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.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8787
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Postby Rakesh » 01 Apr 2020 01:57

I am going to go with Group Captain HV Thakur (retd) who says that it good for brochures. I am confident that he knows what he is talking about.

His tweets are below. There is really nothing more for me to add to it.

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/12428 ... 61376?s=20 ---> Carriage of a very large number of AAMs is ungainly. Good for brochures. FOC onwards will be able to carry 4 x BVRAAMs and 2 x CCMs. That's greater than 60 crore payload on every aircraft. More than enough for any envisaged combat scenario in the Indian subcontinent.

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/12428 ... 33504?s=20 ---> Should be possible in swing role configuration to carry decent payload of bombs and AAMs. Tejas Mk 2 has eleven stations. More than enough. Dual/Multi-racks are very popular for bombs (all aircraft in IAF have - for more weight-of-attack). But not for AAMs. Too many AAMs not required.

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/12428 ... 50566?s=20 ---> Very, Very, Expensive. Unaffordable almost. 15+ crore with every trigger press. In any mission, one would expect a fighter to launch not more than four to six missiles, with reasonable assurance of kill. Beyond that, they could just be getting wasted. Possible to carry more. But ungainly.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4287
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

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

Postby Cain Marko » 01 Apr 2020 02:01

Rakesh wrote:
Cain Marko wrote:Brochuritis it might be Rakesh Sir, but damn those are some TFTA pics (therefore deserve resposting in full glory). Nothing beats US marketing - and weapon systems - altogether new level.

Pictures that serve *NO* purpose in real war. None whatsoever. TFTA pictures are good for us aam junta to get wowed at. For the decision makers - i.e. the IAF - it has the opposite effect, as Group Captain HV Thakur (retd) just illustrated. At the end of the day, their decision is the only one that matters.

Obviously Saar. No argument there.

rajsunder
BRFite
Posts: 619
Joined: 01 Jul 2006 02:38
Location: MASA Land

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

Postby rajsunder » 01 Apr 2020 04:24

Rakesh wrote:
https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/12428 ... 50566?s=20 ---> Very, Very, Expensive. Unaffordable almost. 15+ crore with every trigger press. In any mission, one would expect a fighter to launch not more than four to six missiles, with reasonable assurance of kill. Beyond that, they could just be getting wasted. Possible to carry more. But ungainly.

In the coming age of unmanned wingman and UAV's, I think the above statement makes less sense. Pilots in the future will have to deal with swarms of drones, uav's and unmanned fighter jets.
In the future i think that countries with lots of $ will saturate air space with the unmanned vehicles and try to win air battles.

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 1069
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

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

Postby ks_sachin » 01 Apr 2020 05:05

rajsunder wrote:
Rakesh wrote:
https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/12428 ... 50566?s=20 ---> Very, Very, Expensive. Unaffordable almost. 15+ crore with every trigger press. In any mission, one would expect a fighter to launch not more than four to six missiles, with reasonable assurance of kill. Beyond that, they could just be getting wasted. Possible to carry more. But ungainly.

In the coming age of unmanned wingman and UAV's, I think the above statement makes less sense. Pilots in the future will have to deal with swarms of drones, uav's and unmanned fighter jets.
In the future i think that countries with lots of $ will saturate air space with the unmanned vehicles and try to win air battles.

1 - Fighters have a limit on what they can carry to be effective for any particular mission profile - so what is the tradeoff.
2 - I am not sure you can fight a swarm of air assets with a fighter that is laden with brochuritis based AAMs that actually could impose a weight penalty that impedes its effectiveness.
3 - More air threats to deal with means that this cannot be done by fighters themselves so moot point. That is where the integration with ground-based air defence comes in.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7558
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

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

Postby nachiket » 01 Apr 2020 05:24

Dual rack pylons for AAM's make sense if they are for BVRAAMs. You can see that in the US brochures and pics too. The dual rack pylons for AAMs for both the F-18 and F-16 are predominantly for carrying more AMRAAMs. Same for the F-15EX. Dual racks for more CCMs makes less sense. If you are in a dogfight you don't want to be carrying too much weight and adding more drag. Even the Su-30 in that max AAM loadout carries only 4 CCMs. 2 CCMs are enough for an aircraft the size of the Tejas. Otherwise your opponent in a dogfight will just beat you with better agility and your extra CCMs will be useless.

Also comparing the large loadouts of heavy twin engine jets with that of the Tejas makes little sense IMO. Even a comparison with the F-16 is pointless. The modern F-16 variants with the F110-GE-132 have about 60kN extra thrust (wet) than the LCA Mk1A. Carrying heavy loads with dual and triple racks is easier if you can shrug off all that drag with brute power.

On the Mk2 however, a dual rack pylon will make sense if it is able to carry 2 Astras on it instead of 2 R-73's. Additional BVRAAMs make a lot of sense. Gives you more options and might enable more tactics in the engagement and you are most likely to have fired them all before you get into a dogfight. Usually the BVRAAM to CCM ratio in the loadouts for modern fighters is always 2:1 or higher unless the CCM's are only being carried as a defensive aid on a fighter loaded for strike.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5176
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Kartik » 01 Apr 2020 05:35

So basically, a max of 4 BVRAAMs and 2 CCMs with 1 centerline drop tank is the most optimum air to air configuration for the Tejas as per most of you folks. Agreed, when you don't want to stay on station for too long, since the IAF has a major tanker shortage and air refueling will be a luxury.

Replace the centerline drop tank with 2 inboard drop tanks and now you have max 2 BVRAAMS and 2 CCMs. And that's about it- not because the payload is maxed out or the airplane cannot fit anymore. No flexibility needed, because it's a point defence jet (although it really is not). A simple dual rack on the center pylon can easily carry 2 X Astra or 2 X i-Derby ERs, doubling the BVRAAM payload and giving the flexibility for OCA/DCA and escort missions.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8140
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Postby Indranil » 01 Apr 2020 08:32

Kartik,

How frequent is the case where an aircraft has fired 4 BVRAAMs and 2 CCMs in one sortie.

You would remember that I was one of the biggest proponents of dual racks for BVRAAM. Interestingly when I was nagging ADA folks, they did not push back. When I spoke to IAF guys, they convinced me that 6 A2A missiles per aircraft that too a light one is more than enough.

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2998
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

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

Postby Kanson » 01 Apr 2020 14:54

When I spoke to IAF guys, they convinced me that 6 A2A missiles per aircraft that too a light one is more than enough.


Enough as in facing Pakistan? Or against China's entire might as well?

Pls do ask them if permissible, when streched thin, against the combined might of both Pak & china, do they think there will never be a situation where they might not need more than 6 A2A missiles?

What i see is, this is a std config. Thats all.

With more & more adv sensors & radars, i see the number of targets that can be simultaneously engaged is growing with every iteration.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8615
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby brar_w » 01 Apr 2020 18:22

I don't think this is the right way to look at it. If one just went with what anyone has ever fired then we'd probably max out at a much smaller number. Yet, operators around the world require 6 and even 8 missile capacity on their fighters (and carry that amount) even though I doubt anyone has ever fired 6 or 8 missiles in one sortie.

The Tejas capacity of 6 missiles is pretty good. But Kartik does have a really good point about dual racks. While everyone focuses on the increase in the absolute number of missiles one can carry with dual racks, what is more important is the flexibility that it provides especially when it comes to additional types of weapons, sensors or fuel tanks.

Here's a test configuration on the F-16 that GD validated long time ago. It would allow for these type of configurations when you need both weapons and additional fuel and can't use other hard points because they are being occupied by other weapons, or sensors. Again not to pack a dozen or more missiles but to increase the flexibility.

Image

Arun.prabhu
BRFite
Posts: 445
Joined: 28 Aug 2016 19:26

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

Postby Arun.prabhu » 01 Apr 2020 20:38

How large an air battle do you see happening? Is it going to be all of ours versus all of theirs like the slugfests in Lord of the Rings or Baahubali? :)

Kanson wrote:
When I spoke to IAF guys, they convinced me that 6 A2A missiles per aircraft that too a light one is more than enough.


Enough as in facing Pakistan? Or against China's entire might as well?

Pls do ask them if permissible, when streched thin, against the combined might of both Pak & china, do they think there will never be a situation where they might not need more than 6 A2A missiles?

What i see is, this is a std config. Thats all.

With more & more adv sensors & radars, i see the number of targets that can be simultaneously engaged is growing with every iteration.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5176
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Kartik » 01 Apr 2020 23:49

Indranil wrote:Kartik,

How frequent is the case where an aircraft has fired 4 BVRAAMs and 2 CCMs in one sortie.

You would remember that I was one of the biggest proponents of dual racks for BVRAAM. Interestingly when I was nagging ADA folks, they did not push back. When I spoke to IAF guys, they convinced me that 6 A2A missiles per aircraft that too a light one is more than enough.


The problem is that, with the Tejas, the inboard stations will for most longer duration sorties, carry 2 drop tanks. That leaves it with 4 stations to carry missiles. So, in most practical situations, it cannot carry more than 2 BVRAAMs and 2 CCMs. The centerline drop tank is now certified on the FOC variant and will likely fly with No.45 Squadron too, but it won't offer as much endurance as 2 of the larger drop tanks will.

As brar_w pointed out in multiple posts, during the Gulf War, fighters that were tasked with OCA, DCA and escort invariably carried 8. If Tejas fighters were to be assigned to that role, they would either be light on fuel or light on missiles. It is all about offering flexibility to the planners, for those missions where one expects to encounter resistance.

Or maybe Tejas won't be tasked with such roles even though it is capable of carrying those out.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8615
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby brar_w » 02 Apr 2020 00:02

Or something like this? which was more typical of how the F-16's operated. That's 4 BVRAAM's, and 2 CCM's along with two fuel-tanks and a targeting pod. I think there is value in developing dual racks because of flexibility especially when the rest of the aircraft is capable of supporting the misison.

Image

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5176
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Kartik » 02 Apr 2020 00:05

brar_w wrote:I don't think this is the right way to look at it. If one just went with what anyone has ever fired then we'd probably max out at a much smaller number. Yet, operators around the world require 6 and even 8 missile capacity on their fighters (and carry that amount) even though I doubt anyone has ever fired 6 or 8 missiles in one sortie.

The Tejas capacity of 6 missiles is pretty good. But Kartik does have a really good point about dual racks. While everyone focuses on the increase in the absolute number of missiles one can carry with dual racks, what is more important is the flexibility that it provides especially when it comes to additional types of weapons, sensors or fuel tanks.

Here's a test configuration on the F-16 that GD validated long time ago. It would allow for these type of configurations when you need both weapons and additional fuel and can't use other hard points because they are being occupied by other weapons, or sensors. Again not to pack a dozen or more missiles but to increase the flexibility.

Image


The F-16 pretty much is the gold standard when it comes to flexibility of payload options. I don't think any other fighter offers as many variations in payload.

This kind of dual rack to carry 2 X Astra or 2 X i-Derby ER should be explored and if feasible, it is only a matter of fabricating a few of these pylons for each squadron. Use as and when required, depending on the mission that the Tejas is tasked with.

The idea that a fighter cannot be overwhelmed by a numerically superior enemy will go out the door once the Loyal Wingman type low-cost UAVs start proliferating. My expectation is that in the next 5-10 years, we'll see the Loyal Wingman type UAVs coming into the PAF orbat from the Chinese side. And while HAL is itself promoting the Loyal Wingman concept and the Jaguar as a platform to carry them, to the IAF, they seem to think that 4-6 missiles will be adequate for all possible threat scenarios. Which is strange, and makes me think that they don't themselves have much of an idea as to how to deal with the enemy gaining that capability eventually.

Image

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5176
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Kartik » 02 Apr 2020 00:10

brar_w wrote:Or something like this? which was more typical of how the F-16's operated. That's 4 BVRAAM's, and 2 CCM's along with two fuel-tanks and a targeting pod. I think there is value in developing dual racks because of flexibility especially when the rest of the aircraft is capable of supporting the misison.

Image


Exactly and that is the type of loadout the Tejas is perfectly capable of. If they just apply the same experience that they had with developing the dual rack pylon for the Mk1A to carry a CCM and a SPJ, only this time to carry 2 BVRAAMS on the mid-board hardpoint. Very doable, if they want to.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19442
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 02 Apr 2020 00:16

Kartik - if you see HVTs comments its all about cost. He says x crore per missile and as we know the Russkie missiles have a low flight hour life (as versus AMRAAM), so flying around with many BVRs is a huge hole in the pocket as you send existing ones to refurb and new ones need to be ordered in the meanwhile. I think things will change with Astra if we focus on a high flight-hour capability.

Sadly large loadouts may become more and more necessary because of the target proliferation as you note but also EW, maneuvering which reduce the Pk rapidly. If we see our own case, the Pakis fired 7 AMRAAMs on Feb 27th, 6 were misses (5 vs the Su-30s and 1 vs a Bison) whereas 1 took down Abhi. But by doing so they placed us on a defensive. If this is the burn rate on BVRs in a conflict, large loadouts may well become the norm. Its even more interesting if we consider that the AMRAAMs were not fired in inertial only mode but some sort of linked guidance via the SAAB AEW&C, that would indicate that despite their best efforts and a state of the art capability, we still dodged them.

Now HVTs comments could also be partly in line with an IAF methodology which is not to fire unless a proper High pk shot is obtained. But by not firing we go on the defensive and have to go cold if the other side has a long burn AAM. This is very dangerous if their interceptors force our escorts to go cold and then target the strikers.

So yeah, large AAM loadouts may need to be thought of, in a more sustainable (capex wise) fashion and also multi-spectral seekers (to reduce impact of EW).

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5176
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Kartik » 02 Apr 2020 00:26

Indranil wrote:Kartik,

How frequent is the case where an aircraft has fired 4 BVRAAMs and 2 CCMs in one sortie.

You would remember that I was one of the biggest proponents of dual racks for BVRAAM. Interestingly when I was nagging ADA folks, they did not push back. When I spoke to IAF guys, they convinced me that 6 A2A missiles per aircraft that too a light one is more than enough.


Indranil, we faced such a situation just a year ago. 2 Su-30s on CAP, versus 8 F-16s, with 5 AMRAAMs being fired at them.

If those were Tejas fighters on CAP, carrying the inboard drop tanks, they'd have a combined 4 BVRAAMS and 4 CCMS between them. I'm afraid that with such a low loadout, the Tejas fighters better not be tasked with defending high value assets like tankers and AEW&C. Only Su-30s, MiG-29s or Rafales will do that job.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8615
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby brar_w » 02 Apr 2020 00:30

Astra production rate will make a big difference. Once there is a 4 figure inventory and a high annual production rate I think the way it is employed and the way platforms are upgraded will likely also change given that they'll no longer be resource constraint to the same extent. One can see how the USAF changed from the Gulf War to the Balkan conflicts. In the former the AMRAAM inventory was small and limited only to the F-16 fleet. As that war progressed this changed but the F-15C pilots still carried a mix, probably due to their lack of experience in using the AMRAAM, and probably also due to availability. In future conflicts this improved considerably till the point that the AIM-7 was completely phased out from combat duties.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5176
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Kartik » 02 Apr 2020 00:33

Karan M wrote:Kartik - if you see HVTs comments its all about cost. He says x crore per missile and as we know the Russkie missiles have a low flight hour life (as versus AMRAAM), so flying around with many BVRs is a huge hole in the pocket as you send existing ones to refurb and new ones need to be ordered in the meanwhile. I think things will change with Astra if we focus on a high flight-hour capability.

Sadly large loadouts may become more and more necessary because of the target proliferation as you note but also EW, maneuvering which reduce the Pk rapidly. If we see our own case, the Pakis fired 7 AMRAAMs on Feb 27th, 6 were misses (5 vs the Su-30s and 1 vs a Bison) whereas 1 took down Abhi. But by doing so they placed us on a defensive. If this is the burn rate on BVRs in a conflict, large loadouts may well become the norm. Its even more interesting if we consider that the AMRAAMs were not fired in inertial only mode but some sort of linked guidance via the SAAB AEW&C, that would indicate that despite their best efforts and a state of the art capability, we still dodged them.

Now HVTs comments could also be partly in line with an IAF methodology which is not to fire unless a proper High pk shot is obtained. But by not firing we go on the defensive and have to go cold if the other side has a long burn AAM. This is very dangerous if their interceptors force our escorts to go cold and then target the strikers.

So yeah, large AAM loadouts may need to be thought of, in a more sustainable (capex wise) fashion and also multi-spectral seekers (to reduce impact of EW).


Karan, the idea that the missiles have limited carriage flight hours being a limiting factor makes sense. Hence, such loadouts are not really required for most peacetime or training missions. But during a period of tension, like last year, when 24 X 7 CAP is maintained, what becomes more important is the efficacy of the CAP fighters. Top-up purchases (like the ones of Russian missiles last year) can always be done when required.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19442
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 02 Apr 2020 00:54

Problem is if you have a limited inventory (say a couple thousand rounds) you will have to rush to put in a $2Bn order if you run out of flight hours on those rounds. The other issue is by when will they be supplied. If you place a rush order, you will be handed rounds in stock which are likely used up as it is. Lets do the math, say 200 Su-30s flying 200 hours a year - each with 4 AAMs. So 800 AAMs have to pull 200 hours. Lets say R77 has a flight hour service life max of 100 hours (its actually lower but i mean you get the gist) before you send it for deep check, refurb. That's a requirement of 1600 R77s if we pull alert missions throughout the year. In war time, too the same issue applies. I mean we are talking of 3 sorties a day for around 2 weeks, each sortie of at least a hour. So 11,340 hours flown for a 270 aircraft fleet for 14 days, at 3 sorties a day, each of a hour. I see no way around this bar greater flight hour life for Astra and a bigger AAM inventory both. AMRAAM has a life of 1200 hours plus, the investments in reliability do matter.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5176
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Kartik » 02 Apr 2020 01:07

Clearly Astra is the way to go, in it's various variants. Makes it a lot easier to justify large orders leading to large production runs sourced entirely indigenously. But either way, we must plan for the ability to intercept loyal wingman UAVs, cruise missiles, etc. plus the enemy fighters. The Tejas Mk1A's AESA radar should be able to detect and track even small RCS objects like cruise missiles, so they could be taken down.

What is the total life of a R-77 missile? 100 flight hours before deep check and refurbishment and how many such refurbs are possible before one has exhausted the total life? Would also be interesting to know what the total life of the Astra Mk1 would be.

1000 hours for the AMRAAM is very impressive. the PAF has a stockpile of nearly 650 AMRAAMs for ~80 F-16s. Given that long of a life, that stockpile should last them pretty long with periodic checks and refurbishment.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8140
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Postby Indranil » 02 Apr 2020 02:43

I understand the flexibility POV.

However, this is what the fighter pilots told me: More missiles don't mean more lethality or survivability especially when they are carried outside. Dual pylons are significantly more draggy than a single pylon.. The smaller the platform the more pronounced is the effect on the overall L/D. In today's battles it is almost certain that you won't score a kill with BVRAAMs, and by the time you fire your second BVRAAM you are already in WVR range. So carrying heavy, draggy and expensive pylons and unused missiles are draggy deadweights at that point. TACDE has gamed this out again and again on Mig21s, Mig 29s and Mirage 2000s and there is a reason that you don't see dual BVR-pylons on these fighters. In the Indian scenario, where you can't have lumbering A2A refuelers close to the border, it is significantly better to land, refuel, rearm and go back out from a forward base. That's why the hot refueling capability on LCA is seen so favorably by IAF and advertised by not only HAL, but IAF. In short. what holds good for USAF/USN/French etc. doesn't necessarily mean a good result for us.

This can change with two things:
1. For the first time India will have access to affordable BVRAAMs in the form of Astra derivatives. Cost is an important metric of strategy making. What happens when the cost goes down by half or less!

2. We will progressively see IAF and other airforces move to medium range AAMs from the current CCMs. What is the best mix of missiles when one can carry BVRAAMS, MRAAMS and  CCMS?

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8615
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby brar_w » 02 Apr 2020 02:44

The AIM-120C through C5 have a 1100 of so hour Mean Time Between Maintenance for captive carry, while the AIM-120C7 and D have a 1329 hour MTBM for the same. Overall, the missile can be in storage for about 5 years before it needs inspection and maintenance. One of the reasons the AIM-120 has a high MTBM has been the Combat Archer and the test launch program that has launched more than 4,000 missiles over the program life. The data on reliability has been used to iterate improvements and identify components that need to be re-designed. They started with a 600 hour MTBM.

We will progressively see IAF and other airforces move to medium range AAMs from the current CCMs. What is the best mix of missiles when one can carry BVRAAMS, MRAAMS and CCMS?


The USAF is moving to MRAAM's that are going to be required to exceed the "CCM" performance capability of its current CCM (AIM-9X-II+), while also bettering the end game performance of the AIM-120. So both short range performance and end game agility will be top priority. They've spent more than a decade funding this technology development stream and are now flight testing full up missile prototypes. Given that, I don't see value in carrying a dedicated Short Range weapon on 5th and 6th gen fighters. It takes up as much or more room and brings nothing to the table on top of what is already available. The CONOPS will be different. It's akin to the AIM-7 and F-16, where the USAF integrated the AIM-7 caving to political pressures but always intended to have the AMRAAM as its main MR missile.
Last edited by brar_w on 02 Apr 2020 03:06, edited 5 times in total.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19442
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 02 Apr 2020 02:47

Indranil wrote:I understand the flexibility POV.

However, this is what the fighter pilots told me: More missiles don't mean more lethality or survivability especially when they are carried outside. Dual pylons are significantly more draggy than a single pylon.. The smaller the platform the more pronounced is the effect on the overall L/D. In today's battles it is almost certain that you won't score a kill with BVRAAMs, and by the time you fire your second BVRAAM you are already in WVR range. So carrying heavy, draggy and expensive pylons and unused missiles are draggy deadweights at that point. TACDE has gamed this out again and again on Mig21s, Mig 29s and Mirage 2000s and there is a reason that you don't see dual BVR-pylons on these fighters. In the Indian scenario, where you can't have lumbering A2A refuelers close to the border, it is significantly better to land, refuel, rearm and go back out from a forward base. That's why the hot refueling capability on LCA is seen so favorably by IAF and advertised by not only HAL, but IAF. In short. what holds good for USAF/USN/French etc. doesn't necessarily mean a good result for us.


Kinda depends. Why? Because your first set of BVRAAMs which both sides relied on, were in the 30-60km range. Now, you are headed to 100km + with Meteor, RVV-BD, and the PL-15/21.

This can change with two things:
1. For the first time India will have access to affordable BVRAAMs in the form of Astra derivatives. Cost is an important metric of strategy making. What happens when the cost goes down by half or less!


Agree. We also need multi-spectral or IIR seekers.

2. We will progressively see IAF and other airforces move to medium range AAMs from the current CCMs. What is the best mix of missiles when one can carry BVRAAMS, MRAAMS and  CCMS?


Depends on the Pk modeling.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7558
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

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

Postby nachiket » 02 Apr 2020 04:03

Kartik wrote:If those were Tejas fighters on CAP, carrying the inboard drop tanks, they'd have a combined 4 BVRAAMS and 4 CCMS between them. I'm afraid that with such a low loadout, the Tejas fighters better not be tasked with defending high value assets like tankers and AEW&C. Only Su-30s, MiG-29s or Rafales will do that job.

The Mig-29's have only 7 HP's, same as the Tejas. Best they can do is centerline EFT, 4 R-77s and 2 R-73's. The original Mig-29 is the absolute worst at utilizing the airframe's capability when it comes to payload. All that brute power (and fuel used) and you can carry only 6 AAMs same as the Tejas which flies using a single engine less powerful than the RD-33. The UPG upgrade added more fuel and better avionics but does not fix this deficiency. AWACS escorts need to be Su-30s. You will only have two in usual circumstances and you need the extra payload and endurance. Rafales would also work but we will only have 36 and they will be needed for other missions in an actual war.

And btw, the original Mirage-2000C (and our H variant) is even worse than the Mig-29 when it comes to air-to-air payload relative to its size, although it could carry a decent a-to-g payload. The Super-530D's and Magic-II's can only be rail launched, so you cannot use the M2k's fuselage hardpoints to carry them. So they were limited to 2 530D's and 2 Magic-II's plus centerline EFT on most occasions. If you needed 2 inboard EFT's for longer missions, you were limited to 2 Magic-II's only. This only got fixed when the MICA (which can be carried on the fuselage HP's) came in with the M2k-5 upgrade and for us the very very recent M2k-I upgrade. The IAF still considered this a decent Air-superiority fighter even before the upgrade. Even the upgraded version carries max 6 MICA's. But it can carry 2 or 3 drop tanks with it so a pretty good loadout.

All in all I don't think the smaller Mk1 and Mk1A immediately need dual rack pylons for more AAM's so much as they need it in order to carry an SPJ pod along with its usual 6/4 AAM loadout. Lack of ECM is a bigger liability than number of missiles carried IMHO. The M2k carries that internally, the Mig-29 will do so eventually and the Su-30 can give up its wingtip stations for it.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8140
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Postby Indranil » 02 Apr 2020 04:11

brar_w wrote:
We will progressively see IAF and other airforces move to medium range AAMs from the current CCMs. What is the best mix of missiles when one can carry BVRAAMS, MRAAMS and CCMS?


The USAF is moving to MRAAM's that are going to be required to exceed the "CCM" performance capability of its current CCM (AIM-9X-II+), while also bettering the end game performance of the AIM-120. So both short range performance and end game agility will be top priority. They've spent more than a decade funding this technology development stream and are now flight testing full up missile prototypes. Given that, I don't see value in carrying a dedicated Short Range weapon on 5th and 6th gen fighters. It takes up as much or more room and brings nothing to the table on top of what is already available. The CONOPS will be different. It's akin to the AIM-7 and F-16, where the USAF integrated the AIM-7 caving to political pressures but always intended to have the AMRAAM as its main MR missile.

Yes similar thinking is prevailing in the IAF as well. That is why India is not developing a dedicated CCM. They are trying to adaprt Astra Mk1 into an MRAAM. However, it is all about the percentage threat. CCMs are good enough of India's adversaries for now.

Thankfully, Tejas can carry an MRAAM at its outboard pylon. Mk1A will carry dual CCMs on the outboard pylon.

maitya
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 490
Joined: 02 Feb 2001 12:31

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

Postby maitya » 02 Apr 2020 12:14

Indranil wrote:
brar_w wrote:

The USAF is moving to MRAAM's that are going to be required to exceed the "CCM" performance capability of its current CCM (AIM-9X-II+), while also bettering the end game performance of the AIM-120. So both short range performance and end game agility will be top priority. They've spent more than a decade funding this technology development stream and are now flight testing full up missile prototypes. Given that, I don't see value in carrying a dedicated Short Range weapon on 5th and 6th gen fighters. It takes up as much or more room and brings nothing to the table on top of what is already available. The CONOPS will be different. It's akin to the AIM-7 and F-16, where the USAF integrated the AIM-7 caving to political pressures but always intended to have the AMRAAM as its main MR missile.


Yes similar thinking is prevailing in the IAF as well. That is why India is not developing a dedicated CCM. They are trying to adaprt Astra Mk1 into an MRAAM. However, it is all about the percentage threat. CCMs are good enough of India's adversaries for now.

Thankfully, Tejas can carry an MRAAM at its outboard pylon. Mk1A will carry dual CCMs on the outboard pylon.

A contrarian viewpoint:
Most modern CCMs (AIM-9X, R-74, Python-5 etc) employ TVC to achieve near-instantaneous 50+ G manoeuvrability - this is vital in an era of HMS and high-off-boresight engagement capability - but this adds to the weight of the overall missile.
ASRAAM of course is an exception - it chose to remain light, by foregoing TVC and is fine with achieving it's 50+G manoeuvrability, a few seconds post launch, using solely it's control surfaces.

This instantaneous achievement of manoeuvrability, is quite critical, for high off-boresight close-in engagements - plus such engagements are, many a times using IRST/LR (and not necessarily the high-off-boresight-challenged-radars - so no additional target info available post-launch etc) which renders the radar-seeker part of the missile a dead-weight (where is the time to establish a range-gate, then track and lock target etc, at such ranges - say 30-40Km).


So until the so-called MRAAMs adds TVC (and thus gain further weight), the SRAAMs will have their relevance, IMVHO.
Also the need to shoehorn a IIR FPA along-with a active-radar seeker (like in MICA series) adds complexity, dimensions and weight (and thus also somewhat sacrifices instantaneous manoeuvrability) - thus the relevance of dedicated SRAAMs will remain.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8615
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby brar_w » 02 Apr 2020 18:16

maitya wrote:A contrarian viewpoint:
Most modern CCMs (AIM-9X, R-74, Python-5 etc) employ TVC to achieve near-instantaneous 50+ G manoeuvrability - this is vital in an era of HMS and high-off-boresight engagement capability - but this adds to the weight of the overall missile.
ASRAAM of course is an exception - it chose to remain light, by foregoing TVC and is fine with achieving it's 50+G manoeuvrability, a few seconds post launch, using solely it's control surfaces.

This instantaneous achievement of manoeuvrability, is quite critical, for high off-boresight close-in engagements - plus such engagements are, many a times using IRST/LR (and not necessarily the high-off-boresight-challenged-radars - so no additional target info available post-launch etc) which renders the radar-seeker part of the missile a dead-weight (where is the time to establish a range-gate, then track and lock target etc, at such ranges - say 30-40Km).


So until the so-called MRAAMs adds TVC (and thus gain further weight), the SRAAMs will have their relevance, IMVHO.
Also the need to shoehorn a IIR FPA along-with a active-radar seeker (like in MICA series) adds complexity, dimensions and weight (and thus also somewhat sacrifices instantaneous manoeuvrability) - thus the relevance of dedicated SRAAMs will remain.


Valid point. I've replied in the appropriate thread:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7625&p=2425069#p2425069

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4560
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

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

Postby srai » 03 Apr 2020 19:13

Image
Image

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4560
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

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

Postby srai » 03 Apr 2020 19:34

srai wrote:Vaya Shakti 2019

Image


Image
Image
Image

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4560
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

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

Postby srai » 04 Apr 2020 19:02

Better resolution
Image

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4560
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

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

Postby srai » 05 Apr 2020 03:19

Bollywood movie coming up
Image

ashbhee
BRFite
Posts: 103
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 07:05

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

Postby ashbhee » 05 Apr 2020 08:25

Kartik wrote:1000 hours for the AMRAAM is very impressive. the PAF has a stockpile of nearly 650 AMRAAMs for ~80 F-16s. Given that long of a life, that stockpile should last them pretty long with periodic checks and refurbishment.


1000 hours is 42 days. Will Pakis be able to do periodic refurbishments without USA's help? When will the damn AMRAAMs will finally expire? Wasn't that an AMRAAM that brought down Abinandan's Mig.

la.khan
BRFite
Posts: 246
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 05:02

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

Postby la.khan » 05 Apr 2020 14:33

ashbhee wrote:
Kartik wrote:1000 hours for the AMRAAM is very impressive. the PAF has a stockpile of nearly 650 AMRAAMs for ~80 F-16s. Given that long of a life, that stockpile should last them pretty long with periodic checks and refurbishment.


1000 hours is 42 days. Will Pakis be able to do periodic refurbishments without USA's help? When will the damn AMRAAMs will finally expire? Wasn't that an AMRAAM that brought down Abinandan's Mig.

I think the original poster meant 1000 hours of flight time. This is similar to jet engine life. So, if an paki f-16, armed with AMRAAMs flies for an hour/day, the AMRAAM would last approximately 3 years.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11846
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

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

Postby Aditya_V » 05 Apr 2020 15:05

1000 hours flying time is impressive, but I think Pakis got around 500 Aim 120C not 650. Still a lot.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8787
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Postby Rakesh » 05 Apr 2020 20:54

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/12466 ... 35681?s=20 ----> Simple clean lines. One more for the desktop. SP-17, LA-5017.

Image

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5176
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Kartik » 06 Apr 2020 01:27

Looks very good!

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2309
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

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

Postby Vivek K » 06 Apr 2020 01:31

What a beauty!! Need to order in the 100s.

Mort Walker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8324
Joined: 31 May 2004 11:31
Location: The rings around Uranus.

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

Postby Mort Walker » 06 Apr 2020 02:43

Fixed it.

Vivek K wrote:What a beauty!! Need to order in the 100s000.



Dump all Migs including the -29, dump all Jags, dump all Mirages, dump all Rafales.

Just the LCA Tejas and Su-30. When MWF comes in, then dump Su-30 as well.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2309
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

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

Postby Vivek K » 06 Apr 2020 04:26

I would actually distribute mithai weighing as much as the LCA - unlike the Admiral if that were to happen

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4525
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby JayS » 06 Apr 2020 05:12

Kartik wrote:So basically, a max of 4 BVRAAMs and 2 CCMs with 1 centerline drop tank is the most optimum air to air configuration for the Tejas as per most of you folks. Agreed, when you don't want to stay on station for too long, since the IAF has a major tanker shortage and air refueling will be a luxury.

Replace the centerline drop tank with 2 inboard drop tanks and now you have max 2 BVRAAMS and 2 CCMs. And that's about it- not because the payload is maxed out or the airplane cannot fit anymore. No flexibility needed, because it's a point defence jet (although it really is not). A simple dual rack on the center pylon can easily carry 2 X Astra or 2 X i-Derby ERs, doubling the BVRAAM payload and giving the flexibility for OCA/DCA and escort missions.


FYI, HVT once said you need ejector launched missiles for mounting them close to fuselage/on the fuselage, to avoid gas ingestion in the intakes. I have never checked if there are any rail-launched missiles anywhere in the world mounted on the inboard or fuselage Hard points.

DRDL guy told me they are developing Ejector-based pylon for Astra.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Anoop, uskumar, yensoy and 48 guests