LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 09 Jul 2017 05:10

Vivek, some interesting points:

"Kopyo on MiG"

CAG

Audit noticed (November 2009)
that since its induction, the performance of
the radar had not been satisfactory
due to various inadequacies in the Air-to-Ground Range (AGR) mode.
One of the reasons for the poor performance was selection of unproven radar
for induction by IAF, for which
the software was still under
development/modification (July 2009).
IAF stated (November 2010) that
OEM specialists were sent (November 2010) to the Air Force Station, ‘S-17’
to load a new software to resolve the inaccuracies in AGR mode. However,
there was no improvement in the AGR mode further.

Kopyo range:
57km against 5 Sq Mtr air to air.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ile-56106/

In IAF service

The Ministry’s contention was in conflict with its reply on sub optimal
performance of ‘BB’ radar sub-assemblies and non-integration check of
‘EE’ Missile till July 2009 which affected BVR capability of the aircraft
during this period and expiry of life of ‘EE’ Missile in
December 2010 as discussed in para 2.3.2.4
(a). Ministry’s response to Audit query (May 2015) regarding extension of life of
‘EE’ Missile and effect on BVR capability of ‘D’ aircraft, was awaited
(September 2015).

In short integration with Kopyo was done late for R77, which anyways had reliability issues & even Kopyo had reliability issues.

http://english.mathrubhumi.com/news/ind ... s-1.889515

Tejas radar range was 45-50km without Cobham radar. Indian standard radar calibration is 2 Sq Mtr. This translates to a range of 60 km for a 5 Sq Mtr target. So very much equivalent to Kopyo.

Also - MiG-21 Bison availability:

Against the prescribed norms of 75 per cent the average serviceability
rate of aircraft ranged between 41.32 per cent and 51.52 per cent during 2004-
05 to 2008-09

Hard to see how the Tejas would not better the above over time.

About MiG-21 Bison flight performance vs Tejas LCA

Air Commodore (Retd) Harish Nayani is a former LCA test pilot who has flown the MiG-21 Bison aircraft extensively and commanded a Bison squadron.

"There is absolutely no doubt that the Mk 1, even if limited to 20 alpha would be many magnitudes better than the venerable Bison on all fronts. Notably, handling, safety, pilot comfort, and performance in the subsonic and trans-sonic regimes."

Tejas is at 24 Alpha today.

About avionics, there is literally no comparison.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 09 Jul 2017 05:21

Nirav bok 70 or not should be a separate thread.

The Mk1 inspite of all composite usage is hugely overweight.
A permanent waiver for its ASR on speed had already been granted. the increased weight impacts its range.

Are you an Engineer? Capability takes equipment. Equipment has weight. Size and therefore weight is a factor of requirements. Please read how the requirements have changed with increased capability imposed on a design initially prepared for point defense like the Mig-21 which is a fighter with very limited legs.

The question we should be asking is, on what basis are dates given for FOC ? They are repeatedly missing them and are affecting induction !

The question we must ask is - could the mk1 have been introduced in service without the added requirements and the added weight penalty. And these requirements to series development configurations in future years.

The IFR is not something that was added yesterday.
ADA/HAL knew what they were required to do.

Can you provide the ASQR when the IFR was added? And can you explain the engineering complexities behind adding this? Or do you think we should be able to simply add a stick on the airframe without a drag penalty or other issues.

The time for mig21s replacement has long gone ! There is doubt of a full squadron of FOC jets being equipped in 2020 if this IFR issue is not fixed ASAP.

Either it's a mig21s replacement or a Solah BLK 70 beater.. for the former coming in @ 2020 is unacceptably late and there's no chance of even the Mk1A matching up to the BLK 70..

Ultimately you have to persevere or else be condemned to being a third rate power dependent on imports. Fighter development is challenging without delay tactics employed by entities against local MIC. The LCA has gone far beyond the Mig21 whether we like it or not is immaterial. Late or not, sabotaged or not, it is here today. Chose the import pasand route (MkI with 50% availability and 29k with 8%) if you will and then don't complain if you are forever tied to your suppliers for spares .

@what would you call them. Indian airforce is just fine.
You can't call them names for ADA/HAL failures.[/quote]

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 09 Jul 2017 05:24

Vivek Saar: You are wasting ur time. Don't bother.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 09 Jul 2017 05:29

Agree Admiral! It is so disappointing to see another local development go the Arjun way.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 09 Jul 2017 05:32

Lets address the claims about range and MiG-21 comparisons.

Mk1 radius of action is

Ajai Shukla, IOC wrote: An evaluation of the Tejas’ combat capability must consider its flying performance, its avionics and the weapon load it carries. At IOC, it already flies at Mach 1.6 (2,000 kmph); operates up to 15,000 metres (50,000 feet); and carries 3,500 kg of mission payload, including weapons and sensors. Its combat radius is 400-450 km

Also see:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-mAYtyHpTXJw/V ... LCA_05.png

Seven pylons - including one centerline and one special (LDP) pylon.
In contrast, MiG-21 has five.

Vast improvement in loadout flexibility there itself. This automatically means more range (3 tanks plus 4 pylons free for warload). In contrast MiG-21 can only do 3 tanks and 2 pylons or 1 tank and 4 pylons.

Current (non upgraded Mirage 2000-H) - again seen with seven pylons.
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/or ... 3ea53a.jpg

IAF MiG-29 - ditto
http://www.geocities.ws/siddhuw2000/iaf-mig_29.jpg

Combat radius of IAFs premier AD fighter before Su-30 MKI, used at Kargil for escort?

"The employment of the MiG-29 suffers from severe inherent constraints. The most obvious limitation is the aircraft’s limited internal fuel capacity of 3500-kg (4400 kg with a centreline tank). We have no air-to-air refuelling capability, and our external tank is both speed and manoeuvre limited. We also have only a limited number of tanks.

"But if we start a mission with 4400-kg of fuel, start-up, taxy and take off takes 400-kg, we need to allow 1000-kg for diversion to an alternate airfield 50-nm away, and 500-kg for the engagement, including one minute in afterburner. That leaves 2500-kg. If we need 15 minutes on station at 420 kts that requires another 1000-kg, leaving 1500-kg for transit. At FL200 (20,000 ft) that gives us a radius of 150-nm, and at FL100 (10,000 ft) we have a radius of only 100-nm.

https://www.16va.be/mig-29_experience.htm

Oops. 280 KM!

MiG-27 combat radius?

540 km (290 nmi; 340 mi) with two Kh-29 missiles and three drop tanks

So we have an idea of the standards LCA met or exceeded, for number of pylons and combat radius.

Given above, its fairly clear LCA Mk1 itself can play a very useful role in the IAF & with a Mk1 to Mk1A upgrade plan, the investment in Mk1s can be utilized for the Mk1A.

Add the flight safety of a Ge404 engine vs obsolete turbojets, most importantly the FBW and HOTAS controls plus autopilot, and the Mk1 itself is streets ahead of most IAF MiGs.

nirav · Post by **nirav** » 09 Jul 2017 05:33

Vivek ji,

I'd request you to go through this when you have time.

http://www.cag.gov.in/content/report-no ... ght-combat

Puts things in perspective.

@import pasand : we have won all our wars except 62 with imported weaponry mainly.

Indegenous capability is certainly the need of the day
It's been so for decades.its also a fact that we've lacked it all this while and still do.

When we talk of the LCA program, do quote if possible an authentic source which states the delay was due to lack of funds like how the know it all insinuates.

If we go by timelines, I've read old reports where LCA was initially meant to be in squadron service in 1996. That's right,96.

While I agree that a lot of headwinds were faced by our guys, in 2017, the end product,weapon system is still NOT available.

Did it or did it not jeopardise IAFs planning? If not import then do what ? Hope enemy doesn't attack or tell enemy to wait till foc is achieved?

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 09 Jul 2017 05:38

Of course, the post on ranges etc is for the guys who come to LCA thread to actually learn something and not waste everyones time. Long story short, LCA Mk1 outmatches/matches many IAF in service aircraft in a variety of criteria & can be very useful in that full standard, even without AESA or Mk1A or MK2 or whatever.

Usual suspects will point to this ASR, that media report, this delay wagehra but will remain conspicuously silent about how most AF aircraft, today, don't have a lot of the fancy gizmos they claim LCA should have.

By the time IAF inducts F-16s, ROW would have moved on to F-35s as their striking edge. And the F-16s will be so expensive they cant be used as the numbers game platform either for which the LCA is well suited.

nirav · Post by **nirav** » 09 Jul 2017 05:42

Most of the said inferior aircraft are due to retire, where as the LCA post 2020 is expected to soldier on till 2045.

People thunder about Rafale and Solah being outdated then, yet clamour for the LCA which barely beats 25-30 year old operational jets.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 09 Jul 2017 05:54

Every AF has a mix of state of the art jets which undertake the deep strike, maximal risk roles & others which pull a variety of other roles.

Even the USAF will have a mix of F-22s, F-35s & upgraded F-16s, F-15s to back them up.

In India, we are buying the MRCA not as the "bulk" but "the edge" to supplement and even supplant the Su-30 in specific roles. Especially against PRC, which is developing & deploying highly advanced IADS.

Ergo the MRCA cannot be "yesterdays technology moved ahead" (eg upgraded Jaguars upgraded Mirages, MiG-29s) or "current technology" (LCA Mk1/Mk1A, Su-30s) but needs to be be maximal bang for the buck.

When it will be inducted, the world over, countries will be transitioning to fifth generation aircraft.

Relying on a 4th or 4.5 Gen aircraft against PLAAF's advanced air defence networks - for which even VLO aircraft struggle - is folly.

The LCA Mk1 meets the immediate needs of the AF for the TBA & is quite sufficient for the majority of roles against PAF. However, the MRCA is meant for the edge against futuristic threats both against PAF & the PLAAF. The LCA can easily match PAF F-17s, Mirages, F-7s, most J-10s and even F-16s avionics wise.

It would be folly however to spend far more than the LCA, MiG-29, Mirage or Su-30 & get an aircraft only marginally superior or survivable against IADS like the S-3XX which PLAAF fields. Deploying 4.5 gen aircraft against reduced RCS ones - and seeing PRCs significant radar progress it would be folly to underestimate their counter radar tech., is also a mugs game. The square law of radar performance means the reduced RCS aircraft has a huge advantage in seeing first, attacking first.

There is no guarantee, the FGFA will deliver on its goals either in the short term. The simpler Su-30 took a decade. The AMCA is further away.

It is hence folly to go for a 4 gen platform, inferior to your already chosen one (Rafale) when your opponent is well on the path to 5th gen, and your own 5 gen plans are in disarray. Get more Rafale, invest in spares and munitions for them and existing Su30 fleet, advance the LCA, MCA, FGFA effort while looking at a silver bullet buy of F-35s (as versus F-16s) if the 5G effort (FGFA/AMCA is far off). The savings from not buying yet another type to add to the IAF menagerie will be another plus.

Not that hard to understand really.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 09 Jul 2017 06:03

It is hilarious that the aircraft IAF plans to buy today, 4.5 gen - also " barely beat 25-30 year old jets", in several criteria, being but derivatives of older platforms, yet folks thunder about how they will arrive fast (no, they wont) and be all singing & dancing. Not really.

ArjunPandit · Post by **ArjunPandit** » 09 Jul 2017 06:38

nirav wrote:Most of the said inferior aircraft are due to retire, where as the LCA post 2020 is expected to soldier on till 2045.

People thunder about Rafale and Solah being outdated then, yet clamour for the LCA which barely beats 25-30 year old operational jets.

While I am not an expert in fighter design, or aviation matters
but being the uncertified jingo I believe but this needs to be done simply because
1. it is our plane. A slightly inferior desi plane in large no.s is any day better than an imported uber cool plane in small no.s (e.g. '65)
2. without it we should not expect success on dev & production of NLCA, AMCA, NAMCA (if it is planned today) or any HCA or Pilotless jet.
I hope you understand that till 2045 today's tejas would be what initial versions of Mig 21 are to Mig 21s serving in IAF . Without LCA, IAF pilots will never be exposed to our desi planes and they will never root for desi planes.
3. Not to forget we will be importing forever

Kakkaji · Post by **Kakkaji** » 09 Jul 2017 06:51

Karan M wrote:Of course, the post on ranges etc is for the guys who come to LCA thread to actually learn something and not waste everyones time. Long story short, LCA Mk1 outmatches/matches many IAF in service aircraft in a variety of criteria & can be very useful in that full standard, even without AESA or Mk1A or MK2 or whatever.

Usual suspects will point to this ASR, that media report, this delay wagehra but will remain conspicuously silent about how most AF aircraft, today, don't have a lot of the fancy gizmos they claim LCA should have.

By the time IAF inducts F-16s, ROW would have moved on to F-35s as their striking edge. And the F-16s will be so expensive they cant be used as the numbers game platform either for which the LCA is well suited.

Agree 100%

The LCA's original objective was to be the bulk replacement for the Mig-21, and it can do that today. Wasn't it Prof Bidyut Das who was recommending that the IAF simply replace the old Mig-21s in its inventory with new-build Mig 21s? In that context, the IAF today has available, in LCA Mk1, an aircraft much better than Mig-21 that it can build cheaply in bulk to replace the retiring Mig-21s.

The IFR, AESA Radar etc are Arjun-esque afterthoughts, that are 'nice to have later', but using these to delay the 'go-live' of the original project is not right.

Also, when we built the "world's smallest, lightest fighter", it was obvious that it would not have much space for add-ons later. So, stop waiting for the LCA to become an LMRCA, and use it for point defence and CAS roles, which the Mk1 can do today.

Just imagine - if we had a 100 FOC-standard LCA Mk1 aircraft in the IAF today, would they not be useful in the current stand-off with China, if deployed at Bagdogra and other NE airbases?

srai · Post by **srai** » 09 Jul 2017 07:07

Nirav,

India cannot suddenly build a fighter that is a world beater when it hasn't built anything of its own since the Marut. Only by supporting your own domestic programs (i.e. give it some slack--take a look at EF, Rafale, Gripen et al to see how much slack they been given by their governments/air forces; even the IAF has given plenty of slack when it came to the induction of Mirage-2000, MiG-29 and Su-30MKI) that they will go on to become latest technology anyone else can make. LCA in its current form is a true "4th-Gen" technology fighter that is more than sufficient in fulfilling the IAF's light requirements. Highly commendable for a country like India to catch-up and overtake a lot of countries. What the IAF needs to realize is that the LCA, unlike other imported fighters, can be continuously upgraded in India without having to run to foreign OEMs. Induct them and keep upgrading them.

With imported planes, you are pretty much stuck for 40-years with support and upgrades provided by foreign OEMs. ToTs, as we have found out, are just marketing gimmicks. Very little gained. Very restrictive on what you can do to those platforms. At the same time, they go on to repress domestic endeavors both financially and technologically for decades.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 09 Jul 2017 07:25

Kakkaji, exactly. We have MiG-21 Bisons today, which can't match the LCA. Ditto with MiG-27s. A 100 LCA Mk1s would free up substantial number of Mirages, MiG-29s and Su-30s!

LCA can also be used as the lead trainer & combat ops bird for many heavier aircraft squadrons. In years past, AF would attach MiG-21s to MiG-29 and other units to keep pilot hours up, while reducing wear & tear on other aircraft.

We can do much the same today - send heavily trained pilots to the Su-30, Rafale, Mirage, Mig-29 units as versus them learning a lot of stuff at the squadron level and using up valuable flight hours on those airframes.

So much utility in peacetime as well.

srai · Post by **srai** » 09 Jul 2017 07:31

^^^
Lead-In Fighter Trainer (LIFT)

Can save a lot of airframe and maintenance requirements on other platforms.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 09 Jul 2017 07:40

I do not believe using terms such as light, medium or heavy helps anyone...especially the IAF. Why is it that the F-16 and the Gripen both participated in the MMRCA (Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft) competition, but yet they are now contendors for the single engine, light category? Correct me if I am wrong, but are'nt both aircraft (especially the Gripen E) heavier in weight than their earlier variants in the MMRCA competition? But now all of a sudden they are perfect candidates for a light-weight fighter?

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 09 Jul 2017 08:26

http://defenceupdate.in/the-tejas-fighters-role-in-war/

The Tejas’ capability is best known to the air force and navy test pilots in the National Flight Test Centre, who have tested it in 2,400 flights. They claim it may be more versatile than the MiG-29 (primarily built for air-to-air combat); the MiG-27 and the Jaguar (both oriented to ground strike); and all variants of the MiG-21, including the multi-role BISON.

The Tejas’ likely adversary, the Pakistan Air Force’s F-16 fighter, has a slightly larger flight envelope, but the Tejas’ superior avionics give it a combat edge over the PAF’s older F-16A/Bs (currently being upgraded in Turkey); and superior to their new JF-17 Thunder light fighter, co-developed with China. Only the PAF’s 18 new F-16C/D Block 52 fighters, flying since 2010-11 from Jacobabad, may be a match for the Tejas.

Said an NFTC test pilot during the IOC ceremony on December 20: “As a multi-role fighter, the Tejas is at least the equal of the IAF’s upgraded Mirage-2000. It can more than hold its own in our operational scenario.”

Battlefield employment
The IAF’s operational plans earlier had strike aircraft like Jaguars or MiG-27s attacking ground targets, while air defence fighters like the MiG-29 covered them from enemy aircraft. Now mission-specific aircraft are giving way to multi-role fighters, which can do both jobs. This doctrinal shift stemmed from the Mirage-2000, the IAF’s first multi-role fighter, which was inducted in the mid-1980s. The Mirage-2000 inspired the Tejas in both role and design.

Today, the IAF controls the aerial battle from airborne early warning and command (AEW&C) aircraft like the Phalcon, a giant radar mounted on a transport aircraft. Flying over the battle space and scanning 400 kilometres on all sides, the AEW&C identifies enemy aircraft and, over a secure datalink, allocates fighters from nearby bases to tackle the intruders. The AEW&C also orders up fighters to strike ground targets in the land battle.

“Tejas light fighters, located at forward airbases like Pathankot, Ambala, Sirsa or Jodhpur are ideal for missions in the vicinity of the border. They are close at hand and react quickly. Being far cheaper, they can be bought and used in larger numbers, saturating the enemy’s radar picture and complicating his decision-making,” says a senior former IAF planner.

“With an AEW&C guiding the Tejas directly to the target, it does not need a long operating range; and its combination of Elta-2032 radar and air-to-air missiles, are lethal against most contemporary fighters.”

Employing the Tejas for the tactical battle would allow the IAF’s heavy, multi-role fighters like the Su-30MKI and Rafale to be focused on targets deep inside enemy territory, which are beyond the range of the Tejas – such as major air bases, military headquarters and strategic infrastructure. These fighters, which carry far more fuel and weapons, can take off from bases deep inside India, bomb targets deep inside enemy territory, and also shoot down enemy fighters.

Brad Goodman · Post by **Brad Goodman** » 09 Jul 2017 08:45

Karan M wrote:Every AF has a mix of state of the art jets which undertake the deep strike, maximal risk roles & others which pull a variety of other roles.

Even the USAF will have a mix of F-22s, F-35s & upgraded F-16s, F-15s to back them up.

I had posted it earlier and would love to repeat again. If IAF does not like Tejas then MOD should give Tejas to Indian Army (Aviation) and Indian Navy for coastal air defense. We are still locked into this paradigm that fixed wing air assets will be controlled by Airforce. Tejas with all its current limitations can still be used by Indian Navy for its rear bases. Example Say having aircrafts stationed at Vishakhapattanam or Paradip or Lakshadweep, Cochin, Goa even Guj coast and even Andamans as force multipliers in addition to Mig 29. They will provide limited but valuable support to existing offense and defense. I see LCA take up Air 2 Air role effectively even with range limitations and with more numbers can mitigate these as well. They can be used for training and always keep number of operational birds high even when the state of the art fighters are down for maintenance. Same should be true for Army or Marine forces. Having a dedicated aviation wing that can provide air cover for advancing troops is invaluable. This frees up Airforce for larger strategic missions and Tejas can handle tactical missions with its existing limitations but makes up with its larger numbers

Please feel free to point flaws in the argument

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 09 Jul 2017 09:54

brad, it all comes down to money at the end of the day. AF will claim sole ownership of all assets. citing paucity of resources and unity of focus etc. otherwise yeah, i see no reason why Army aviation can't have a fixed wing component. fighter one that is.

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 09 Jul 2017 10:05

At least CAS planes

Akshay Kapoor · Post by **Akshay Kapoor** » 09 Jul 2017 11:21

Karan,

your posts are usually very informative and objective but you are getting a little biased against IAF. I say that from the otehr side of the fence - army hat on and having fought (uninformed verbal battles ) with IAF colleagues on this issue a couple of times. It makes absolutely no sense to have fixed wing with IA, from an training, ethos, logistics, and tactics perspective. It makes a lot of sense to have theatre commands with integrated command and control but not to have strike aircraft manned by IA.

Your points about LCA being adequate for a lot of roles taking into account combat radius, avionics, flight parameters, tactical needs and comparisons with Mig 29 are absolutely spot on. I have said that myself many times and believe me there is a fairly widespread belief in the IAF on that too. The problem is one of production at HAL. Not only IAF but DRDO has pointed that out a million times. The issues about having our own MIC and LCA being critcial for that are accepted a 100 pct by all concerned in IAF. But the leap from there to getting MOD to take this forward and make ADA, HAL, MOD approvals etc work in tandem is such a herculean task given the way our MOD system works that you need to see it to believe it. It is not a rational and normal system which is why several posters will not be able to comprehend it. I have posted in depth about it several times and won't waste breath again.

However I will share an amazing chance encounter with you. Last night I was at dinner in India at a family friend's place and met a NTFC pilot with enormous LCA experience. We discussed air combat tactics with Tejas at length. Lets talk ranges - he told me LCA combat radius for most real life strike missions should be taken as 200 km with a 1.5 tonne armament load and no tanks. We drew 200 km radius circles on google maps from key IAF bases in WAC and SWAC (I had done this myself a few months ago but it was fun doing it with a real fighter pilot).

But first , here is a copy and paste from Vivek Ahuja's Beta Coffecient blog about Tejas vs F 16 ranges.

The performance of the LCA at 20,000 ft altitude is extracted from the earlier article on its performance. The plot is modified, however, to show the F-16A/B data. The latter aircraft is evaluated for the same equivalent fuel mass as that carried by the LCA when it is armed with a centerline drop-tank and two large pylon drop tanks for a maximum of 6,159 L of fuel. The range attained by the two aircraft are summarized in the form of payload and range plots. The payload is evaluated from 0 to 10,000 kg and is assumed to include the pilot weight and all auxiliary equipment excluding fuel. The vertical axis of the plots is range, measured in kilometers. The combat-radius of the aircraft is considered to be ~40% of the range. For example, a range of 1,000 km corresponds to a combat radius of ~400 km. Plots are provided for the LCA in three conditions: clean (internal fuel only), combat (internal + centerline drop tank) and ferry (internal + centerline drop tank + 2 x wing drop tanks).

Unfortunately the plot itself does'nt copy paste but here is the link. http://thebetacoefficient.blogspot.co.u ... art-i.html.

you can see that at 2 tonne load out range is 650 km and combat radius is .4 of that so 260 km but that's at 20000 feet and doesn't take into account take off and some reserves for air combat. Lastly off the 2 tonnes payload about 500 will go for pilot weight, pylons etc. So 1.5 tonnes of useful ordnance and 200 km of combat radius is a good number. This is exactly what the fighter told me as well. The IAF will fly at or even over the edge of this envelop if necessary in real combat but you always train and plan conservatively.

Next I am trying to copy paste the google earth page where we drew 200 km radius circles but can't. But am linking the page. Jope it works and shows you the strike range from several airbases.

http://obeattie.github.io/gmaps-radius/ ... u=km&r=193

So Teajs can indeed hit lots of targets in a strike role but not deep strike. For shallow operations that's enough.

Now in A2A mode he told me that post Derby and Cobham Tejas will be an excellent platform and will do very well in air combat. Main role will be escort of LCA strike packages and air defence freeing up Mig 29s and Su 30s for air dominance within enemy territory. However because of the Derby, it can used in very interesting ambush roles. Won't post more here but some really innovative tactics can be used.

Akshay Kapoor · Post by **Akshay Kapoor** » 09 Jul 2017 11:36

Another thing he told me is that needing top of the line a/c with much superior radars, avionics, ranges and capabilities is also a function of lack of political will to gain tactical surprise by hitting the enemy first. If you take the initiative and hit the enemy in a big coordinated strike first you can degrade a lot of capability with your existing capabilty and you have the enemy reacting to you. But if you don't want to do that you need to be prepared for a 100 scenarios and you need a big capability edge. If we had an aggressive and proactive polity with respect to national security we would actually be able to do more with less.

negi · Post by **negi** » 09 Jul 2017 11:51

Karan M wrote:brad, it all comes down to money at the end of the day. AF will claim sole ownership of all assets. citing paucity of resources and unity of focus etc. otherwise yeah, i see no reason why Army aviation can't have a fixed wing component. fighter one that is.

It won't happen because that is an out of the box line of thinking and challenges status quo something not possible with government institutions.

rahulm · Post by **rahulm** » 09 Jul 2017 11:52

@AK thank you very much for the post. Clears up many things incl the narrative about IAF a being import pasand. So it's not the IAF but the MOD and it's various arms that are preventing the scale up and deployment.

I have had several interactions with NFTC pilot(s) and unanimously they love the LCA/NLCA.

A question, if I may,is the MOD modus operandi and different when manufacturing licence/CKD products ? Thanks and much appreciated.

GopiD · Post by **GopiD** » 09 Jul 2017 12:00

Akshay Kapoor wrote:Another thing he told me is that needing top of the line a/c with much superior radars, avionics, ranges and capabilities is also a function of lack of political will to gain tactical surprise by hitting the enemy first. If you take the initiative and hit the enemy in a big coordinated strike first you can degrade a lot of capability with your existing capabilty and you have the enemy reacting to you. But if you don't want to do that you need to be prepared for a 100 scenarios and you need a big capability edge. If we had an aggressive and proactive polity with respect to national security we would actually be able to do more with less.

Thanks AK ji. That's something new I learnt and there's a lot of truth to it.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 09 Jul 2017 12:07

IIRC that feature of the derby was tested with the IN SHar's.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 09 Jul 2017 12:58

Akshay Kapoor wrote:Karan,

...

Next I am trying to copy paste the google earth page where we drew 200 km radius circles but can't. But am linking the page. Jope it works and shows you the strike range from several airbases.

http://obeattie.github.io/gmaps-radius/ ... u=km&r=193

So Teajs can indeed hit lots of targets in a strike role but not deep strike. For shallow operations that's enough.

Now in A2A mode he told me that post Derby and Cobham Tejas will be an excellent platform and will do very well in air combat. Main role will be escort of LCA strike packages and air defence freeing up Mig 29s and Su 30s for air dominance within enemy territory. However because of the Derby, it can used in very interesting ambush roles. Won't post more here but some really innovative tactics can be used.

Sir, that link is missing the 200 Kms circles. Maybe you can save it as image somewhere on the net and then post the image here.

Thank You

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 09 Jul 2017 13:20

Akshay, the arguments i made were exactly the same as those made against the Apache acquisition by the AF. The IA Apaches, that is, so not biased but stating the answers given when there are not enough funds tobgo around and IA decides to replicate IAF capabilities.

As to whether IA needs its own mini AF, I would say why not? Let the IA have tactical assets, eg CAS planes and escorts without getting Su-30s or Rafales. If the US Marines can have their own AF, for specifically the reason they need organic airpower which trains for the CAS or FBA strike mission as a primary one, why not have something for the IA.

Perhaps to keep interservice ties going, IA can use AFs C3I, comms gear and even train its pilots with AF and colocaye them. But this way, AF can free up its resources for more strategic tasks as versus flying artillery. Getting more LCA orders is icing on the cake if at that.For CAS f.e. Su-25 type aircraft may be suited whike LCAs are their MR escorts.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 09 Jul 2017 13:44

The issue is ordering more LCAs. The doctors have identified IAF as the problem. There is not enough data to support this. But that is the diagnosis. Sitting outside the scanner is MOD which controls the money flow, decision making and policy matters. The treatment suggested is so complex that it is easier to unravel Pakistan (Well it is unraveling on its own anyway).

Maybe we can create an HAL Air Arm and order some LCAs.

Are our blinkers so tightly fit that we are unable to see the obvious.
Apologies to have butt in.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 09 Jul 2017 14:03

Well having the IA get its own air arm us not germaine to the LCA per se. The IA may well order more Su-25s if only CAS. But USM experience shows they now prefer MRCAs because of ever increasing threats. It will be hilarious if we see MRCA circus for IA too. Should mske for another 400 pages on BRF.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 09 Jul 2017 14:05

HAL Air Arm may not also order more LCAs. HAL will order those that are easiest to make, offer easier profit. Hawks, QED.

nirav · Post by **nirav** » 09 Jul 2017 14:07

deejay wrote:The issue is ordering more LCAs. The doctors have identified IAF as the problem. There is not enough data to support this. But that is the diagnosis. Sitting outside the scanner is MOD which controls the money flow, decision making and policy matters. The treatment suggested is so complex that it is easier to unravel Pakistan (Well it is unraveling on its own anyway).

Maybe we can create an HAL Air Arm and order some LCAs.

Are our blinkers so tightly fit that we are unable to see the obvious.
Apologies to have butt in.

How can you even mention lack of data sir?
It has been decreed on various dhagaas by arm chair marshals that the IAF is import pasand.
What's left to talk and discuss?
Going by the expert commentary on procurement, 500 LCAs once ordered and delivered,India will be a suppa aerospace powwa.
The enemy is not PAF or PLAAF, it's IAF which is not ordering the said magic numbers.

You are seemingly lucky to have not been called a Paki like I was last night.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 09 Jul 2017 14:09

There is a simple way to get more LCAs. Let MOD raise the squadron cap and fund the IAFs acquisition of more units. Thats the PRC approach. They fund the J-11, J-7 AND J-10 plus other acquisitions.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 09 Jul 2017 14:18

PDF will now decide future of IAF, glory to al-bakistan..

Akshay Kapoor · Post by **Akshay Kapoor** » 09 Jul 2017 14:34

Karan M wrote:Akshay, the arguments i made were exactly the same as those made against the Apache acquisition by the AF. The IA Apaches, that is, so not biased but stating the answers given when there are not enough funds tobgo around and IA decides to replicate IAF capabilities.

As to whether IA needs its own mini AF, I would say why not? Let the IA have tactical assets, eg CAS planes and escorts without getting Su-30s or Rafales. If the US Marines can have their own AF, for specifically the reason they need organic airpower which trains for the CAS or FBA strike mission as a primary one, why not have something for the IA.

Perhaps to keep interservice ties going, IA can use AFs C3I, comms gear and even train its pilots with AF and colocaye them. But this way, AF can free up its resources for more strategic tasks as versus flying artillery. Getting more LCA orders is icing on the cake if at that.For CAS f.e. Su-25 type aircraft may be suited whike LCAs are their MR escorts.

Rotary wing with IA makes sense but not fixed wing. For one we already have a very long tradition on helicopter pilots in the army with the artillery Air Observation pilots. That lead to the AAC as we know it today. Till very recently all AAC pilots were volunteers from other arms and had ground combat experience which was very useful in the AAC role. I sincerley hope its still the case. They would then go onto command infantry brigades, divs and be available to become army commanders. But fixed wing is different. Even if IAF trains them and we resolve the infrastructure issues there are massive ethos issues - by taking them away from the pool of their professional counterparts we would be hurting their long term training and upgrading of skills. How will we manage their careers, why deprive IAF of some of the best of them to command large Air Force Bases, higher command etc. What about ground support, atc, engineers, airbases etc ? And tactics - what about support to Army LCA strike package ? What if multiple type strike package is needed ie LCA and Mirages ?

We already have IAF officers embedded in staff from Corps HQ onwards to facilitate joint planning and execution of air land battle. This needs to be strengthened and taken to the logical conclusion of theatre commanders.

Akshay Kapoor · Post by **Akshay Kapoor** » 09 Jul 2017 14:41

Deejay,

re the link. I posted it with the circles. But yes when you open it from a different computer the circles are missing. Let me ask SHQ how to post it with circles. In the meantime just draw them yourself...in the bottom left (at your 7 o clock) you will find a box. Just enter 200 kms there and then do normal google maps serach for a place - say Adampur. And click on Adampur on the map..the circle is painted in blue.

negi · Post by **negi** » 09 Jul 2017 14:41

Karan M wrote:There is a simple way to get more LCAs. Let MOD raise the squadron cap and fund the IAFs acquisition of more units. Thats the PRC approach. They fund the J-11, J-7 AND J-10 plus other acquisitions.

Brilliant never thought on these lines I mean when banditji's grand-son got Maruti bankrolled for those tin can gypsies for so long then why not a fighter AC at least LCA is as good as imported stuff; Maruti gypsy on the other hand was a highly substandard piece of equipment pushed down the throat of forces .

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 09 Jul 2017 14:41

Akshay Kapoor wrote: http://obeattie.github.io/gmaps-radius/ ... u=km&r=193
.

Ve-ry interesting

From Tuting, the Chinese military centre of Nyingchi is within 200 km

From Tawang -Shannan comes within range

From Gangtok - Xigaze is just of reach but a single refueling within India will put Xigaze in the LCAs cross hairs. A border airfield maybe?

From Nyoma - Ngari is well well within range

The LCA is small and stealthy and all missions over Tibet are necessarily flown above 15,000 feet.

Akshay Kapoor · Post by **Akshay Kapoor** » 09 Jul 2017 14:50

Karan M wrote:There is a simple way to get more LCAs. Let MOD raise the squadron cap and fund the IAFs acquisition of more units. Thats the PRC approach. They fund the J-11, J-7 AND J-10 plus other acquisitions.

Perhaps the first step for that we need ahem...a defence minister ! Also our defence budget is 1.7% of GDP and Pak is 3.6% of GDP not including funding from America. Sorry Karan, desh does not have appetite nor will for national security.

Akshay Kapoor · Post by **Akshay Kapoor** » 09 Jul 2017 14:53

shiv wrote:
Akshay Kapoor wrote: http://obeattie.github.io/gmaps-radius/ ... u=km&r=193
.
Ve-ry interesting

From Tuting, the Chinese military centre of Nyingchi is within 200 km

From Tawang -Shannan comes within range

From Gangtok - Xigaze is just of reach but a single refueling within India will put Xigaze in the LCAs cross hairs. A border airfield maybe?

From Nyoma - Ngari is well well within range

The LCA is small and stealthy and all missions over Tibet are necessarily flown above 15,000 feet.

And with a centre line fuel tank 250 KM should be okay.