Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

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.
Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7769
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby Indranil » 03 Oct 2019 00:10

nachiket wrote:
Indranil wrote:I know LCA's RoA. I do not know the Jag's RoA. But I expected it to be better with so much internal fuel. I guess I fell for brochure numbers here. Much to learn.

The question is why weren't the brochure numbers better? When LCA was being derided with ridiculous accusations of having 300km range ADA made no effort to counter the misinformation nor to correct the information on their website, graphics at AI etc. They did all the hard work of designing an aircraft with a decent range but then failed to publicize the correct figures.

I believe the same might be true of the max payload as well. I remember when we saw the pics of the high altitude trials a few people here made back of the envelope calculations to determine that if the aircraft could take off with the visible load in hot and high conditions, its capacity at sea level would be more than what is stated.

Don't get me started. This is what happens when you have scientist trying to do marketing. I am scientist, so I can deride my class.

ADA has done everything to kill any effort of publicity. It is a miracle that LCA webpage and FB page is alive. It is through personal strive.

By the way, did you see the brochure from this years AI. I know the guy who designed it. Very capable. But every manager had to put all the details and unnecessary half prepared pictures to get credit. I don't like this aspect of the program alone. And yes, it is not limited to ADA!

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18657
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby Karan M » 03 Oct 2019 00:21

nachiket wrote:
Indranil wrote:I know LCA's RoA. I do not know the Jag's RoA. But I expected it to be better with so much internal fuel. I guess I fell for brochure numbers here. Much to learn.

The question is why weren't the brochure numbers better? When LCA was being derided with ridiculous accusations of having 300km range ADA made no effort to counter the misinformation nor to correct the information on their website, graphics at AI etc. They did all the hard work of designing an aircraft with a decent range but then failed to publicize the correct figures.


When some LCA and other system details are publicized, some folks get upset. It undercuts the reason for imports. They write angry editorials asking the GOI to ensure the developers, HAL etc don't "hype" up their capabilities. It's "fake pride" if any simple marketing is done. Apparently no details should be mentioned until the system is an all singing and dancing inducted item, upon which its details will be classified and everyone will be told to be humble. And then there's group 2, the folks who who uncritically salaam saab everything above group says and states.

If folks on the forum figure out these items, the forum and y'all will be armchair marshals, cowboys etc and will be told best not have the *gall* to question why the GOI, MOD, IAF was not ordering more airframes.

Its not easy to parse details from multiple sources, when there were many vested interests who deliberately wished to undersell the LCA and many similar programs. At least the forum never fell prey to all this and has resolutely called a spade a spade whether it be the Arjun or the LCA or the Akash or many other programs which have suffered from this malaise of trusting foreign brochures over heavy Indian testing.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18657
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby Karan M » 03 Oct 2019 00:23

Indranil wrote:ADA has done everything to kill any effort of publicity. It is a miracle that LCA webpage and FB page is alive. It is through personal strive.


Its not an ADA issue that's for sure. They do what they are told.

By the way, did you see the brochure from this years AI. I know the guy who designed it. Very capable. But every manager had to put all the details and unnecessary half prepared pictures to get credit. I don't like this aspect of the program alone. And yes, it is not limited to ADA!


Which one do you mean?

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4602
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby Kartik » 03 Oct 2019 02:17

fanne wrote:Btw the nap of the earth flying for a longer range bomber (like Jags, that it can fly low and a circuitous route to target) is still a very valid scenario to beat enemy defense. Pop out few miles ahead of target from an unsuspecting direction, use smart munition and disappear back in the clutter.
Jags with high wing loading can do it (LCA cannot, very low wing loading, it will crash if flies near the ground with so much turbulence, or the pilot would have separate barf bag attached to his suite).
We do read report that awacs can pick aircraft that are rolling off the airport, if it is true, then low flying has lesser usefulness. You can still fly behind a mountain, hill etc and surprise the enemy.


That was the way the Jaguars were employed earlier. Now, even Jaguar pilots are being trained more for medium altitude missions where some degree of stand off capability can be employed. The low level ingress and egress worked well in the days till the first Gulf War. It's shortcomings became apparent quickly once it was actually employed in theater. It may still be useful in certain scenarios but the safest bet is to keep the striker out of the enemy SAM's bubble and if possible blind or confuse their radar systems.

Coming to the low level flying- the digital FBW is capable of dampening the rough ride for big delta wing fighters. Mirage-2000s with a FBW that is a generation behind the Tejas' can do low level flying easily. Gust suppression is a feature on FBW aircraft.

Shalav
BRFite
Posts: 588
Joined: 17 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby Shalav » 03 Oct 2019 05:20

fanne wrote:Jags with high wing loading can do it (LCA cannot, very low wing loading, it will crash if flies near the ground with so much turbulence, or the pilot would have separate barf bag attached to his suite).






NoE flying for delta wings is mitigated to a great extent by FBW (starts at 1:10)



Fizzla ya Mirage 5 conducting NoE



The really famous M2K NoE - There are also some F1's & Jaguars in that video

Ive seen smoe crazy NoE flying by the compound winged SK-35 Draken - will update when I find the video again, can't find it right now.


added later

The special purpose M2K's still keep up with their toss bombing training using NoE

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7226
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby nachiket » 03 Oct 2019 05:45

The Mirage 5 did not even have FBW. Neither did the Viggen which could also be used in low level attack missions. So no, low-altitude attack missions are not the exclusive preserve of high wing-loaded aircraft like the Jaguar.

What could help in any fighter is a Terrain-Following mode for the radar. But adding that to the Tejas makes little sense since most strike missions have moved on to using standoff precision munitions from medium altitude as has been mentioned earlier. Time and resources will be much better spent in integrating whatever standoff weapons are available with the IAF along with anything that the DRDO is developing.

fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3097
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby fanne » 03 Oct 2019 07:04

I am not a fighter pilot and would not know if the low wing loading aircrafts can do a NoE flying for say 1000 km back and forth. Some low level fly past is fine or flying over known area (desert with low sand dunes, between valleys or ocean floor). If indeed, LCA or m2k can do what Jags are doing at a larger distance, they can and should be replaced by LCA. Only thing LCA lacks is a two engine (but people have commented, one engine of Jag is no good, it only takes to the crash site faster). It is a better A-A fighter, perhaps the load maybe lesser than Jags. But a better weapon. It can do bombing at high altitude, that Jags have been lacking.
One of the things Jag pilots use to worry about unaccounted high power lines in TSP. They were flying all the way that low.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11309
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby Aditya_V » 03 Oct 2019 10:18

I think the low level strike with advent of heavy manpads has moved to Cruise missiles and fighter aircraft have been very costly with too few numbers. Thats why we have 40+ squadrons at one time but with far lesser capability.

Dileep
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5689
Joined: 04 Apr 2005 08:17
Location: Dera Mahab Ali धरा महाबलिस्याः درا مهاب الي

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby Dileep » 03 Oct 2019 19:44

Cybaru wrote:
Dileep wrote:
Actually, the Power Added Efficiency of GaN is not really better than that of GaAs. The benefit of GaN is in higher power density. You still waste power as heat, and you still need to remove it.


Can you explain that a bit better? I don't understand it.


It means, for a given space, the GaN can support a higher transmit power, but you will have to give higher cooling.

Better explanation (all numbers are imaginary):

Assume the size available for the module is fixed, say 5cm X 10cm X 1cm. Using GaAs, you may be able to build a 10W output power, with a dissipation of 6 watts. You need to provide cooling for 6W.

With the same size module, using GaN, you may design a module with 20W output power. But the increased power will cause a similar increase in the dissipation also, since the efficiency of GaN and GaAs are similar (actually, less as per some papers), you will end up dissipating 11W for the 20W output.

So, the "cooling problem" doesn't get solved. But we get more power.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7874
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby Rakesh » 03 Oct 2019 21:16

Vivek K wrote:Admiral sahab - Ghar ki murgi daal barabar! After ordering 72 Rafales @ $215 million a pop, 18 more MKI and One new Mig-29 UPG squadron where will the money for additional LCAs beyond the 40 FOC come from? They haven't even ordered the 83 yet. So effectively swap Rafales and their "tremendous capability" for more LCAs.

The fact that the GoI has not yet ordered the 83 Mk1As yet is indeed frustrating. I agree with you. I even mentioned that in my post.

But additional Rafales do indeed make sense because of the investment made in the first deal of 36 Rafales. And 36 airframes, despite the 75% PBL agreement, can only be in so many places at one time. 36 airframes x 75% = 27 airframes. That is what will be available to the IAF in a conflict. That is too little for a two front war. Now if another 36 aircraft do come, the number of airframes available increase substantially. 72 x 75% = 54 airframes. That is three squadrons (54) worth of Rafales available, versus 1.5 squadrons (27) of Rafales. Secondly, the 18 Su-30MKI (for attrition replacements) and 21 MiG-29UPG aircraft will also be a quick stop to address the squadron shortage.

Many on the forum are arguing for just that i.e. two to three more Rafale squadrons. There is no money for 114 Rafales or any other MRCA. The economy is in free fall. Not going to happen. The rest of the numbers should be made up with subsequent Tejas variants.

But let me talk about the Rafale in particular. We are not buying aircraft to sprinkle rose petals on the enemy. The Rafale is being purchased for very unique roles in the IAF - nuclear strike, SEAD, etc. In a conflict with China....If one expects to enter Tibetan airspace uncontested, they are in for a very nasty surprise. The Chinese have a very robust AD network all along the Indo-China border. And the Chinese have the S-400 system as well. If the IAF sends in their strike packages without suppressing enemy air defences first, the attrition losses will be unacceptably high. During Ex Gagan Shakti, the IAF factored in attrition losses. It would be imperative to not exceed those figures.

Now there are two aircraft that comes to my mind when one wants to do an effective SEAD mission ---> the F-22 and the F-35. Neither of which India is going to get. The next best bet is the Rafale. Not in the same league as the F-22 or the F-35, but from an Indian threat perspective....it is really good and extremely effective. The Spectra EW suite is indeed a really good system. You need the Rafale to break down the door effectively and rapidly, sanitize the airspace and then send in your strike packages (Su-30MKI, Mirage 2000, Jaguar, Tejas, etc). Otherwise, the IAF losses will be really high. The IAF can certainly give the PLAAF - as Air Chief Marshal Dhanoa (retd) said - a bloody nose, but at what cost?

And you cannot mount SCALP on Tejas. Not going to work. And the Tejas Mk1/Mk1A does not have the endurance that the Rafale has. She was designed to be a MiG-21 replacement and she does that job with elan. She was not designed to complement the Rafale. BTW, I have posted a couple of pictures of a possible Rafale SEAD mission at the bottom of my post. Do check them out. The Rafale is a silver bullet, meant for very important missions. Thus the purchase of additional Rafales should be treated as such. Not 114, but definitely another 2 - 3 squadrons more.

I am going to go off a rant now, but there is a reason for it. And believe me, none of this is directed at you. There is no one on this forum who supports local products and local industry, more than you. For you it is indeed personal. In my eyes, FWIW, you are a Patriot.

<rant mode ON>

When we talk about ~ $250 million per Rafale (as the first deal worked out to be), one has to also include everything else that came with it. We have discussed this to death and I am not going to rehash it again. But there is one thing that has been discussed very little about. And that is the pilot who sits in the cockpit. Every year, in Parliament, the MoD releases the numbers of IAF losses - both in terms of men and material.

And someone on BRF will post that and we will lament about the statistics. But it ends there. We don't reflect too much on it. We close the thread and move on to the next one. Usually, we are surfing BRF at our office. Sitting in our executive cabin, sipping on a no-foam, fat-free, skim milk Starbucks latte. At the end of the day, we shut down our computer, go to our S Class Benz, drive home listening to opera music and pull into our six BHK luxury mansion with circular driveway and six car garage. We open our gilded front door, SHQ is there to greet us with a smile and our kids are happy to see us. Please do not take what I have said above in the wrong spirit. I am not judging anyone's success. You studied and worked hard, so you deserve all the success.

<rant mode OFF>

But for the family that has lost their loved one, it is not the same. Her husband and her children's father are not coming home. How can one even imagine such a scenario? Unlike us, they do not have the luxury to imagine - they are living that reality. Each time a pilot takes to the sky, he has a reasonable expectation that he too returns home at the end of the day to his family. It may not be the same level of luxury - as described above - but that is not the point. He needs to go home to his family, safe and sound. You cannot replace Squadron Leader Ajay Ahuja or Squadron Leader Samir Abrol or Squadron Leader Siddhartha Negi. They are gone. There are no words in any language to describe the pain and gaping hole that their families feel. We can shrug our shoulders and say that fighter flying is an operational hazard.

Try explaining the term operational hazard to the family that has just lost their husband and/or father or brother or uncle.

We celebrate Wing Commander Abhinandan Varthaman's act of bravery (as we rightfully should) and he deserves the best platform that the country can afford to give him. If a second batch of 36 Rafales cost the same (not going to happen) as the first batch, India should still sign on the dotted line. We are asking Wing Commander Varthaman to put his life on the line! What is $250 million compared to his life? Because at the end of the day, he needs to go home to his family. That is what matters most. I am not in favour of 114 Rafales or any other MRCA. But we need to spend money judiciously and wisely. Capitalize on the investment made in the first batch of 36 Rafales. It makes perfect sense. In a future conflict, the IAF needs more than 27 Rafale airframes - at any point in time - for a two front war.

Also sign the deal for 21 MiG-29UPGs and 18 Su-30MKIs. Retire those MiG-21 and MiG-27UPG squadrons. And yes, order additional Tejas aircraft as well. Another 3 - 4 squadrons of the Mk1A variant are most definitely required. And way cheaper than ordering 114 MRCA aircraft.

Pictures below courtesy of Rafale Blog ---> http://rafalenews.blogspot.com/p/rafale ... d-out.html

Stand off Strike #1 : 3 RPL 2000L + 2 Scalp/EG + 2 Mica EM + 2 Mica IR
Image

Stand off Strike #2 : 2 RPL 2000L. + 1 Scalp/EG + 4 Mica EM + 2 Mica IR
Image

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7920
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby brar_w » 03 Oct 2019 21:29

Rakesh wrote:Now there are two aircraft that comes to my mind when one wants to do an effective SEAD mission ---> the F-22 and the F-35. Neither of which India is going to get. The next best bet is the Rafale. Not in the same league as the F-22 or the F-35, but from an Indian threat perspective....it is really good and extremely effective. The Spectra EW suite is indeed a really good system. You need the Rafale to break down the door effectively and rapidly, sanitize the airspace and then send in your strike packages (Su-30MKI, Mirage 2000, Jaguar, Tejas, etc). Otherwise, the IAF losses will be really high. The IAF can certainly give the PLAAF - as Air Chief Marshal Dhanoa (retd) said - a bloody nose, but at what cost?

I'd argue that the best SEAD/DEAD 4+ gen platforms, if not best among all, including 5th gen ( if one considers the entire spectrum of potential SEAD/DEAD missions), is the EA-18 Growler with its capability, and growth when it comes both kinetic (Long range subsonic missiles, and short-medium range supersonic ARM and multi role missions) and non kinetic (Stand Off, Escort and Stand-In) jamming abilities, both via organic and collaborative means (using Growler specific mission systems like high power Stand Off Jammers) and via stand-in Jammer deployment (MALD-J and MALD-N). I think beyond, SEAD, and Nuclear strike what probably appeals to the IAF (Rafale) is the excellent multi-role capability and tactical stand off strike and even BVR peroformance and its qualitative advantage compared to PAF or even the Chinese elements.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7874
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby Rakesh » 03 Oct 2019 21:33

You are correct. And I am sure you remember Saar, I advocated for the Growler on BRF.

But like the F-22 and F-35, not going to happen.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7874
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby Rakesh » 03 Oct 2019 23:35

naird wrote:
Rakesh wrote: Additional Mk1As can replace a good number of the older Jaguar squadrons. If the RoA is better than the Jaguar, then why not?

Arent Jags known for extremely low level flying ! Not sure what it means to design such a/c and if LCA or any other a/c in IAF inventory is capable of that. However with updated technology and stand off PGM's - we may not even need that !

You answered your own question :)

Why send in Jaguars and invite attrition losses? Stand off from a distance and launch a PGM.

SAAW - Smart Anti-Airfield Weapon. If they can mount SAAW on Su-30MKI and Jaguar, I do not see any reason why Tejas cannot.

Prem Kumar wrote:
Rakesh wrote:And that is why the IAF must order more Mk1A squadrons. 83 is too little an order. They can solve squadron shortage problem with a stroke of a pen! ......
MMRCA is also done.

Why MK1A sir? Even MK1 is better than Jags & Bisons. Order 4 more squadrons of MK1s & upgrade them all to MK1A standard after 4-5 years. Its frustrating to see us castrating ourselves. Someone with vision & ruthlessness must crack the whip and make this happen

Please no sir :)

And I agree on upgrading the Mk1 to the Mk1A standard. Just continue with the production of the Mk1. When Mk1A is certified, retrofit the earlier build batches to the Mk1A standard.

As of right now, the Mk1/Mk1A production run stands at 123 aircraft. Add another 4 squadrons (to replace the older Jaguar units) and you are looking at an additional 80 aircraft. A total production run of 203 aircraft. Fabulous for a good and financially profitable production run.

darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2505
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby darshhan » 03 Oct 2019 23:51

Rakesh wrote:.....
And the Tejas Mk1/Mk1A does not have the endurance that the Rafale has. She was designed to be a MiG-21 replacement and she does that job with elan. She was not designed to complement the Rafale.
......


Rakesh, While capabilities of Rafale are definitely much more than Tejas including range, it would be wrong to club Tejas with MIG 21 especially wrt range. As per Harsh Vardhan Thakur's tweet(@hvtiaf) Tejas can easily travel Bangalore to Jaisalmer without any stops or refueling. He was the Tejas test pilot. Probably still is. So that is coming straight from Horse's mouth. IMO Tejas has enough endurance to target whole of Pakistani Punjab, Sindh, Khyber Pakhtunwa, Eastern Balochistan plus more than 50% of Tibet and Xinjiang. With stand off munitions make that whole of tibet and possibly even chengdu.Even ACM Dhanoa has heaped laurels on Tejas MK1a F-404 engine comparing it much favourably with MIG 21 engine.

In all probability tejas short range or point defence fighter canard was spread by import pimp lobby.

Agree with rest of your post by the way.

prasannasimha
Forum Moderator
Posts: 1170
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 00:22

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby prasannasimha » 03 Oct 2019 23:55

Tejas did travel from Bangalore to Jaisalmer for for Iron fist without refueling

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7874
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby Rakesh » 04 Oct 2019 00:00

darshhan wrote:Rakesh, While capabilities of Rafale are definitely much more than Tejas including range, it would be wrong to club Tejas with MIG 21 especially wrt range. As per Harsh Vardhan Thakur's tweet(@hvtiaf) Tejas can easily travel Bangalore to Jaisalmer without any stops or refueling. He was the Tejas test pilot. Probably still is. So that is coming straight from Horse's mouth. IMO Tejas has enough endurance to target whole of Pakistani Punjab, Sindh, Khyber Pakhtunwa, Eastern Balochistan plus more than 50% of Tibet and Xinjiang. With stand off munitions make that whole of tibet and possibly even chengdu.nEven ACM Dhanoa has heaped laurels on Tejas MK1a F-404 engine comparing it much favourably with MIG 21 engine.

In all probability tejas short range or point defence fighter canard was spread by import pimp lobby.

Agree with rest of your post by the way.

My bad Saar. Thank you for pointing that out.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2483
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby Cybaru » 04 Oct 2019 00:31

Dileep wrote:
Cybaru wrote:
Can you explain that a bit better? I don't understand it.


It means, for a given space, the GaN can support a higher transmit power, but you will have to give higher cooling.

Better explanation (all numbers are imaginary):

Assume the size available for the module is fixed, say 5cm X 10cm X 1cm. Using GaAs, you may be able to build a 10W output power, with a dissipation of 6 watts. You need to provide cooling for 6W.

With the same size module, using GaN, you may design a module with 20W output power. But the increased power will cause a similar increase in the dissipation also, since the efficiency of GaN and GaAs are similar (actually, less as per some papers), you will end up dissipating 11W for the 20W output.

So, the "cooling problem" doesn't get solved. But we get more power.


Ah thank you for explaining that in detail!!

so how is the cooling done? Air or liquid based?

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2483
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby Cybaru » 04 Oct 2019 00:43

Rakesh wrote:The fact that the GoI has not yet ordered the 83 Mk1As yet is indeed frustrating. I agree with you. I even mentioned that in my post.

But additional Rafales do indeed make sense because of the investment made in the first deal of 36 Rafales. And 36 airframes, despite the 75% PBL agreement, can only be in so many places at one time. 36 airframes x 75% = 27 airframes. That is what will be available to the IAF in a conflict. That is too little for a two front war. Now if another 36 aircraft do come, the number of airframes available increase substantially. 72 x 75% = 54 airframes. That is three squadrons (54) worth of Rafales available, versus 1.5 squadrons (27) of Rafales. Secondly, the 18 Su-30MKI (for attrition replacements) and 21 MiG-29UPG aircraft will also be a quick stop to address the squadron shortage.

The Rafale is being purchased for very unique roles in the IAF - nuclear strike, SEAD, etc. In a conflict with China....If one expects to enter Tibetan airspace uncontested, they are in for a very nasty surprise.


Good post Koshy saar!

I do think at the moment the small purchase is to ensure that the strategic arm is fully able to deliver all the petals it needs to. Given the requirement for a strong qualitative edge, while the LCA and it's offspring mature, the Raffy will play an important role. Good thing is that we didn't add Su57 in the menagerie. IMO, adding more raffy whether we choose to add 2 or 3 squadrons or build 114 at home, won't change the number of LCA we will need.

I do think there is possibly bandwidth (back of napkin calcs) at HAL to add another 20 more LCAs before 2026 and transition to MWF. I hope IAF gives a confirmed order of 103 instead of 83.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7874
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby Rakesh » 04 Oct 2019 00:47

So 132 MiG-21s (seven units) being replaced by 123 HAL Tejas Mk1 / Mk1A (six units).

Next goal should be to order additional Tejas units to replace the older Jaguar units.

Tejas ‘iPhone’ of fighter jets, say IAF pilots, HAL
https://www.deccanherald.com/state/teja ... 62645.html
19 Sept 2019

Although the Indian government plans to have a 42-squadron Air Force, it still only has 36, a situation which many of the pilots said would change with the introduction of the Tejas into service. When quizzed about the matter, Air Vice Marshal N Tiwari, Project Director of the National Flight Test Centre in Bengaluru, clarified that the government’s plan is to use the Tejas to supplant all MiG-21s currently in service. “To this end, the IAF has committed to an additional 83 Tejas, on top of the 40 already on order,” Tiwari said. The IAF currently has 132 operational MiG-21s, across seven squadrons.

Senior test pilots and HAL officials praised LCA Tejas as being the “iPhone” of fighter aircraft during Defence Minister Rajnath Singh’s visit to the Tejas testing centre in Bengaluru on Thursday. “It is a pilot’s aircraft. You can actually describe it as the “iPhone,” said a senior test pilot, who described the aircraft’s performance as being better than that of the Mirage 2000.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2483
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby Cybaru » 04 Oct 2019 00:49

All the more reason to add an extra 20 to the order!

Nikhil T
BRFite
Posts: 1146
Joined: 09 Nov 2008 06:48
Location: RAW HQ, Lodhi Road

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby Nikhil T » 04 Oct 2019 01:34

@Rakesh saar - there are several assertions in your post justifying the Rafale. With due respect, disagree on many counts.

But let me talk about the Rafale in particular. We are not buying aircraft to sprinkle rose petals on the enemy. The Rafale is being purchased for very unique roles in the IAF - nuclear strike, SEAD, etc. In a conflict with China....If one expects to enter Tibetan airspace uncontested, they are in for a very nasty surprise. The Chinese have a very robust AD network all along the Indo-China border. And the Chinese have the S-400 system as well. If the IAF sends in their strike packages without suppressing enemy air defences first, the attrition losses will be unacceptably high. During Ex Gagan Shakti, the IAF factored in attrition losses. It would be imperative to not exceed those figures.

Now there are two aircraft that comes to my mind when one wants to do an effective SEAD mission ---> the F-22 and the F-35. Neither of which India is going to get. The next best bet is the Rafale. Not in the same league as the F-22 or the F-35, but from an Indian threat perspective....it is really good and extremely effective. The Spectra EW suite is indeed a really good system. You need the Rafale to break down the door effectively and rapidly, sanitize the airspace and then send in your strike packages (Su-30MKI, Mirage 2000, Jaguar, Tejas, etc). Otherwise, the IAF losses will be really high. The IAF can certainly give the PLAAF - as Air Chief Marshal Dhanoa (retd) said - a bloody nose, but at what cost?


India has alternatives to sending $250 million Rafales for SEAD missions. Land based cruise missiles such as Brahmos can take out fixed installations such as radar stations. With its steep dive and terrain avoidance capabilities, its ideally suited for mountain warfare where most radar stations are situated on hill tops or behind mountain ridge lines (see below). For moving targets such as S-400s, anti-radiation missiles can be fired from both air/land, which will again be cheaper and safer than sending a pilot into heavily contested airspace. I remember from a recent DefExpo that DRDO has a ARM under development. Also, SCALP can be fired off M2Ks, not just Rafales. The problem is that Rafale is seen as a silver bullet (as you wrote). It is not. No plane is.

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ne ... s?from=mdr
"We can take on any ship at sea up to 300 to 400 km (far) and after some time, may be longer; we can take on land targets up to hundreds of km and with the test that we have conducted some time back (from Sukhoi 30), ranges up to thousands of km," he said, according to a release by the state-run broadcaster.

But additional Rafales do indeed make sense because of the investment made in the first deal of 36 Rafales. And 36 airframes, despite the 75% PBL agreement, can only be in so many places at one time. 36 airframes x 75% = 27 airframes. That is what will be available to the IAF in a conflict. That is too little for a two front war. Now if another 36 aircraft do come, the number of airframes available increase substantially. 72 x 75% = 54 airframes. That is three squadrons (54) worth of Rafales available, versus 1.5 squadrons (27) of Rafales. Secondly, the 18 Su-30MKI (for attrition replacements) and 21 MiG-29UPG aircraft will also be a quick stop to address the squadron shortage.

Many on the forum are arguing for just that i.e. two to three more Rafale squadrons. There is no money for 114 Rafales or any other MRCA. The economy is in free fall. Not going to happen. The rest of the numbers should be made up with subsequent Tejas variants.


I fail to see how 27 Rafales are not enough to break the door, but 54 Rafales are. With PLAAF rapidly growing in strength, inducting 5th gen fighters and presumably adding more radar/AD coverage behind the scenes, I will bet that there will be a post a year from now that we need a couple more squadrons of Rafales for breaking the door, because the door has been fortified a bit more.

When we talk about ~ $250 million per Rafale (as the first deal worked out to be), one has to also include everything else that came with it. We have discussed this to death and I am not going to rehash it again. But there is one thing that has been discussed very little about. And that is the pilot who sits in the cockpit. Every year, in Parliament, the MoD releases the numbers of IAF losses - both in terms of men and material....

But for the family that has lost their loved one, it is not the same. Her husband and her children's father are not coming home. How can one even imagine such a scenario? Unlike us, they do not have the luxury to imagine - they are living that reality. Each time a pilot takes to the sky, he has a reasonable expectation that he too returns home at the end of the day to his family. It may not be the same level of luxury - as described above - but that is not the point. He needs to go home to his family, safe and sound. You cannot replace Squadron Leader Ajay Ahuja or Squadron Leader Samir Abrol or Squadron Leader Siddhartha Negi. They are gone. There are no words in any language to describe the pain and gaping hole that their families feel. We can shrug our shoulders and say that fighter flying is an operational hazard.
Try explaining the term operational hazard to the family that has just lost their husband and/or father or brother or uncle.


This is a very narrow view that those arguing against the Rafale don't care about pilots losing their lives. The argument in fact is that the money spent on Rafales can be better spent in other ways - either in defence or even outside of it. As a counter example - there are thousands that die each year in hospitals because they can't afford medical care and thousands of farmers that kill themselves over farm loans. How is their life any less worthy? What words do we have to tell their families that we diverted taxes away from them?

India is a severely resource constrained country and there is only so much we can spend on defence. The argument here is that we cannot counter China (an enemy with 5X military budget buying mostly cheap, indigenous weapons) with a military that relies on imported weapons purchased at eye watering prices. We have to either (1) drop the fantasy of invading heavily contested Chinese airspace, (2) invest in affordable weapons that allow us to have volumes, or (3) increase share of defence spending. There is no other alternative (IMO, of course).

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53475
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby ramana » 04 Oct 2019 02:03

Nikhil In the end an Airforce needs planes. Or else its a missile force.
Not the same thing.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7874
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby Rakesh » 04 Oct 2019 02:15

Nikhil T wrote:India has alternatives to sending $250 million Rafales for SEAD missions. Land based cruise missiles such as Brahmos can take out fixed installations such as radar stations. With its steep dive and terrain avoidance capabilities, its ideally suited for mountain warfare where most radar stations are situated on hill tops or behind mountain ridge lines (see below). For moving targets such as S-400s, anti-radiation missiles can be fired from both air/land, which will again be cheaper and safer than sending a pilot into heavily contested airspace. I remember from a recent DefExpo that DRDO has a ARM under development. Also, SCALP can be fired off M2Ks, not just Rafales. The problem is that Rafale is seen as a silver bullet (as you wrote). It is not. No plane is.

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ne ... s?from=mdr
"We can take on any ship at sea up to 300 to 400 km (far) and after some time, may be longer; we can take on land targets up to hundreds of km and with the test that we have conducted some time back (from Sukhoi 30), ranges up to thousands of km," he said, according to a release by the state-run broadcaster.

*BrahMos unit cost - US $2.75 million (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BrahMos)
*SCALP unit cost - €850,000 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storm_Shadow) or US $932,577.50 as per today's exchange rates

SCALP is more than $1.8 million cheaper per unit when compared to BrahMos. To take out mobile targets, definitely the SCALP is cheaper and better option. Fixed and high value targets, as you have described above, the BrahMos is a good option among other weapon platforms.

With regards to the DRDO's NGARM, is it ready and in active service? Also the NGARM has a range of 100 - 125 km. The SCALP on the other hand has a range of 560+ km. More than five times the distance. She will be joining the IAF in May 2020. Can we say that about the NGARM? I am not suggesting that we should scrap the NGARM program. But if NGARM was this good, why is the IAF acquiring the SCALP in the first place?

Silver bullets are meant for very specific tasks. For example, a F-22 is a silver bullet. The F-18 Growler is another silver bullet. These aircraft are designed to do very unique roles. They can certainly do what their counterparts do (F-16, F-18 Rhino), but that would be a waste of resources.

Nikhil T wrote:I fail to see how 27 Rafales are not enough to break the door, but 54 Rafales are. With PLAAF rapidly growing in strength, inducting 5th gen fighters and presumably adding more radar/AD coverage behind the scenes, I will bet that there will be a post a year from now that we need a couple more squadrons of Rafales for breaking the door, because the door has been fortified a bit more.

At 27 airframes, you have to divide them between two fronts. So for example, 13 on the Western front and 14 on the Eastern front. Any IAF planner will tell you that is a small amount to make any meaningful and consistent incursions into enemy airspace and destroy their AD assets. Assuming the recent news piece on 36 more Rafales is true, that will further lend credence to the IAF's need for additional Rafales. But let us go with what is confirmed - why is there a contest for 114 Multi-Role Combat Aircraft?

Additional radar/AD coverage, yes...however the IAF is not convinced about the PLAAF's fifth generation capabilities. Number of aircraft are a different story. Their AD network is the more challenging one and you certainly need a lot more than 14 Rafales on the Eastern front.

Why go with 27 Rafales? The IAF should have just bought one Rafale. Would that work? Obviously not. You need a fine balance. You don't have all Rafales or all Tejas or all Su-30MKIs. Cancel the Rafale deal and buy only Tejas then. Would that work?

Nikhil T wrote:This is a very narrow view that those arguing against the Rafale don't care about pilots losing their lives. The argument in fact is that the money spent on Rafales can be better spent in other ways - either in defence or even outside of it. As a counter example - there are thousands that die each year in hospitals because they can't afford medical care and thousands of farmers that kill themselves over farm loans. How is their life any less worthy? What words do we have to tell their families that we diverted taxes away from them?

That is not the message I conveyed. The IAF has made the investment at Hasimara and Ambala to house two Rafale squadrons each. The more airframes you have, the less wear and tear across the fleet. The more airframes you have, the more one can absorb attrition losses and still rain hell upon the enemy.

Nikhil T wrote:India is a severely resource constrained country and there is only so much we can spend on defence. The argument here is that we cannot counter China (an enemy with 5X military budget buying mostly cheap, indigenous weapons) with a military that relies on imported weapons purchased at eye watering prices. We have to either (1) drop the fantasy of invading heavily contested Chinese airspace, (2) invest in affordable weapons that allow us to have volumes, or (3) increase share of defence spending. There is no other alternative (IMO, of course).

1) I am surprised you would consider invading Chinese airspace as fantasy. IAF pilots consistently train for this. Why would that be a fantasy? How do you expect the IAF to defeat the PLAAF otherwise? The entire goal of the IAF is to take the fight to the enemy and not the other way around.

2) Affordable weapon in volumes are important. But you will lose them also in volumes, if you cannot protect them. In the case of the IAF, you will lose the pilot as well. And that is un-affordable. Volume is very important, but protecting them is equally important.

3) Something we all wish for, but never happens. If you look at the trend for the past 25+ years, I would doubt if any Govt has crossed 3% of GDP on defence.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7874
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby Rakesh » 04 Oct 2019 02:23

Cybaru wrote:Good post Koshy saar!

I do think at the moment the small purchase is to ensure that the strategic arm is fully able to deliver all the petals it needs to. Given the requirement for a strong qualitative edge, while the LCA and it's offspring mature, the Raffy will play an important role. Good thing is that we didn't add Su57 in the menagerie. IMO, adding more raffy whether we choose to add 2 or 3 squadrons or build 114 at home, won't change the number of LCA we will need.

I do think there is possibly bandwidth (back of napkin calcs) at HAL to add another 20 more LCAs before 2026 and transition to MWF. I hope IAF gives a confirmed order of 103 instead of 83.

Why are you calling me Saar? :)

I fully agree. I believe the IAF will order more Mk1A variants. What is frustrating is that we will spend more at that point in time for 20 or 40 more birds, had we ordered those same number of birds along with the present 83 order.

Cybaru wrote:All the more reason to add an extra 20 to the order!

Amen to that. Although I would like at minimum...two more units.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2143
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby Vivek K » 04 Oct 2019 02:26

Rakesh - BRF has come a full circle. This is not to launch a personal attack on you but a personal (perhaps biased) viewpoint.

In the end one has to ask these questions -
a)when will India be able to trust and use its own weapons?
b) If the Rafale is say 3 times more expensive than the LCA, would India be equally safe with 123 x 3 LCAs - will 366 LCAs give India the same security as 72 Rafales?

The IAF started out with the HF-24 program and invested time and money in it. Along came politicians and corrupt ______ people (insert babus and whoever you love to hate) and the HF-24, the HF-24 upgrade (MK1R or something) and the future HF-73 were booted out for the "Deep Penetration Strike" Jaguar. Turns out that someone didn't tell the forces/public/GOI that the underpowered Marut (no slouch in operational capability) was replaced with an underpowered Jaguar. And in Balakote where the DPSA should have shown its true capability, the M2K was chosen instead. Leaves us wondering where the Jag would be used if not against Pakistan on DPS missions. Then comes along the Jaguar re-engine program to address the under-powered issue. So would an upgraded HF-24 have helped just as much - build local MIC, help with future LCA and perhaps the HF-73.
Now with the LCA tested and ready to go to war, IAF goes in for 72 Rafales (someone should provide a per aircraft cost that does not include infra developed or armaments), one squadron of the 29s and the MKI. And this holds up the order for the 83 additional aircraft.

BRF needs to mature further - cannot support local programs and then jump ship at the sight of the first TFTA foreign aircraft. The Rafale purchase has delayed the LCA program which will in turn delay the AMCA program. It is the Rafale today and the Super Rafale tomorrow that will offer superb capabilities. Developing those capabilities locally through a well developed MIC will provide both economic and military security. Powers like the US and China and perhaps even France and Russia will provide Pakis and Chinis with disruptive techs to bring them at par with the best we buy. It was the AMRAAM in the present context. Tomorrow it could be something else to nullify the advantage of the Rafales.

India will never be a power buying Rafales or M2ks. It can be a power buying 500 LCAs.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2143
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby Vivek K » 04 Oct 2019 02:30

Admiral sahib - this is especially below the belt

But for the family that has lost their loved one, it is not the same. Her husband and her children's father are not coming home. How can one even imagine such a scenario? Unlike us, they do not have the luxury to imagine - they are living that reality. Each time a pilot takes to the sky, he has a reasonable expectation that he too returns home at the end of the day to his family. It may not be the same level of luxury - as described above - but that is not the point. He needs to go home to his family, safe and sound. You cannot replace Squadron Leader Ajay Ahuja or Squadron Leader Samir Abrol or Squadron Leader Siddhartha Negi. They are gone. There are no words in any language to describe the pain and gaping hole that their families feel. We can shrug our shoulders and say that fighter flying is an operational hazard.

Why did Sqdn leader Ahuja lose his life? First put those points up and relate to how buying the LCA would cause a similar situation.

Are you saying that if IAF buys the LCA, our pilots will not come home?

manoj_niketa
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 20
Joined: 19 Oct 2018 00:10

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby manoj_niketa » 04 Oct 2019 02:35

Vivek K wrote:Why did Sqdn leader Ahuja lose his life? First put those points up and relate to how buying the LCA would cause a similar situation.

Are you saying that if IAF buys the LCA, our pilots will not come home?

Here is OBOGAS paper by DRDO

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/2fba/6 ... 6910b2.pdf

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7874
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby Rakesh » 04 Oct 2019 03:04

Vivek K wrote:Rakesh - BRF has come a full circle. This is not to launch a personal attack on you but a personal (perhaps biased) viewpoint.

Biases are a good thing :)

Vivek K wrote:In the end one has to ask these questions -
a)when will India be able to trust and use its own weapons?

We are. It is a slow process, but it is happening. You want to speed it up, you will have to put all the senior leadership of the armed forces aside. You will have to put all the babus aside as well. Is that doable?

Vivek K wrote:b) If the Rafale is say 3 times more expensive than the LCA, would India be equally safe with 123 x 3 LCAs - will 366 LCAs give India the same security as 72 Rafales?

You do not need to assume that the Rafale is 3 times more expensive than the Tejas. It is more expensive than Tejas :)

And let me counter that question that you posed to me. Would India be equally safe with not just 366 Tejas aircraft, but also retire the 200 Su-30MKIs, the three Mirage 2000 squadrons, three MiG-29UPG squadrons, the six Jaguar squadrons and replace them all with Tejas?

Would India be safe? Think about your answer.

Vivek K wrote:India will never be a power buying Rafales or M2ks. It can be a power buying 500 LCAs.

India will also be a power house if it replaced all the aircraft in the IAF inventory currently and replace them all with Tejas. From a production standpoint, it will be a huge boost for India. But will that help the IAF?

Why does any air force have multiple types of combat aircraft? Why is that Vivek? Please tell me why.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7874
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby Rakesh » 04 Oct 2019 03:12

Vivek K wrote:Admiral sahib - this is especially below the belt

Why did Sqdn leader Ahuja lose his life? First put those points up and relate to how buying the LCA would cause a similar situation.

Are you saying that if IAF buys the LCA, our pilots will not come home?

It was not meant to be below the belt. But apologies if you took it in that manner.

I know how Sqn Ldr Ahuja lost his life. It has been well documented. I also know how Sqn Ldr Samir Abrol and Sqn Ldr Siddhartha Negi lost their lives as well. I brought those names up, because those were the names that popped into my head at that moment. I did not suggest that they lost their lives because India is buying the Tejas.

But what I am saying is that you will lose pilots just like them, if you send them into a contested and dense AD environment without seriously degrading their capability first. Look at all the recent conflicts and ask yourself why do SEAD/DEAD missions exist? And why only particular aircraft conduct those missions? Why develop F-22, F-35 and F-18 Growler when F-16 can do the exact same thing...but with higher losses?

Do not assume even for a moment that what the IAF enjoyed at Balakot (no contest) will be the same over Tibet as well. The attrition losses will be very high. And if one can avoid (not fully though) those losses, it is worth the investment. China is not Pakistan.

Nikhil T
BRFite
Posts: 1146
Joined: 09 Nov 2008 06:48
Location: RAW HQ, Lodhi Road

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby Nikhil T » 04 Oct 2019 03:17

Rakesh wrote:*BrahMos unit cost - US $2.75 million (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BrahMos)
*SCALP unit cost - €850,000 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storm_Shadow) or US $932,577.50 as per today's exchange rates

SCALP is more than $1.8 million cheaper per unit when compared to BrahMos. To take out mobile targets, definitely the SCALP is cheaper and better option. Fixed and high value targets, as you have described above, the BrahMos is a good option among other weapon platforms.

With regards to the DRDO's NGARM, is it ready and in active service? Also the NGARM has a range of 100 - 125 km. The SCALP on the other hand has a range of 560+ km. More than five times the distance. She will be joining the IAF in May 2020. Can we say that about the NGARM? I am not suggesting that we should scrap the NGARM program. But if NGARM was this good, why is the IAF acquiring the SCALP in the first place?

Silver bullets are meant for very specific tasks. For example, a F-22 is a silver bullet. The F-18 Growler is another silver bullet. These aircraft are designed to do very unique roles. They can certainly do what their counterparts do (F-16, F-18 Rhino), but that would be a waste of resources.


Very quickly -
1. Brahmos is 76% localized. What percentage is SCALP? Please let me know. https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/ne ... 793579.ece
2. To deliver the same ordnance, you'd fire a Brahmos from a $5 million truck with associated radars versus a $200 million Rafale. So which one is cheaper?
3. A SCALP does not cost $932K. That price is from 2011, for something that was procured years ago. Even an AMRAAM costs more than $1million today and they have been produced like sausages, giving them economies of scale.

Again to be clear, I'm not arguing for more LCAs to conduct Rafale type SEAD missions. Advocating for land based missiles that do the same work.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7226
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby nachiket » 04 Oct 2019 03:25

Why is SCALP being compared to NGARM? Since when did SCALP become an ARM? This is ridiculous. Comparing a supersonic anti-radiation missile to a long range subsonic cruise missile and saying it has less range. Well of course it does. It is a completely different weapon for a different purpose. Its range compares well with missiles which are actually in its class like the AGM-88 HARM, ALARM and Kh-31P

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4324
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby srai » 04 Oct 2019 03:28

NGARM and SCALP serve different purposes.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2143
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby Vivek K » 04 Oct 2019 03:32

Rakesh wrote:
And let me counter that question that you posed to me. Would India be equally safe with not just 366 Tejas aircraft, but also retire the 200 Su-30MKIs, the three Mirage 2000 squadrons, three MiG-29UPG squadrons, the six Jaguar squadrons and replace them all with Tejas?


I would say that if you replace all the six Jaguar squadrons with Tejas, you would be safe. I would for now leave Mirage 2000s (because of existing heavy investment in the mix). Of course you would to use out the life in the upgraded 29s since a large investment is recently made. I wouldn't make the investment in the Jaguars and replace them with Tejas. The MKIs were purchased for an air domination role and they need to provide that. Why can the IAF not add capability to MKIs to make them perform the role of the Rafales? Till recent times these were the blue eyed boys of the airforce till CAG pointed out problems with serviceability. So why the sudden lusting for the Rafale when the MKIs were heralded as being better than the best out there. (500 AMRAAMs have disrupted this claim it appears).

A question that I cannot answer but perhaps you can - If the Mig-29 UPG is already complete (as we hear) then surely there were more than the required number of aircraft to strike inside Pakistan. Why then were these not the aircraft of choice in either the strike or the cover role in Balakote?

Why does any air force have multiple types of combat aircraft? Why is that Vivek? Please tell me why.

Admiral sahib - again you're putting words in my mouth to make your point. Did I say that we needed to replace all aircraft in the inventory with Tejas? And how many types of aircraft does the IAF have. Is it wise to have the Rafales and the Mirages and that too in limited numbers each? it must be a logistical nightmare to support these two expensive types and keep them flying year round. Is the number of aircraft in the IAF inventory optimal? The IAF could have organized into fewer types and the Tejas serial development presents that opportunity - if it is ever given to it.

John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2138
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby John » 04 Oct 2019 03:40


BrahMos unit cost - US $2.75 million (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BrahMos)
*SCALP unit cost - €850,000 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storm_Shadow) or US $932,577.50 as per today's exchange rates



You are comparing the wrong missile the quoted cost is for naval Brahmos which is canistered the naval storm shadow ( Missile de Croisière Naval ) costs 3.3 million FYI.
Last edited by John on 04 Oct 2019 03:43, edited 1 time in total.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7874
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby Rakesh » 04 Oct 2019 03:40

Nikhil T wrote:1. Brahmos is 76% localized. What percentage is SCALP? Please let me know.

SCALP - 0%

Why is the IAF buying it then? :)

*How much of the RDY-2 radar on the upgraded Mirage 2000I is local? How much of the Mirage 2000I is local? It is a proven fact (from none other than IAF pilots themselves) that the Tejas Mk1 is better than the Mirage 2000H. Why in heaven's name did the IAF spend upwards of $50 million per plane to upgrade the Mirage 2000 then?

*The P-8I? The Do 228 also does maritime patrol and has greater local content than P-8I. Also greater length of service in the IN, than the P-8I.

*How much of the Scorpene submarine is local? The Kilo boat is also way cheaper. Just ask Philip :)

*The CH-47? The Mi-26 is cheaper. Again ask Philip.

*The C-17? IL-76 is cheaper. You know the drill...ask Philip!

Why is India acquiring these platforms, when cheaper and greater local content platforms were available? Please let me know.

Nikhil T wrote:2. To deliver the same ordnance, you'd fire a Brahmos from a $5 million truck with associated radars versus a $200 million Rafale. So which one is cheaper?

And if you fire a BrahMos missile from a nuclear powered submarine, it will be a lot more expensive than a $200 million Rafale!

So which is cheaper? Going by that logic, we should not even develop a submarine launched BrahMos variant. Invest only in truck based systems.

Where is $5 million and where is upwards of $1 billion for a nuke boat?

Nikhil T wrote:3. A SCALP does not cost $932K. That price is from 2011, for something that was procured years ago. Even an AMRAAM costs more than $1 million today and they have been produced like sausages, giving them economies of scale.

Even if you double the cost, from the nearly $1 million to $2 million...it will still be cheaper than the BrahMos.

Even if it turns out to be more expensive than the BrahMos, the question then arises is why is the IAF buying this missile? What is unique about it?

Nikhil T wrote:Again to be clear, I'm not arguing for more LCAs to conduct Rafale type SEAD missions. Advocating for land based missiles that do the same work.

And if a proven land attack missile (i.e. BrahMos) can do the job, then why develop Nirbhay or other such systems. Focus only on BrahMos no?

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7874
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby Rakesh » 04 Oct 2019 03:46

nachiket wrote:Why is SCALP being compared to NGARM? Since when did SCALP become an ARM? This is ridiculous. Comparing a supersonic anti-radiation missile to a long range subsonic cruise missile and saying it has less range. Well of course it does. It is a completely different weapon for a different purpose. Its range compares well with missiles which are actually in its class like the AGM-88 HARM, ALARM and Kh-31P

Nikhil mentioned that DRDO is developing an ARM. I thought he was referring to the NGARM.

My incorrect assumption. This SDRE is sorry onlee :)

John wrote:You are comparing the wrong missile the quoted cost is for naval Brahmos which is canistered the naval storm shadow ( Missile de Croisière Naval ) costs 3.3 million FYI.

So the BrahMos is cheaper than the Naval SCALP.

So Nikhil, I stand corrected on the cost.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7226
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby nachiket » 04 Oct 2019 03:55

Rakesh wrote:Nikhil mentioned that DRDO is developing an ARM. I thought he was referring to the NGARM.

My incorrect assumption. This SDRE is sorry onlee :)

No you are right. NGARM is the DRDO developed ARM. My problem was in comparing it to SCALP. SCALP is not an anti-radiation missile and cannot be used for SEAD purposes unless the locations of the SAM radars are accurately known and the enemy does not move them. Same with Brahmos.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7874
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby Rakesh » 04 Oct 2019 03:56

Vivek K wrote:I would say that if you replace all the six Jaguar squadrons with Tejas, you would be safe. I would for now leave Mirage 2000s (because of existing heavy investment in the mix). Of course you would to use out the life in the upgraded 29s since a large investment is recently made. I wouldn't make the investment in the Jaguars and replace them with Tejas.

Has that happened Vivek? Is there an order for additional Tejas units beyond the 83 (which is also not ordered!).

Wanting to replace the Jaguar squadrons versus a confirmed order to replace the Jaguar squadrons are two different things no?

Vivek K wrote:The MKIs were purchased for an air domination role and they need to provide that. Why can the IAF not add capability to MKIs to make them perform the role of the Rafales? Till recent times these were the blue eyed boys of the airforce till CAG pointed out problems with serviceability. So why the sudden lusting for the Rafale when the MKIs were heralded as being better than the best out there. (500 AMRAAMs have disrupted this claim it appears).

Why Vivek? Why cannot Tejas do air domination role? Now that is unfair to the Tejas. Very wrong of you to say that! Now I am sad.

If 366 Tejas can be ordered instead of 123 Tejas (as you said) and thus negate the need for the Rafale, why can't the same rule be applied to the Su-30MKI?

Are you saying that Tejas can do SEAD role just as good as the Rafale, but cannot do air domination role like the Su-30MKI? What gives?

Why did the IAF acquire 14 squadrons of the Su-30MKI, but yet there is so much takleef on BRF over ordering two more squadrons of the Rafale? :lol:

At this rate, some of you will get a heart and/or asthma attack if ninjamonkey's tweet comes true. I am sure you know, he said that the GOI is negotiating with France to buy over 200 Rafales. And the deal is really close. My oh my! :rotfl:

Vivek K wrote:A question that I cannot answer but perhaps you can - If the Mig-29 UPG is already complete (as we hear) then surely there were more than the required number of aircraft to strike inside Pakistan. Why then were these not the aircraft of choice in either the strike or the cover role in Balakote?

Very good question and that is a question you need to ask the senior IAF leadership why that decision was made.

Vivek K wrote:Admiral sahib - again you're putting words in my mouth to make your point. Did I say that we needed to replace all aircraft in the inventory with Tejas? And how many types of aircraft does the IAF have. Is it wise to have the Rafales and the Mirages and that too in limited numbers each? it must be a logistical nightmare to support these two expensive types and keep them flying year round. Is the number of aircraft in the IAF inventory optimal? The IAF could have organized into fewer types and the Tejas serial development presents that opportunity - if it is ever given to it.

Then cancel the deal. Replace the Rafale and Mirage 2000 with Tejas. Simple no? :)

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7226
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby nachiket » 04 Oct 2019 03:59

Mig-29 is a suboptimal strike platform even after UPG. The upgrade did not contain Litening pod integration for example. Nor is the SPICE-2000/1000 integrated with it. The M2k was the right aircraft to be used. The primary job of the -29 even after upgrade will remain be air-superiority for which it is well-suited.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2143
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby Vivek K » 04 Oct 2019 04:43

Admiral Sahab: I started out with - why do you expect (like you posted) that the order for 83 LCAs will be released anytime soon when the IAF is buying 72 Rafales, 1 Mig 29 UPG plus 1 MKI squadron. Where is the money left for the LCA? The above are committed purchases, right? And that is what I had lamented in my original post - I suggested that it was a little naive to push for 72 Rafales and still expect an LCA order. You've taken it to mean that I am saying replace all aircraft with LCA.

I will say this - and China is an example. You have to put your money where your mouth is Sir (respectfully stated, no pun or offense intended). If the IAF was ONLY made up of LCAs - not in pitiful numbers but in quantity, the LCA would keep India safe. You want a local MIC - then order local. No MIC can exist for orders of 100 aircraft in 5-10 years. And once the MIC is established, it would deliver results with serial developments, local research etc.

But that is not the point I started out with - you are parrying because you don't want to answer -what additional capabilities does the Rafale offer over the MKI. Going by the report of the exchange with PAF, 2 MKIs handled a large number of F-16s. What if there had been 6-10 MKIs, locgically the MKIs would have then wiped the floor with the F-16s? Why then introduce another aircraft type? Why not do an MLU of the MKI to get the additional capability?

Because the MKI can be upgraded to offer additional capabilities, this investment in the Rafale is puzzling - unless there is a problem with the MKIs that is being hidden
Last edited by Vivek K on 04 Oct 2019 04:58, edited 2 times in total.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: jpremnath and 45 guests