but you have no understanding of why he said it. Your claim of "easy understanding" is based on guesswork of the advantage that radar has and no knowledge of how a radar advantage can be neutralized. IOW half knowledge. I just wanted to make sure that others who also read your posts understand what you know and what you don't. Thanks for being helpful in that regard.

Let me give an interested person some homework. It is your right to stop reading this post at this point.

How would the PAF or PLAAF fight the IAF if the IAF had a massive advantage in radar cover and detection in one area of a war zone

[SaiK]

hitesh, your original contention was the range of LCA radar being incomparable to others in your list and hence a 3 legged cheetah. I don't know if you are referring to 2052 or 32.

you can't also ignore giving an advantage to LCA on its RCS. I am not including BVR here, and let us assume both the enemy and LCA has the same BVR missile at disposal.

-----------------------
WVR, it is a dogfight again a different discussion point to being spotted first on BVR mission.

[member_29190]

Interesting read but it does ignore the point that the getting off the first shot allows you to dominate the OODA loop and then you close up for the kill with WVR missiles. The article ignores that the enemy had very little kills against the USAF. Sure you can put that at the feet of overwhelming numbers and all spectrum domination but it goes to show my point that why do you want to give that advantage away when you need to even the playing odds.

Not sure it is possible. The Siberian Mig quote I posted, showed NATO airpower superiority could not down a jet, whose was radar blind !

[member_29190]

I dont know about WVR, but one thing I did observe is how small and difficult LCA is to spot in the videos.

So the question is would a HMCS is able to lock on a object which even the eyes find it difficult to spot?

[Picklu]

IAF have actually 272 awacs on order. Those awacs are also buddy tanker and BVR trucks. In any a2a scenario involving enemy fighters, I expect couple of these awacs to provide radar coverage from far away while a larger number of puny LCAs do silent sniping work from another vector guided by those awacs.

Off course if the a2a involves enemy bomb trucks or tankers or awacs or mpa, LCA is way more competent than mig21 with kopyo one of which brought down an atlantic without any problem.

JAGs don't even have radar. And with their sooooper powerful engine, they are known to fly only because of earth's curvature. Nobody remembers any question about missing legs or balls or whatever. IAF in fact ordered a few new builds while upgrading those mig21s.

Asking question is fine but trolling is a bit frown upon. And forum members are sharp enough to know the difference.

[NRao]

Typical scope creep:

Considering the amount of AWACs they have on station, yes there would be situations where LCA would be depending on its radar for gaps that ground radar cannot cover. IAF only has 3 in its inventory. I know they were supposed to get 2 more but it hasn't been confirmed that they have received it. So they would only have one AWACs on station at any given time and one is not enough to cover the entire breadth of the border between Pakistan and India or China and India or even in the northeastern sector. Yes, if I was a IAF squadron commander, I would be really concerned if my planes don't have the radar range that allows me to see the enemy before they spot me in their missile range.

Are you really that dense or you need a helping hand to guide you to where the water trough is?

From air craft based radars you have come to other forms. Yet you have not covered the entire spectrum available to India in a war.

Pony-up in peace time is one thing. War time totally diff. There are recorded cases where assets of other nations have played a role.

Yes, it is possible that a single LCA may be brought down due to some deficiency at that point in time. But that data point cna hardly be extrapolated to assume that the entire Indian forces will collapse. And, if your argument is that you did not say that the entire force would collapse, then what makes you think that a 2nd LCA will be shot down for the same reason the first one was due to blindness?

Even with the best assets wars are very fluid. With the worst assets they are even more so and juggad enters the picture.

The best plan lasts until the first punch is thrown, then all plans go out of the window.

[Hitesh]

IAF was on record ( I think it was a ACM that said that) saying that and all I said was that I can understand their reticence and the basis for calling the LCA a three legged cheetah if the radar range data are to be taken as facts. I didn't put words in the IAF's mouths. I just quoted the famous 3 legged cheetah remark and you got all so riled up about it. You were the one that got angry about me saying that. It is funny that you comment on my "ability to speak about what the airforce should do...." or my criticsm was blather when you are blathering about on how I act like the IAF when I have no grounds to do so. I brought up your long obviating posts full of blather to show what doublespeak you engage into. It actually shows a lot about yourself given the way you responded to my posts.

You did quote what an IAF person said but you have no understanding of why he said it. Your claim of "easy understanding" is based on guesswork of the advantage that radar has and no knowledge of how a radar advantage can be neutralized. IOW half knowledge. I just wanted to make sure that others who also read your posts understand what you know and what you don't. Thanks for being helpful in that regard.

Let me give an interested person some homework. It is your right to stop reading this post at this point.

Actually you have shown me a lot what you know and don't know and how applicable your medical experience is to these kind of situations. Thanks too, for being helpful in that regard. Right back at ya!

How would the PAF or PLAAF fight the IAF if the IAF had a massive advantage in radar cover and detection in one area of a war zone

Who knows but the point remains is that they have to work extra hard to overcome that advantage and may simply decide to trade birds away to keep us from engaging in the ground battlefield. It brings up the famous joke asked by the Soviet general who asked, "So who won the air war?" PLAAF may choose human wave style tactics and overwhelm us with numbers (they certainly have the numbers) and we can counter that with more BVR & WVR missiles. As for PAF, they would be at a serious disadvantage and would have to work very hard thus allowing the IAF to dictate the terms of the battle.

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.

[Viv S]

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.

[Hitesh]

Typical scope creep:

Considering the amount of AWACs they have on station, yes there would be situations where LCA would be depending on its radar for gaps that ground radar cannot cover. IAF only has 3 in its inventory. I know they were supposed to get 2 more but it hasn't been confirmed that they have received it. So they would only have one AWACs on station at any given time and one is not enough to cover the entire breadth of the border between Pakistan and India or China and India or even in the northeastern sector. Yes, if I was a IAF squadron commander, I would be really concerned if my planes don't have the radar range that allows me to see the enemy before they spot me in their missile range.

Are you really that dense or you need a helping hand to guide you to where the water trough is?

From air craft based radars you have come to other forms. Yet you have not covered the entire spectrum available to India in a war.

Pony-up in peace time is one thing. War time totally diff. There are recorded cases where assets of other nations have played a role.

Yes, it is possible that a single LCA may be brought down due to some deficiency at that point in time. But that data point cna hardly be extrapolated to assume that the entire Indian forces will collapse. And, if your argument is that you did not say that the entire force would collapse, then what makes you think that a 2nd LCA will be shot down for the same reason the first one was due to blindness?

Even with the best assets wars are very fluid. With the worst assets they are even more so and juggad enters the picture.

The best plan lasts until the first punch is thrown, then all plans go out of the window.

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.

[enaiel]

Hitesh, since Chinese Su-30MKK have better radar detection range than any aircraft in IAF's inventory outside of our own Su-30MKI, do you plan to ground every Mirage 2000, Mig 29, Mig 21 Bison in a war with China?

[Viv S]

This is a nice read to see how really effective BVR's are.

https://defenseissues.wordpress.com/201 ... vr-combat/

In summary, BVR's are yet to come close to being effective as WVR missiles.

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'.

I dont know about WVR, but one thing I did observe is how small and difficult LCA is to spot in the videos.

So the question is would a HMCS is able to lock on a object which even the eyes find it difficult to spot?

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.

[Hitesh]

Hitesh, since Chinese Su-30MKK have better radar detection range than any aircraft in IAF's inventory outside of our own Su-30MKI, do you plan to ground every Mirage 2000, Mig 29, Mig 21 Bison in a war with China?

Do you think I am going to fall for that strawman's argument? Those planes have been already designed and existed and procured before the Chinese got the Su-30 MKKs in great numbers so your question is of a very fallacious character. We are designing a fighter plane for the 21st century where the Su-30 MKK threats already exist. We have to take that into accommodation. And besides given the proliferation of the Su-30MKKs, I want the IAF to procure AWACs in more numbers. That is why I do not support the Rafale deal.

We need to buy more AWACs, AE&Ws and shore up our LCA program, the Indian AESA program and the Astra program so we can design hardware that can counter the threat posed by Chinese Su-30 MKKs, J-10s, and even their stealth fighter plane if they ever pull it off and mass produce the heck out of them.

[Kakarat]

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

[arshyam]

^^ 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.