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

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby PratikDas » 18 Feb 2016 12:22

Is there any info from the shoe polisher of the paanwala on how the LCA production line for the HAL is coming along? Are we already in the mode for making 8+ LCA per year?

Please, please save us from the hypothetical banter that this thread continually endures due to lack of news.

And thank you, srai ji for your contributions.

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

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby member_29245 » 18 Feb 2016 12:34

We need to understand that planes cannot be mfgd overnight and neither their capacity be increased overnight that too without committed substantial orders that will recoup investments in mfg facilities

Even dasault will take 3 years to increase rafale capacity from 11 a year to 32 a year that too with an established production line designed for 33 a year

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9919
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Yagnasri » 18 Feb 2016 13:18

Few months back there was a report saying HAL had projected a need for 2500 Cr for increasing the production to 25 units a year. If a large order or commitment is given then such production is viable. Not just Indian parts we need to place orders also for engine etc also in case there is any increse in production.

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 13:27

habal wrote: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 ?
:lol:
Habal - I consider this a shift of goalpost, but I will respond. My response will come after the following disclaimer. I have never said or implied the following and would not like anyone to think that I did. The claim that I said the following is totally false.
Shreeman wrote:But what shiv applies here, in trying to send the LCA to chengdu


Now to your point about "change of plan" for the Tejas.

Wars have to be fought with the weapons we have against the adversaries that we have. Weapons change, but our adversaries have not changed.

If you recall, it was not I who demanded that there must be 200 or 500 LCAs. Note that 500 LCAs will form 50% of the strength of a 1000 plane air force. Even 200 LCAs will be 25% of a 45 squadron Air Force. Are you now saying that 25 to 50% of the future Air Force that you and others are demanding will be unusable against China which constitutes at least 50% of the threat we face, if not 75%. They will be unusable because they were merely a replacement for the MiG 21?

What kind of logic is this? Asking for huge numbers of aircraft that will keep 50% of our Air Force useless in a war. You have simply made me repeat my question, more forcefully this time. Why the fact would we need 200 or 500 aircraft that are mere MiG 21 replacements that were never meant to fight China?

But please don't answer my question. I believe you are wrong in saying that the Tejas cannot be used against China. I believe that it will be a great asset against China. My question was never intended to doubt its capability against China even if you doubt it. My question was, and remains as follows:

"What is the exact reason for asking for 200 (or 500) LCAs? If it is for air defence over Indian Skies alone - we are wasting a great and far more capable aircraft. It can do a lot more. But the Tejas cannot be expected to do many things - for example it cannot attack Chengdu. So how does the number 200 (or 500) LCA square up with what the Air Force would be required to do in a war. If we forced 200 LCAs on the IAF and did not leave funds for heavier aircraft, AWACS, refuellers, airfields, radars, SAMs and other infrastructure our chances of prevailing in a war with China are reduced. If we assume that we have funds for everything I would accept that but I would like to see some numbers quoted for the other aircraft and equipment we need to have in addition to 200 (or 500) LCAs

Simply demanding 200 (or 500) LCAs with no idea of the kind of war that would need to be fought or where those LCAs would fit in is what I am questioning. Claiming now that the LCA can't be used against China is a self goal by anyone who wants hundreds of LCAs.

sankum
BRFite
Posts: 971
Joined: 20 Dec 2004 21:45

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby sankum » 18 Feb 2016 13:33

LCA @16/year will take up to 2025 to produce 120nos.

A report was that this 120nos order will be produced by 2022-23. For that @24/year production will be needed.

For 14sq LCA for IAF till 2030 @24/year in 2020-30 timeframe will be required.

For IN @8/year production will be required in 2023-30 timeframe to produce 56nos LCA navy mk2.

Total LCA required rate will @32/year (24/yr for IAF and 8/yr for IN)
Last edited by sankum on 18 Feb 2016 13:35, edited 1 time in total.

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 13:35

srai wrote: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).


I can accept this as a good balance (in my armchair marshal role). But I would like to see an increase in the number of AWACS and refuellers. Also I would not dismiss the role of Prithvi as an Air Force asset

sankum
BRFite
Posts: 971
Joined: 20 Dec 2004 21:45

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby sankum » 18 Feb 2016 13:42

S.Jha tweet has said that the present intended fleet of 8nos AWACS will rise to 20nos+ in 2020s.

Present intended fleet is of 5nos Phalcons + 3nos DRDO EMB AEW=8nos.

With the addition of 12nos+ DRDO A330 AWACS in 2020's the AWACS fleet will rise to 20nos+.

S.Jha tweet has also said that 18nos is the intended fleet of Refuellers.

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 13:55

honestly the 12 A330 awacs seems like a PIPE DREAM OF MMRCA mould to me give the huge costs of these systems like $500 mil each. we have been unable to buy 6 x A330 MRTT tankers which are much simpler due to lack of money.

this is another case of stalling and running down a domestic gettable proj like EMB145 to favour the usual gori chamri iphone100 specced a330. it might have a use case if we are to fight expeditionary wars or deep over the sea with no airport in sight. but no so over the indian landmass.

ultimately this will be another heartburn and red faced crawling back to the EMB145.

JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2797
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby JTull » 18 Feb 2016 13:55

sankhum, why do you want to be a messenger boy for someone who's clearly following this discussion but still prefers to comment elsewhere? I think, irrespective of some good journalism in the past, these guys should get off their high horses and stop pretending to be celebrities while lapping up tons of 'followers'. I've seen first hand the foul language they can use when someone doesn't agree with their 'news'. It is easier to sit behind a twitter handle and 'dish out' rather than engage in a 'discussion'.

sankum
BRFite
Posts: 971
Joined: 20 Dec 2004 21:45

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby sankum » 18 Feb 2016 14:04

He is a good and reliable source of information. That's it and nothing more.

We have been quoting data from his articles though you have to search hard for titbits of new information in them.

Ok I will not take his name or give him credit in future.

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

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby member_29190 » 18 Feb 2016 15:33

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


I would if USN did not have something called "CATOBAR" which could throw a truck in the air if required, or not have a 190KN thrust engine on it's F-35.

May be someone needs to convince IN to stop worring about thrust issues & stick with F-404?

Please do put your arguements on why a single engine would be better than double engined jet in 2025 on a STOBAR, when MK2 will come online and AMCA prototypes flying around.

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

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby enaiel » 18 Feb 2016 17:53

What can 200 Tejas do?

Image

Whats not mentioned above is that it will also be getting the new ARM missile for SEAD roles.

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

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby member_28990 » 18 Feb 2016 17:59



the video is out!!!

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36417
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby SaiK » 18 Feb 2016 18:05

just superb! thanks for linking it here.

---

pooch: why is saabji not zipped up his ji-soot?

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4560
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby JayS » 18 Feb 2016 18:13

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


I would if USN did not have something called "CATOBAR" which could throw a truck in the air if required, or not have a 190KN thrust engine on it's F-35.

May be someone needs to convince IN to stop worring about thrust issues & stick with F-404?

Please do put your arguements on why a single engine would be better than double engined jet in 2025 on a STOBAR, when MK2 will come online and AMCA prototypes flying around.


As far as Engine thrust rating goes, if you consider T/W ratio of NLCA (MTOW of 14000kg with 84kN thrust) and that of F35 (MTOW of 32000kg with thrust of 190kN), both are quite the same at ~0.6.
The point about CATOBAR can be conceded here but STOBAR is not totally dud in comparison, it will help the launch to some extent. Now you calculate the T/W at TO for MK2 with 98kN engine with basically the same MTOW (I am assuming that the weight reduction in MLG will be compensated by increased empty/fuel/weapons load keeping MTOW same). It will be ~0.7.

Now lets ask the question again, Will a jet with T/W=0.7 on STOBAR be relevant compared to a jet with T/W=0.6 on CATOBAR in 2025??

A twin-jet could be much better for IN as compared to NLCA. But do we want to start another ab initio development of twin-jet naval a/c from scratch? I think IN is being very pragmatic with NLCA. They know the deal and they are supporting it full-heartedly. Where is the problem there??

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36417
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby SaiK » 18 Feb 2016 18:20

The N-AMCA wind-tunnel model (if one exists) should be considered first!

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

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby enaiel » 18 Feb 2016 18:21

If the requirement for a twin engine naval bird comes from being able to land safely with one engine, theres no guarantee that the AMCA will be able do that. For example, Jaguar M was supposedly canceled because it could not land safely with two engines and was infact replaced with the single engined Super Etendard. Having two engines might actually increase the odds of engine failure.

So I think it's better that IN moves forward with what they have, than wait for something that they might never have.

nit wrote:I would if USN did not have something called "CATOBAR" which could throw a truck in the air if required, or not have a 190KN thrust engine on it's F-35.

May be someone needs to convince IN to stop worring about thrust issues & stick with F-404?

Please do put your arguements on why a single engine would be better than double engined jet in 2025 on a STOBAR, when MK2 will come online and AMCA prototypes flying around.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4560
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby JayS » 18 Feb 2016 18:55

maxratul wrote:

the video is out!!!


I am disappointed with the video somehow.

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

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby member_29190 » 18 Feb 2016 19:02

nileshjr wrote:
As far as Engine thrust rating goes, if you consider T/W ratio of NLCA (MTOW of 14000kg with 84kN thrust) and that of F35 (MTOW of 32000kg with thrust of 190kN), both are quite the same at ~0.6.
The point about CATOBAR can be conceded here but STOBAR is not totally dud in comparison, it will help the launch to some extent. Now you calculate the T/W at TO for MK2 with 98kN engine with basically the same MTOW (I am assuming that the weight reduction in MLG will be compensated by increased empty/fuel/weapons load keeping MTOW same). It will be ~0.7.

Now lets ask the question again, Will a jet with T/W=0.7 on STOBAR be relevant compared to a jet with T/W=0.6 on CATOBAR in 2025??

A twin-jet could be much better for IN as compared to NLCA. But do we want to start another ab initio development of twin-jet naval a/c from scratch? I think IN is being very pragmatic with NLCA. They know the deal and they are supporting it full-heartedly. Where is the problem there??


The discussion is getting a bit wayward from my point regarding what would IN prefer in 2025. LCA & JSF may have equivalent T-2-MTOW of .6, but that does not mean the amount of loadout on LCA will be same as JSF !

Let me clarify my question: I dont care what USN or RN does.

It is about IN. 2025 : As planned LCA MK2 comes online. AMCA prototype is flying. IN has STOBAR carrier.

Would IN like to have a Naval AMCA? Of course they would. Will IN consider N-AMCA better than LCA-MK2. Ofcourse they would.

Then what do you do with the LCA MK2? Use them on carriers for 20 years, because you had already built them and not go for N-AMCA?

Ideally it should be N-AMCA first, if not a N-(partial AMCA with some 5 GEN tech coming online by 2025), then full fledge(IAF & IN) AMCA. Would be waste of effort to go for LCA-MK2 for IN.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19862
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Karan M » 18 Feb 2016 19:52

JTull wrote:sankhum, why do you want to be a messenger boy for someone who's clearly following this discussion but still prefers to comment elsewhere? I think, irrespective of some good journalism in the past, these guys should get off their high horses and stop pretending to be celebrities while lapping up tons of 'followers'. I've seen first hand the foul language they can use when someone doesn't agree with their 'news'. It is easier to sit behind a twitter handle and 'dish out' rather than engage in a 'discussion'.


JT, when did Saurav Jha do anything like this? While I share your dismay (and contempt) for many of our so called defense journos who are merely political hacks or pompous twits who lack a fraction of the enthusiasm and genuine interest you possess, I'd still state Saurav is more the exception to the norm vs our usual journos.

Its to our benefit that BRF has somebody like Saurav as a member, and its Saurav's decision as to how he chooses to spend his time and address the queries that come up on this forum. He might get swarmed with queries for instance.

If the so called dunces who are posturing as journalists on the MSM were as accurate and sensible as Saurav, and his rare ilk are most of the time (at least as far as I have seen so far) - we would be better off.
Last edited by Karan M on 18 Feb 2016 19:59, edited 1 time in total.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19862
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Karan M » 18 Feb 2016 19:56

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


I would if USN did not have something called "CATOBAR" which could throw a truck in the air if required, or not have a 190KN thrust engine on it's F-35.

May be someone needs to convince IN to stop worring about thrust issues & stick with F-404?


You are making no sense whatsoever.

You claimed single engine platforms have safety and performance issues.
Multiple single engine platforms have taken off carriers in the past. The IN itself had Harriers if we extend the single engine argument with so much more complexity than a CTOL.

Now its CATOBAR.
That's punctured by current Ge404 equipped NLCA being used for trials itself. Once it takes off a carrier, what then?
Cdr Balajis quote clearly shows the Ge414 was chosen for the payload + take off.

So ADA has done its diligence and IN agrees. Your statement OTOH is generic and flawed.

Please do put your arguements on why a single engine would be better than double engined jet in 2025 on a STOBAR, when MK2 will come online and AMCA prototypes flying around.


Its evident that making an AMCA "in 2025" for the Navy is far more ambitious than fixing the NLCA Mk2 & getting that fixed first.

Sid
BRFite
Posts: 1655
Joined: 19 Mar 2006 13:26

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Sid » 18 Feb 2016 20:25

Karan M wrote:
Please do put your arguements on why a single engine would be better than double engined jet in 2025 on a STOBAR, when MK2 will come online and AMCA prototypes flying around.


Its evident that making an AMCA "in 2025" for the Navy is far more ambitious than fixing the NLCA Mk2 & getting that fixed first.


NLCA is a different beast. Its like upgrading F-18 to super hornet config. AMCA is a paper fighter, and due to lack of indulgence/urgency from everyone it will remain so in future.

a bird in hand is worth two in bush.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7737
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby rohitvats » 18 Feb 2016 21:06

When discussing numbers, it always helps to know a bit about the air force everyone is so keen to advise!

On a serious note, if one wants to understand the requirement of LCA, please stop going back to the Mig-21 argument. Most of the Mig-21/23/27 are long gone, having been replaced by Su-30MKI. A few remain and of this Mig-21 Bison will remain for another 8-10 years at least.

Here is what the IAF looks like/will look like by 2020: 14 (Su-30MKI) + 3 (Mirage-2000-5) + 3 (Mig-29) + 6 (Jaguar) + 5 (Mig-21 Bison) + 2 (Mig-27UPG) + 1 (LCA Mk1) + 1 (LCA Mk1A) + 2 (MMRCA) = 37 squadrons.

Looking at the above numbers and planned induction of 100 LCA Mk1A, it seems IAF at present is not looking at LCA Mk2 in the ORBAT. If we can produce 20 LCA Mk1A or 1 squadron per annum, we're looking at full complement of LCA Mk1A entering service by 2025.

I was expecting Mig-21 Bison to be replaced by LCA Mk2 but it seems these will be replaced by LCA Mk1A itself. I would discount the 20 LCA Mk1 because these will end up spending most of the time in conversion, training and tactics evaluation. IAF needs 5+2 squadrons to replace Mig-21 Bison and Mig-27 UPG. That is 140 aircraft at least. We've 100 Mk1A and IMO another 40 is given. Mig-27 UPG will most likely be first to be replaced by LCA Mk1A. So, we're looking at 160 minimum number of LCA Mk1A. And I won't be surprised if we've another 20 a/c dedicated for conversion training.

I think we're looking at 160-180 LCA Mk1A being produced over next 10 years.

Bigger question is, how do we reach the 42 squadron number?

Beyond 37 squadrons, IAF need 05 more squadrons. Now, I firmly believe that 7 squadrons of MMRCA will come. Whatever be the aircraft type. And I don't think it will be LCA version.

So, beyond 02 MMRCA already accounted for, I think we'll have 05 more.

That is only way we'll be anywhere close to 42 squadron number by 2025-27. With the following likely break-up:

14 (Su-30MKI) + 3 (Mirage-2000-5) + 3 (Mig-29) + 6 (Jaguar) + 8 (LCA Mk1A) + 1 (LCA Mk1) + 7 (MMRCA) = 42 squadrons.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4560
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby JayS » 18 Feb 2016 21:34

nit wrote:The discussion is getting a bit wayward from my point regarding what would IN prefer in 2025. LCA & JSF may have equivalent T-2-MTOW of .6, but that does not mean the amount of loadout on LCA will be same as JSF !

Let me clarify my question: I dont care what USN or RN does.

It is about IN. 2025 : As planned LCA MK2 comes online. AMCA prototype is flying. IN has STOBAR carrier.

Would IN like to have a Naval AMCA? Of course they would. Will IN consider N-AMCA better than LCA-MK2. Ofcourse they would.

Then what do you do with the LCA MK2? Use them on carriers for 20 years, because you had already built them and not go for N-AMCA?

Ideally it should be N-AMCA first, if not a N-(partial AMCA with some 5 GEN tech coming online by 2025), then full fledge(IAF & IN) AMCA. Would be waste of effort to go for LCA-MK2 for IN.


Of coarse arms load is less on NLCA. You get what you pay for. And of coarse IN would want to have 5th Gen twin-jet, which navy wouldn't? But IN is being pragmatic and unlike others, holding the one bird which is in hand than running behind the many in the bush. I don't see AMCA inducted before 2030 (I would put induction of AMCA ateast 15yrs from now). What should IN do till then?? NLCA not only will fill the gap but will be stepping stone for the N-AMCA development. We still need to learn things like carrier testing of naval jet, LG/arrester hook design etc. NLCA wil give that chance. Cut your teeth on NLCA and go for the kill with N-AMCA. This is very good plan, it makes all the sense. NLCA seems to be fitting in IN's strategy for next few years and they are betting their money on it.

And yes, AMCA should be designed keeping Naval version in mind right from start. And they are doing it for all we know.

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

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Viv S » 18 Feb 2016 21:38

rohitvats wrote:Here is what the IAF looks like/will look like by 2020: 14 (Su-30MKI) + 3 (Mirage-2000-5) + 3 (Mig-29) + 6 (Jaguar) + 5 (Mig-21 Bison) + 2 (Mig-27UPG) + 1 (LCA Mk1) + 1 (LCA Mk1A) + 2 (MMRCA) = 37 squadrons.

Actually no. The Rafale deal, if signed, is slated to deliver six aircraft per year between 2019 and 2024. So by the end of 2020, if all goes per plan, we'll have 2/3rd of one squadron.

So, beyond 02 MMRCA already accounted for, I think we'll have 05 more.

That is only way we'll be anywhere close to 42 squadron number by 2025-27. With the following likely break-up:

14 (Su-30MKI) + 3 (Mirage-2000-5) + 3 (Mig-29) + 6 (Jaguar) + 8 (LCA Mk1A) + 1 (LCA Mk1) + 7 (MMRCA) = 42 squadrons.

Can't say about the MMRCA, but you should probably factor in, perhaps another 4 squadrons of Su-30s. Given the effort invested to indigenize production and improve serviceability, I doubt they'll let the production lapse in 2019. Probably squeeze another 3-4 years at least (delivering one squadron annally).

arshyam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3951
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby arshyam » 18 Feb 2016 21:46

nit wrote:It is about IN. 2025 : As planned LCA MK2 comes online. AMCA prototype is flying. IN has STOBAR carrier.

Would IN like to have a Naval AMCA? Of course they would. Will IN consider N-AMCA better than LCA-MK2. Ofcourse they would.

Then what do you do with the LCA MK2? Use them on carriers for 20 years, because you had already built them and not go for N-AMCA?

Ideally it should be N-AMCA first, if not a N-(partial AMCA with some 5 GEN tech coming online by 2025), then full fledge(IAF & IN) AMCA. Would be waste of effort to go for LCA-MK2 for IN.

This is the exact type of thinking that the Air Force gets criticised for on this forum. Keep shifting goalposts, and when a new option is potentially available, opt for and wait for it. The catch is, there is ALWAYS a new option available, so what to do onlee. One will end up with nothing.

Now you are advocating the IN do the same? Especially after shepherding this programme through the years of muck racking by everyone and his uncle? It was the Navy that wanted the Mk-2 in the first place - I am sure they put some thought into it, and worked with ADA to get to the Mk-2 plan.

arshyam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3951
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby arshyam » 18 Feb 2016 21:51

(moving to separate post)

Btw, has the IN publicly expressed a need for dedicated maritime aircraft? Sort of the like Jag squadron IAF has (no. 6). My reason for asking is, can the Tejas Mk-1 be utilised in such a role, deployed at forward locations like Lakshadweep and A&N? It would also give us more backup fighters for the carriers when needed, considering the Mk-1 is being tested for carrier ops at Dabolim.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36417
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby SaiK » 18 Feb 2016 21:56

what IN would be really missing is the sea harriers. VTOL! of course STOVL is enough btw.

nAMCA variant can do a STOVL? /OT (not my fault)

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

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby member_29245 » 18 Feb 2016 22:00

rohitvats wrote:When discussing numbers, it always helps to know a bit about the air force everyone is so keen to advise!

On a serious note, if one wants to understand the requirement of LCA, please stop going back to the Mig-21 argument. Most of the Mig-21/23/27 are long gone, having been replaced by Su-30MKI. A few remain and of this Mig-21 Bison will remain for another 8-10 years at least.

Here is what the IAF looks like/will look like by 2020: 14 (Su-30MKI) + 3 (Mirage-2000-5) + 3 (Mig-29) + 6 (Jaguar) + 5 (Mig-21 Bison) + 2 (Mig-27UPG) + 1 (LCA Mk1) + 1 (LCA Mk1A) + 2 (MMRCA) = 37 squadrons.

Looking at the above numbers and planned induction of 100 LCA Mk1A, it seems IAF at present is not looking at LCA Mk2 in the ORBAT. If we can produce 20 LCA Mk1A or 1 squadron per annum, we're looking at full complement of LCA Mk1A entering service by 2025.

I was expecting Mig-21 Bison to be replaced by LCA Mk2 but it seems these will be replaced by LCA Mk1A itself. I would discount the 20 LCA Mk1 because these will end up spending most of the time in conversion, training and tactics evaluation. IAF needs 5+2 squadrons to replace Mig-21 Bison and Mig-27 UPG. That is 140 aircraft at least. We've 100 Mk1A and IMO another 40 is given. Mig-27 UPG will most likely be first to be replaced by LCA Mk1A. So, we're looking at 160 minimum number of LCA Mk1A. And I won't be surprised if we've another 20 a/c dedicated for conversion training.

I think we're looking at 160-180 LCA Mk1A being produced over next 10 years.

Bigger question is, how do we reach the 42 squadron number?

Beyond 37 squadrons, IAF need 05 more squadrons. Now, I firmly believe that 7 squadrons of MMRCA will come. Whatever be the aircraft type. And I don't think it will be LCA version.

So, beyond 02 MMRCA already accounted for, I think we'll have 05 more.

That is only way we'll be anywhere close to 42 squadron number by 2025-27. With the following likely break-up:

14 (Su-30MKI) + 3 (Mirage-2000-5) + 3 (Mig-29) + 6 (Jaguar) + 8 (LCA Mk1A) + 1 (LCA Mk1) + 7 (MMRCA) = 42 squadrons.


Well we just increased the su30mki from 14 to 16

Also you are forgetting 2 sqds of fgfa by 2027 ?

So that's 2 sqds you can safely deduct from mmrca and still reach 40 sqds

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4676
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Cain Marko » 18 Feb 2016 22:04

^Viv, the end result will probably be the same...37 sqds as Rohit suggests. Whether we get 40 mrca or a combo of mrca/mki is anybody's guess.

Point is...Do we reach the additional five sqds via mrva type or the pakfa? Rohit has not taken the pakfa into his calculation

arshyam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3951
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby arshyam » 18 Feb 2016 22:10

Karan M wrote:
JTull wrote:sankhum, why do you want to be a messenger boy for someone who's clearly following this discussion but still prefers to comment elsewhere? I think, irrespective of some good journalism in the past, these guys should get off their high horses and stop pretending to be celebrities while lapping up tons of 'followers'. I've seen first hand the foul language they can use when someone doesn't agree with their 'news'. It is easier to sit behind a twitter handle and 'dish out' rather than engage in a 'discussion'.


JT, when did Saurav Jha do anything like this? While I share your dismay (and contempt) for many of our so called defense journos who are merely political hacks or pompous twits who lack a fraction of the enthusiasm and genuine interest you possess, I'd still state Saurav is more the exception to the norm vs our usual journos.

Its to our benefit that BRF has somebody like Saurav as a member, and its Saurav's decision as to how he chooses to spend his time and address the queries that come up on this forum. He might get swarmed with queries for instance.

If the so called dunces who are posturing as journalists on the MSM were as accurate and sensible as Saurav, and his rare ilk are most of the time (at least as far as I have seen so far) - we would be better off.

Agreed saar. I think it would be a mistake to lump all defence journos into one bucket. SJha, Tarmak, Nitin Gokhale are the few who come to mind. And even within these buckets, some are sensible on certain topics and not so in others (for instance, Ajai Shukla w.r.t. Arjun, but who likes scoring political points wherever possible).

Didn't know SJha is a member, thought he was a lurker. Whatever his handle is, Hello, and keep up the good work!

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19862
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Karan M » 18 Feb 2016 22:14

Nevermind... guys LCA thread...

JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2797
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby JTull » 18 Feb 2016 22:23

How do you PM someone?

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55060
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby ramana » 18 Feb 2016 22:48

JTull wrote:How do you PM someone?



Only to Admins.

And they can contact others for you.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4754
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby srai » 19 Feb 2016 03:50

nileshjr wrote:
maxratul wrote:

the video is out!!!


I am disappointed with the video somehow.


Yes. Bit disjointed and incomplete. They need to show the full aero-performance from take-off to landing and everything in-between with view from the cockpit from time to time.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36417
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby SaiK » 19 Feb 2016 05:19

so, the single seat IN Mk2 (phase 2) is what getting people confused about AF Mk2 single seater enhancements. the frequent talk of weight reduction (mk2) is all about bringing the hard kaur to fine kaur. not sure how much will be shaven.

mk2 on 2015 brochure talks about 4.5g deceleration on arrestment. what would be JSF's?

srin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2062
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby srin » 19 Feb 2016 07:16

On the question of replacing Mig-27 with Tejas, does Tejas need to be upgraded with a similar 6-barrel 30mm Gatling gun instead of the two-barrel 23mm Gast gun ?

Or does the Mig-27 use a air-to-surface as its primary weapon against surface targets ?

Adding later: What *is* the effect of a 30mm gun against armoured vehicles ?
Last edited by srin on 19 Feb 2016 07:17, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby member_20292 » 19 Feb 2016 07:16

nileshjr wrote:
maxratul wrote:

the video is out!!!


I am disappointed with the video somehow.


ya.DO compare it with the other videos of the rafale. the rafales displays show a plane which turns much tighter and quicker than the LCA. when will the LCA also have its entire envelope explored?

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7737
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby rohitvats » 19 Feb 2016 08:36

Viv S wrote: Actually no. The Rafale deal, if signed, is slated to deliver six aircraft per year between 2019 and 2024. So by the end of 2020, if all goes per plan, we'll have 2/3rd of one squadron.


May be, you're right. But I am under the impression that first squadron should be in by 2019-20.

Can't say about the MMRCA, but you should probably factor in, perhaps another 4 squadrons of Su-30s. Given the effort invested to indigenize production and improve serviceability, I doubt they'll let the production lapse in 2019. Probably squeeze another 3-4 years at least (delivering one squadron annually).


For me, MMRCA is just a place holder. It can be any aircraft. Or a group of aircraft. If it is 3 x Su-30MKI + 4 x Rafale or 07 Su-30MKI.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7737
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby rohitvats » 19 Feb 2016 08:59

Cain Marko wrote:^Viv, the end result will probably be the same...37 sqds as Rohit suggests. Whether we get 40 mrca or a combo of mrca/mki is anybody's guess.

Point is...Do we reach the additional five sqds via mrva type or the pakfa? Rohit has not taken the pakfa into his calculation


That is because we don't have any clarity on the subject.

There have been various reports in the media about Rafale, PAK-FA, FGFA and even production of Gripen and F/A-18 Super Hornet.

My guess is that the present government is very actively working on addressing the aircraft requirement of IAF on long term basis. And looking at various options to fill the required numbers. It has already part addressed it by getting the IAF and R&D department to work together and evolve LCA Mk1A. Just look how much comfort those 100 numbers give. And ability to add another 40-60 if required.

But the real focus has to be force structure in 2025-2030 period. This force structure will be relevant for another 20 years. If we want to evolve a domestic aviation industry and also address the operational requirements of IAF in acceptable time frame, the decisions and foundations will have to be made now.

I would go out on the limb and say that GOI is looking at Rafale or other options from a perspective of helping the domestic R&D establishment in best manner possible. It is not looking at only the IAF requirement but larger impact. I would put the PAK-FA and/or FGFA in this category but we don't have much clarity on what is transpiring here. Especially, when DRDO says that this project will have no impact on AMCA and it is HAL which is gunning for the deal for obvious reason.

In true sense, FGFA and AMCA are the future of IAF.

FGFA is not expected to come-in before 2025 period. And AMCA will start entering service by 2028-30 period.

Rafale/MMRCA will allow the transition when Mig-29/Mirage-2000/Jaguar go out.

I would look at PAF-FA from a perspective of a government trying to make up for numbers in double-quick time. If one adds 60 PAK-FA to the equation I shared earlier, IAF will be able to reach 45 squadron strength by 2025 period.

And finally, Su-30MKI will start making way for FGFA and Rafale will be complemented and then supplanted by AMCA.

IMO, the government is working to ensure we have aircraft and technology to manage the transition & growth for next 15 years.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests