Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2254
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby abhik » 06 Dec 2018 08:31

Mk2 is expected to reach FoC at the end of the next decade - you'd have to have a cristal ball to know how many will eventually be ordered... don't count your chickens and all that

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3247
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Cain Marko » 06 Dec 2018 08:32

Sure hope the Kaveri is available by then...kuch jugaad with Snecma perhaps.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3977
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Kartik » 06 Dec 2018 09:46

Image

KH-2018 (LSP-08) taxying out for a test flight in night.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3977
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Kartik » 06 Dec 2018 23:29

Trying to find a better quality image. But a great view of the LCA Mk1 (KH-2018 i.e. LSP 8 ) with aerial refueling probe.

Image

Just look at the size of that wing! Super low wing loading and all that comes with it. And yet, with the LCA Mk2 being planned to be a Mirage-2000 sized fighter, they may need to increase its size to continue to keep wing loading low.

The LCA Mk2 concept with canards is what I'll be looking at most eagerly from Aero India 2019.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3977
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Kartik » 06 Dec 2018 23:36

Another nice image of KH 2018 (LSP-8 ) with the aerial refueling probe.

Image

More of LSP-8.

Image

I hope the admins don't mind the pics being added here; BTW, we need a photo library of each and every Tejas prototype and series production fighter. Can that be added as a new thread or to the first page of the Tejas Mk1 thread?

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6980
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Indranil » 07 Dec 2018 01:51

Karan M wrote:Just go ahead and state the A2A details, just mentioning it out did other platforms or generic info on A2A/BVR etc capability, is not giving any classified details IMO.

Karan,

GS was strictly confidential. Remember, Pakistan honeytrapped people to get the details. LCA was excellent even in A2A. There is a reason why IAF is going all in for LCA now.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6980
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Indranil » 07 Dec 2018 01:51

Kartik, go right ahead.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36074
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby SaiK » 07 Dec 2018 11:18

GAN Advantage

AESA radars have been in use for more than 20 years and hence the technology that is the basis for them is evolving. Most of the AESA models in production now are based on Gallium Arsenide (GaAs)-based T/R modules. However, the emerging standard now for these models of radars is the use of Gallium Nitride (GaN) technology. GaN is more efficient than the roughly 40 to 43 percent signal generation/power consumed rating of GaAs radar modules, and it also generates less heat and extends the range of the radar.

Representatives from Saab pointed out to AIN that the Indian request for proposals (rfp) calls out specifically that “the aircraft they procure must incorporate GaN technology in the radar.” Although the Leonardo ES-05 radar in the Gripen E being produced for Sweden and Brazil has GaAs technology, Saab is believed to be developing a GaN-based radar that could be offered to India as part of its Gripen proposal.

What remains to be seen is how resource-intensive or costly it would be to retrofit GaN modules into the previous-generation AESAs already in service. Most of the specialists that AIN has consulted agree that GaN is the way forward, and eventually, all of the manufacturers will have to incorporate some kind of technology-insertion regime into their production.

ashishvikas
BRFite
Posts: 316
Joined: 17 Oct 2016 14:18

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby ashishvikas » 07 Dec 2018 12:41

Karan M wrote:
Karan M wrote:A salute to AM Nambiar!

https://salute.co.in/military-modernisa ... air-force/

June-July 2018
MILITARY MODERNISATION: INDIAN AIR FORCE
August 20, 2018 by Air Marshal R. Nambiar



More at the link.


From this, IAF expects LCA Mk2 should lift at least 6.5 tons of weapon load as compared to LCA I which lifts about 3.8 tons.

Is this possible ?

sankum
BRFite
Posts: 554
Joined: 20 Dec 2004 21:45

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby sankum » 07 Dec 2018 16:42

70% payload of Rafale with estimated empty weight of 7T+internal fuel of 3.2T for clean weight of 11T and with payload of 6.5T for MTOW of 17.5T.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15735
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Karan M » 07 Dec 2018 18:12

Just glad that things worked out as I had hoped for. ;)
October 2015.
viewtopic.php?p=1922719#p1922719

Karan M wrote: Meanwhile, ADA will continue developing the Tejas Mark II, replacing the current General Electric F-404IN engine with a new GE F-414 engine. The IAF remains sceptical about the Tejas Mark II, but the navy is certain the Tejas must have the more powerful F-414 engine to enable it to get airborne from short aircraft carrier decks.

ADA & the Navy should take this opportunity to move this bird into firmly medium class. More fuel, payload etc. Something tells me the IAF may come asking one fine day.


:D

Now we have a proper medium Mk2, and its likely the Navy will jump on the wagon. LOL.

naird
BRFite
Posts: 159
Joined: 04 Jun 2009 19:41

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby naird » 07 Dec 2018 20:29

Wow.. ACM Nambiar's article is glad tidings. Thanks Karan M. In between - i think Sourav Jha is lurker on BRF , he has refered to the same article to state LCA's A2G scores in Gagan Shakti. :D Go BRF !
On a separate note - does Indranil or any other poster have information on how many hours has been clocked by Daggers ? Is this something that we should put on the first page as well ?

Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6977
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Prasad » 07 Dec 2018 20:39

naird wrote:On a separate note - does Indranil or any other poster have information on how many hours has been clocked by Daggers ? Is this something that we should put on the first page as well ?

Please don't ask operational details and everybody will be happy :)

naird
BRFite
Posts: 159
Joined: 04 Jun 2009 19:41

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby naird » 07 Dec 2018 20:42

Prasad wrote:
naird wrote:On a separate note - does Indranil or any other poster have information on how many hours has been clocked by Daggers ? Is this something that we should put on the first page as well ?

Please don't ask operational details and everybody will be happy :)

Did not realize it was sensitive. Ananth Krishnan TARMAK 007, already is on record saying Daggers crossed 1000 hours of operational flying. I was hoping for a counter to gladden jingos hearts.

Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6977
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Prasad » 07 Dec 2018 21:13

Well they're IAF planes now. So better to be circumspect, that's all.

Btw to be read along with that article Karan posted https://twitter.com/Nambitiger1/status/ ... 99554?s=19

disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 6581
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby disha » 07 Dec 2018 22:57

Why the itch to get or state operational details?

I never understood that itch! Can one go and start being a better operator given the operational details from an armchair? Does one think that their comments on a public forum on operational details will be constructive?

IAF has operationalized LCA squadron from Sulur and are putting the LCA through its paces. That is good enough information. IAF further goes and says that they are interested in some 300+ LCA variants (Mk1, Mk1A, Mk2) and even gives the number of squadrons and the type of the squadrons it will replace. That is great information.

I just remember 5 years back, there was so much rona-dhona on this forum about IAF support for LCA Tejas. It was called a 3-legged cheetah, Khadi gramudyog and what not. Now, given that 300+ of Tejas'es are going to be planned and inducted in next 10 years., isn't it acche-din? Should we not get all do lungi dance instead of asking on 'how many hours did so and so squadron has put their planes through?' Or am I missing something?

Here is a not-so-bold prediction. By 2030, after USAF the next formidable air force will be IAF. Not PLAAF or RUAF or any of the euro ones. And the backbone of that formidable air force will be weapons and platforms made as 'Khadi Gramudyog' !!

The article in the previous page is a must read. A must must read.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5973
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Rakesh » 07 Dec 2018 23:07

There were folks on this forum who called for the Tejas program to end!

The patronizing statement was, "It was a great effort. But time to move on to better things. Start F-16 production, after all it is India's down payment for engine technology. F-16 and engine tech are tied at the hip! AMCA will be the real Indian aircraft."

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3977
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Kartik » 07 Dec 2018 23:14

Anyone notice how Toilet news paper's Rajat Pandit has gone silent? With positive news on the LCA flowing, he doesn't seem to have any new fake news to peddle.

darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2312
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby darshhan » 08 Dec 2018 12:41

Kartik wrote:Anyone notice how Toilet news paper's Rajat Pandit has gone silent? With positive news on the LCA flowing, he doesn't seem to have any new fake news to peddle.


His foreign sponsors probably stopped paying him as he was not being effective enough.

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1100
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Gyan » 10 Dec 2018 09:55

Let's hope for atleast 4 LCA in Dec, Jan, Feb, March each. Which will take annual production to 7 aircraft.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6980
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Indranil » 10 Dec 2018 10:48

You will have all SPs up to 16 by March. Don't worry.

pushkar.bhat
BRFite
Posts: 247
Joined: 29 Mar 2008 19:27
Location: prêt à monter dans le Arihant
Contact:

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby pushkar.bhat » 10 Dec 2018 12:23


JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3599
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby JayS » 10 Dec 2018 13:01

darshhan wrote:
Kartik wrote:Anyone notice how Toilet news paper's Rajat Pandit has gone silent? With positive news on the LCA flowing, he doesn't seem to have any new fake news to peddle.


His foreign sponsors probably stopped paying him as he was not being effective enough.


Funny, I had the same thought that Randit is not pooping anymore a few weeks ago. They have got better polished minions to peddle their propaganda. Randit had always looked like a fool and so was easy to discredit. So he might have fallan out of payroll. Anyhow, I don't miss is "30yrs in making" tirade. But its good that less crap is out their going in unsuspecting readers' mind, especially the "ohh so highly educated" English speaking natives.

pushkar.bhat wrote:Israeli radar means Tejas won’t have Meteor missile

Shookla ji just posted this..


Shook-law ji is running all over the place like a mad man pulling his hairs out yelling at the top of his voice for being unceremoniously swept aside from North/South Block corridors like a piece of garbage. He is producing fart after fart like he is a biogas plant. EL2052 has always been planned for Tejas. Its a relatively easy task to port integration work done for existing 2032 radar to integration with 2052, reducing efforts significantly for existing weapons suite. Changing radar not to a different OEM, would setback the entire MK1A program by years. And where is exactly the need to integrate Meteor on Tejas..? Its uber costly and it will be procured in a handful numbers which should be sufficient for Katrinas. We have Astra Mk2 and SFDR in line. Going by the current DRDO speed of execution in missiles domain, we should have both the missiles comfortably operationalized before MK1A production run is over, give or take couple of years. Why waste money and efforts in making all permutations and combinations of all aircrafts integrated with all available weapons in IAF (which is practically every other weapon in the world)...? It would be imprudent on IAF's part to dictate integration of Meteor on LCA and on ADA/HAL's part to accept the task and hold the work on MK1A or MK2. They have much more pressing things to attend to.

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1100
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Gyan » 10 Dec 2018 13:51

pushkar.bhat wrote:Israeli radar means Tejas won’t have Meteor missile

Shookla ji just posted this..


Shameless pimping for a particular company.

Anyhow, award of deal & signing of contract with ELTA means that MKIA is on roll and there will not be any lull in production line. IIRC first radar will be delivered within 2 years followed by bulk supply after 3 years. So we should see first MKIA flying after 3 years & steady supply after 4 years. Production rate of LCA should be around 8 per annum for next 3-4 years.

There is practically no manufacturing of Elta radar by HAL just assembly but let's hope Uttam takes over soon.

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1100
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Gyan » 10 Dec 2018 13:55

Derby ER, Astra 2, Astra Ramjet will be adequate for LCA MKIA.

Anyway, I can bet Europeans shall integrate meteor both with ELTA & Uttam, once MKIA starts rolling out.

Shukla is claiming 250km range for meteor missile. Reeeeeaaaalllly. :rotfl:

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15735
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Karan M » 10 Dec 2018 14:03

That Shooklaw article is shameless.

He's even ok with this?!
Then, in response to an IAF query whether the Meteor could be integrated onto the Uttam AESA radar the Defence R&D Organisation (DRDO) was developing, MBDA gave conditional acceptance on July 13, 2018. Writing to the deputy chief, MBDA wrote: “integration would be perfectly feasible [provided] this DRDO ‘UTTAM’ radar would need to be shown to be completely indigenous.”

Making its security concerns clear, MBDA wrote: “Security concerns (for all parties) over the implementation, architecture and day to day operation would need to be addressed [and] the 6 partner nations would need to obtain access to full working prototypes (of the Uttam radar) before progressing to the next stage.”


And is the IAF ok with their radars shopped around 6 partner nation's? LOL.

Shooklaw and MBDA can take their demands and....

Israel can be asked to provide a long range missile solution for the Tejas. Derby ER or even this.
https://www.pprune.org/military-aviatio ... r-aam.html

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15735
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Karan M » 10 Dec 2018 14:12

PS the Stunner is dual seeker, a better choice than Meteor against countermeasures.
https://hushkit.net/2012/05/18/israeli- ... f-us-aams/

Shooklaw is completely clueless. He says ASRAAM need not be integrated with the radar. His unhinged politics have made him lose any sense.

nam
BRFite
Posts: 1576
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby nam » 10 Dec 2018 14:55

When did this demand for Meteor became a deal breaker for LCA?

MDBA will gladly integrate Meteor on LCA or Dornier if needed, as soon as SFDR goes in to full scale testing.

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1100
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Gyan » 10 Dec 2018 17:57

My guess for timeline:-

Start of expansion of production line to 16 aircraft

Initial Dummy radar within one year to design and test connection points

Actual radar for first MKIA within 2 years

Bulk supply of Radars within 3 years along with roll out of first MKIA and completion of expansion of production line to 16 aircraft.

HAL assembly of AESA radars within 4 years along with squadron level entry of MKIA

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6792
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby brar_w » 10 Dec 2018 17:59

The Stunner does not have a warhead so it is questionable how the seeker and missile will perform against highly maneuvering targets with heavy ECM given that its original design was focused low end (sub 500 km) ballistic missiles and cruise missiles. It is obviously not a substitute for the Meteor or a similar Medium-Long Range Missile but could be a complementary system. No one has really funded a large scale demonstration of it or a similar H2K weapon in an ECM rich environment against this threat type. It makes sense for the IDF given their primary threat for this missile is going to be rockets, cruise missiles and UAVs.

I would also not characterize it as a better system against countermeasures just because it has a dual-seeker. The missile is a Israeli-US partnership to develop a low-cost interceptor that fell below the PAC-2 and PAC-3 envelope and allowed for affordable intercepts of very short range ballistic missiles, cruise missiles etc. Low cost was a major design driver. The capability set in terms of seeker performance against the highest end ECM threat of an advanced fighter is a major cost driver (seeker costs being >50% of overall weapon cost) so it remains to be seen how well the missile performs against the new target types in trials. There is only one dual mode (RF+IIR) weapon out there that has been designed from the outset to counter high end fighters with sophisticated ECM (SM2 IIIB) and there the seeker was a fairly significant cost driver even for a semi-active guidance.

On the Meteor, its seeker has been specifically designed against just this one threat type and the entire focus of its software and hardware enhancements is driven by this threat.

I suspect that if the Stunner is actually fielded in the Air-Air role by the IDF it will primary focus on the threat types it has been designed to counter i.e. mostly as a cruise missile defense and a Counter UAS weapon in the Air to Air role given that in the TBM role its envelope will be so limited that it makes no sense for the IDF to dedicate aircraft for this mission (what killed Lockheed's ALHTK concept even with a much larger weapon).

The PPrune link also mischaracterizes the stunner's performance envelope. It is designed to defeat the 300 km range ballistic missile threat (not to have a "cruise" range of 300 km). The weapon is generally believed to be able to intercept (with the booster) a 300 km TBM at around 25 km. You can probably double that number for a slower target where it lofts or perhaps more depending upon what the maximum design altitude is and how cooperative the target is.

Overall, the Derby-ER, and the ASTRA are potent missile options for the LCA compared to the significantly more expensive Meteor. ASRAAM-radar integration should not be too difficult or costly.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15735
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Karan M » 10 Dec 2018 21:27

It will obviously not be a stunner just repurposed for the AAM role but a derivative.

The Israelis are masters at re-using and adapting technology modules. So they can mix and match some elements of the stunner algorithms, airframe design concepts, some common modules (INS etc) to drive down cost. We do much the same. The NG-ARM has become the RUDRA M1, M2 etc
The Israelis took the Python and derived the Derby out of it.

Not everyone has the time or unlimited khan land budget to develop a gold plated gilt class weapon from scratch.

The point here is that the Israeli industry has the capability and wherewithal to develop a LRAAM in combination with DRDO or provide an "interim solution" which they may have fielded themselves. Being full-time into disinformation that they are, allowing a pic of a Stunner on the F-16 may mean they have something else entirely in service.

Unlike what Shukla claims, not having the Meteor is not the end of the road. In fact, it would be better to work with the Israelis to develop something more tailored to the kind of threat we face - reduced RCS etc w/jamming included.

I have never been a fan of the Meteor's one trick pony ramjet + RF seeker combination. The lack of a dual seeker is really limiting it IMHO against next gen threats.

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1100
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Gyan » 10 Dec 2018 21:34

A major advantage of the I-Derby ER is that it uses the same missile envelope. Unlike the AAIM-120D or Meteor, I-Derby ER will be compatible with aircraft currently cleared to carry Derby. RAFAEL claims it will be able to deliver 80% of the Meteor’s performance at a third of its cost. It is also superior to the AIM-120C7 and more affordable, the company claims. Already cleared on F-16 (Block 52), F-5E, Kfir and Sea Harrier, I-Derby ER integration tests are currently under way on the Indian Tejas

http://m.aviationweek.com/paris-air-sho ... formance-0

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15735
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Karan M » 10 Dec 2018 21:38

There is also the entire operational security angle.. MBDA apparently expects IAF to hand over Uttam and any AESA radar to 6 partner nations to pick apart. They know the Israelis wont agree and they cite that as a reason, Shukla is stupid enough to not even mention this and is whining about the Meteor being an issue, as the IAF won't be happy. Well in that case, would Thales have agreed to hand over their RBE-2 AA derivative to 5 other capitals? Its all a big farce and driven purely by French commercial concerns. MBDA and Thales are both joined at the hip, and clearly they wanted the RBE-2 AA to be selected. I suspect this is also the Euro back-up plan in case of the "future", they need to know enough to compromise the entire WCS, radar + missile combination, not just the missile as the FCR can usually guide the missile in for a sneak attack with minimal usage of onboard seeker (reducing the time for opponent countermeasures, even if available for the specific seeker in question).

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15735
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Karan M » 10 Dec 2018 21:40

Gyan wrote:A major advantage of the I-Derby ER is that it uses the same missile envelope. Unlike the AAIM-120D or Meteor, I-Derby ER will be compatible with aircraft currently cleared to carry Derby. RAFAEL claims it will be able to deliver 80% of the Meteor’s performance at a third of its cost. It is also superior to the AIM-120C7 and more affordable, the company claims. Already cleared on F-16 (Block 52), F-5E, Kfir and Sea Harrier, I-Derby ER integration tests are currently under way on the Indian Tejas

http://m.aviationweek.com/paris-air-sho ... formance-0


Well a dual pulse engine can't exactly match a SFDR so...take the above with a pinch of salt. But even so, it should be reasonably capable given Israeli experience in the arena.

darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2312
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby darshhan » 11 Dec 2018 01:09

1. LCA MK1 and MK1A both are very small aircraft. Hence inspite being a non stealthy aircraft it has a very small rcs. That should enable it to close much further against enemy aircraft. Which implies that that BVR missile carried by Tejas can do with a smaller range compared to that of meteor. For China and Pakistani threats that we face this should be good enough. Remember in cope india exercises F-15 had lot of trouble detecting our old Mig-21s. I am pretty sure LCA will have an even smaller RCS.

2. BVR combat is overrated. Especially at ranges claimed by meteor. At such ranges IFF(identification friend or foe) is still not reliable enough, not to mention the fog of war and the rules of engagement. Fighters will have no choice but to close in. Anyways once the combat starts it takes seconds for BVR to WVR.

3. If VSHORADS deal is going to cost you in the vicinity of $2 billion, then you can imagine what will be the cost of meteor deal. At these prices we wouldn't be killed by wars but by becoming Bhikari. These kind of deals will simply beggar us out of existence.

4. Another very interesting point that I have observed wrt Indo European arms deals in contrast to our deals with US/Russians/even Israelis to a certain extent. European arms companies dont have strong lobbies or sponsors backing them in our country. Hence most of the deals with them are stained with allegations of scam primarily raised by chief opposition party. The same people wouldnt have guts to raise questions about similar deals with US or Russia. Can you think of Raul Gandi or for that matter any media house raising his voice against C-130 deal or Akula lease? So even politically meteor is a hot potato.

So I would say just let it go. Anyways now we are progressing very fast in missile technology. Hennce maybe in 3-4 years, the very question of meteor procurement will be redundant. Just like what is happening to Spike atgm today.
Last edited by darshhan on 11 Dec 2018 01:41, edited 2 times in total.

nam
BRFite
Posts: 1576
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby nam » 11 Dec 2018 01:18

I am very moved by the concern shown in the report, but IAF is not planning to get Meteor on it's primary fighter SU-30, but wants it on LCA :D

Does this indicates, IAF doesn't like Su-30 anymore? It plans to spend money on a three legged cheetah instead..

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3977
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Kartik » 11 Dec 2018 01:35

pushkar.bhat wrote:Israeli radar means Tejas won’t have Meteor missile

Shookla ji just posted this..


Only worthwhile news in that article was that on October 26th, 2 contracts were signed with IAI for the AESA radar and the EW system. Which means, the Mk1A is well on its way, which is good news. The rest of the article is just :roll:

As for how accurate it is, just sample this "Likewise, the Meteor is already integrated with the Saab radar in the Gripen E fighter.". Naah, there is no "Saab radar" on the Gripen E. it is a Selex Raven ES-05 AESA, which is built by Selex and NOT Saab. The radar that Saab was offering is not yet in production on any type, certainly not on their own Gripen E thanks to schedule mismatches between the 2 programs. So the Saab radar that was offered, is not yet integrated with the Meteor- it is the Selex ES-05 Raven that is integrated with the Meteor.

Besides which, India should be working on a SFDR air to air missile as a desi Meteor equivalent to be able to use fleet wide at a much more economical cost than the Meteor, which is frankly too expensive to be bought in the kind of numbers to equip all types.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6792
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby brar_w » 11 Dec 2018 01:48

Karan M wrote:It will obviously not be a stunner just repurposed for the AAM role but a derivative.
....
..I have never been a fan of the Meteor's one trick pony ramjet + RF seeker combination. The lack of a dual seeker is really limiting it IMHO against next gen threats.


Fair enough, I didn't think of a possibility of there being an unknown variant which could be partered upon and integrated. That said, The Derby-ER is a capable weapon and can be easily integrated. With Astra in the mid-long term plan for Tejas, I just do not see of a need to look for yet another missile.

I don't see either the Meteor-++, Mica-NG, or US AMRAAM-replacement to feature a dual IIR/RF seeker but a standard RF seeker. It will be a more capable RF seeker to account for the future threats. I also don't see Japan doing it that way and likely not Russia or China either. Israel will likely also maintain the Derby and Derby seekers and try to sell the weapons in the export market. The Stunner and the SM2 IIIB were designed around very specific requirements with the former under considerable pressure to keep costs extremely low. A stunner variant is currently being worked upon by the Rafael-Raytheon team that could potentially be a weapon of choice on the F-35 I's and eventually be opened up for export as well though neither Rafael or Raytheon have spoken much about it for a couple of years.
Last edited by brar_w on 11 Dec 2018 02:18, edited 1 time in total.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3977
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Kartik » 11 Dec 2018 01:55

nam wrote:When did this demand for Meteor became a deal breaker for LCA?

MDBA will gladly integrate Meteor on LCA or Dornier if needed, as soon as SFDR goes in to full scale testing.


It never did.

The IAF may want the Meteor on the Tejas Mk1A and on the Mk2, but as long as the other requirements of the AESA radar are met by the lowest cost contender (which in this case was the Elta EL/M-2052 AESA) they have no option but to go with the lowest bidder..which in this case makes more sense from a commonality perspective, since the Jaguar DARIN 3 upgraded jets also get the same radar, albeit smaller with fewer TRMs.

For a fighter whose cost has been raised as a concern by the IAF, asking to integrate it with a costlier European AESA will be asking for trouble. the CAG will latch onto something like that. the best bet would be to go ahead with the Elta 2052 and Derby ER till an indigenous long range AAM can be put into service. By the time that happens, the Mk1A will be a mature fighter that will already be in service and who knows, MBDA may come around and agree to integration once they see that they'll simply be losing out on billions of $s in sales to the Tejas Mk1 and Mk2 platforms.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50757
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby ramana » 11 Dec 2018 07:05

Still the question of Meteor integration on Tejas shows unexpected naivety? or superior program killing skills.
Reminds me of the OSS sabotage manual of going by rule book and holistic thinking to kill programs.
For example Meteor is not even there in IAF inventory and asking for its integration shows Somalingam level mind.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Manish_P, sankum and 42 guests