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

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8297
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Postby Indranil » 29 Mar 2020 04:12

Brochuritis, BRF lingo is spreading. I first heard it being used by hakeem!

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9642
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby brar_w » 29 Mar 2020 04:17

Rakesh wrote:
https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/12428 ... 95202?s=20 ---> All stealth aircraft carry 4 x BVRAAMs. F-22, F-35, Su-57 & J-20. That's their intended air combat payload. That is enough as per their combat experience. AMCA is also planned with 4 BVRAAMs.


F-22A carries 6 BVR Missiles. I believe that is also the case for the SU-57. F-35 currently carries 4 but has been designed to carry up to 6 AIM-120 class missiles and the increased load out is now being taken up. Not sure about the J-20 but I believe it too will go from 4 to 6 if it isn't there already.

Barath
BRFite
Posts: 209
Joined: 11 Feb 2019 19:06

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

Postby Barath » 29 Mar 2020 07:31

brar_w wrote: Not sure about the J-20 but I believe it too will go from 4 to 6 if it isn't there already.


4x PL15 BVRAAMs for the J20 currently
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/2 ... i-air-show

Article speculates about feasibility of 6 of these in a staggered arrangement in future, depending also on ejection mechanism


The sidekick weapons rack which will allow the f35a and f35C to go from 4 missiles to 6 has already been unveiled. The weapons bay also needs internal rearrangement of fittings

https://www.businessinsider.com/the-f-3 ... bat-2019-5

F35B stays at 4 because lift fan

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8297
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Postby Indranil » 29 Mar 2020 10:05

brar_w wrote:
Rakesh wrote:
https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/12428 ... 95202?s=20 ---> All stealth aircraft carry 4 x BVRAAMs. F-22, F-35, Su-57 & J-20. That's their intended air combat payload. That is enough as per their combat experience. AMCA is also planned with 4 BVRAAMs.


F-22A carries 6 BVR Missiles. I believe that is also the case for the SU-57. F-35 currently carries 4 but has been designed to carry up to 6 AIM-120 class missiles and the increased load out is now being taken up. Not sure about the J-20 but I believe it too will go from 4 to 6 if it isn't there already.

Brar sahab, it is correct that these aircraft can carry up to 6* BVRs. But, I can't imagine any of these aircrafts going into battle with 6 BVRS and no WVRs! I am with HVT here. For a light fighter to carry 4 BVR+ 2CCMs is more than enough. I can't imagine a scenario where one aircraft will use more than these amount of missiles in one sortie.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9642
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby brar_w » 29 Mar 2020 10:18

^^ I don't understand, why wouldn't they carry those Missiles? The F-22, Su-57, and the J-20 can carry CCM's internally in addition to the BVRAAM's. The F-35 and other 5th gen concepts can do that, at the moment, externally and the AIM-9 replacement will be an MRAAM ranged missile which is IWB compliant so it too will have 6+ missiles internally with 4 being LRAAM's and the remaining MRAAM's (possibly 4 more).
Last edited by brar_w on 29 Mar 2020 10:48, edited 2 times in total.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4704
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

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

Postby Cain Marko » 29 Mar 2020 10:23

Rakesh wrote:----------------------------------------------

Some examples of brochuritis..... :lol:

F-15EX

Image

F-21

Image


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.

shaun
BRFite
Posts: 1204
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby shaun » 29 Mar 2020 11:31

brar_w wrote:^^ I don't understand, why wouldn't they carry those Missiles? The F-22, Su-57, and the J-20 can carry CCM's internally in addition to the BVRAAM's. The F-35 and other 5th gen concepts can do that, at the moment, externally and the AIM-9 replacement will be an MRAAM ranged missile which is IWB compliant so it too will have 6+ missiles internally with 4 being LRAAM's and the remaining MRAAM's (possibly 4 more).


Maybe due to the structural and electronics fatigue these missiles undergo when used for CAP role . What was the missile loading per strike A/c during desert storm ( even that wont be a good example as the opponent could not pitch enough A/c against !!)

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8297
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Postby Indranil » 29 Mar 2020 12:12

brar_w wrote:^^ I don't understand, why wouldn't they carry those Missiles? The F-22, Su-57, and the J-20 can carry CCM's internally in addition to the BVRAAM's. The F-35 and other 5th gen concepts can do that, at the moment, externally and the AIM-9 replacement will be an MRAAM ranged missile which is IWB compliant so it too will have 6+ missiles internally with 4 being LRAAM's and the remaining MRAAM's (possibly 4 more).

I was not talking about external carriage (I don't think HVT was speaking of that either). But, I had forgotten about the side bays on the F22. J20 and the wingroot ray of the PAKFA.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4824
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

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

Postby srai » 31 Mar 2020 05:42

Vaya Shakti 2019

Image

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 10643
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Postby Rakesh » 31 Mar 2020 08:11

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/12444 ... 91554?s=20 ----> PAF managed perceptions very well. Chinese aircraft, Fighter China-1 Xiaolong (JF-17) production in PAF is nothing like LCA. It exactly follows Su-30MKI model albeit with a lesser fighter, which is delayed. By comparing with LCA their sordid tales get occulted conveniently.

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/12444 ... 60288?s=20 ----> LCA is the first 4th generation aircraft, exclusively designed, developed & produced in India. It follows the Chinese J-10 model, which is expensive & not cost-effective for exports. J-10 exports = Big Fat Zero. With time, a cost-effective export variant of LCA will be created.

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/12444 ... 70112?s=20 ---> PAC Kamra is like an IAF BRD. You never heard anything negative about either. That’s perception management. Indian PSUs are at the wrong end of the stick for everyone. LCA is delayed, but like ALH, it is a huge success in an otherwise, import-hungry nation (for everything).

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/12444 ... 43424?s=20 ---> Calling JF-17 Paki is a scream. Su-30 is more Indian than the JF-17 is Paki. Su-30s are exported the world over, but you don’t see IAF rejoicing. We’ve been training and supporting Su30MKM for years. Chinese exported three JF-17s to Nigeria and six to Myanmar. No reason for Pak to jump about.

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/12444 ... 92864?s=20 ---> LCA is an exclusive IPR. Exclusive FCS+CLAW (could count on fingers how many countries in the world have that). Exclusive Indian airframe. Exclusive Indian cockpit/systems (hydraulic, electrical, gears, FB-braking, auto-T/O, auto-Rec, you name it), No exclusive Paki in JF-17 ZERO.

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/12444 ... 68864?s=20 ---> LCA & JF-17 could be compared in performance if you must. But please reconsider over-crediting PAF for assembling JF-17s. No big deal. No big deal at all. IAF’s BRDs can do that any day they want. Decades of effort on LCA is not to be lowered to this scale of welding-and-assembly.

https://twitter.com/somnath1978/status/ ... 94528?s=20 ---> Great thread. Downwards arrow. But misses the point - issue isn't if JF17 is fully Paki or only 5%, but whether it serves the purpose. PAF has inducted 100+, pushed it in combat, posited it as baby-F35. LCA - 17 inducted, IAF sneered at it as MiG-21++, still wants 100 Rafale/Fxx.

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/12444 ... 94817?s=20 ---> The point is JF-17 & LCA cannot be used in the same sentence. It is Su-30MKI which IAF inducted in 100s. JF-17, with whatever little performance, is trying to meet Su-30MKI numbers. It is lagging behind miserably. To cover their tracks they keep calling out LCA. The LCA is not related.

fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3594
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

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

Postby fanne » 31 Mar 2020 08:23

the effort put by 11 BRD for MIG 29 UPG has lot more value addition than what Kamra does for JF-17

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 10643
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Postby Rakesh » 31 Mar 2020 08:25

https://twitter.com/PunitOnline/status/ ... 4358049794 --> @ hvtiaf Sir how important are mach nos in real life scenario? Most of 4th generation single engine planes like Mirage 2000, F-16, etc can achieve Mach 2.2+ but both LCA and JF 17 have lower - Mach 1.8 and 1.6 respectively. Why is this so? Engine issue or something else?

Click on the above link to read some great tweets by BRF's own Nilesh Rane.

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/12441 ... 32928?s=20 ---> Let's address this the geeky way. Assume JF-17 can reach Mach 1.8 in level flight (very big assumption for JF-17) against Mach 1.6 of LCA. It can have a speed advantage of 60 knot above 28,000 feet. Below 22,000 feet no advantage. At low levels (<22,000 feet) only max CAS matters. All jets 730-750 knots.

Image

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/12441 ... 80384?s=20 ---> It's not so much an engine-thrust issue, as it is an intake design issue. LCA employs a simple pitot type intake. Hassle-free, no pilot intervention throughout its envelope. Mirage-2000 & MiGs use intake cones. MiG-21 does Mach 2.2 with a 69 kN engine.

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/12443 ... 75200?s=20 ---> On an aircraft like JF-17, having a Max Mach Limit (Vne) of Mach 1.8 is a resultant of aerodynamic buzz (vibrations), high-speed buffet or possible loss of FCS control. JF-17 cannot reach Mach1.8 in level flight. There is no combat relevance of Mach 1.8, except in a "getaway dive".

https://twitter.com/nileshjrane/status/ ... 91072?s=20 ---> Interesting, FCS control loss. Due to which phenomenon exactly?? Intake buzz or something else?

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/12443 ... 40864?s=20 ---> Depends on modelling/handling of time to double (instability) at Mach 1.8. High frequency oscillations (like buzz/flutter) are difficult to kill by FCS. Close to Vne, many kinds of phenomena may occur. Not much PID would've been done in this portion, if it can't reach in level flight.

https://twitter.com/nileshjrane/status/ ... 79776?s=20 ---> But aren't the aircrafts statically stable in supersonic conditions due to the huge afterward movement of Center of Lift? To have a statically unstable config either one would need massive static instability margin at subsonic or big CG movement using fuel transfer.

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/12444 ... 71104?s=20 ---> Will study. The mainplane effect is always de-stabilizing. Even at supersonic angles of attack (-2 to -3 degrees).

Image

https://twitter.com/nileshjrane/status/ ... 84322?s=20 ---> The usual cambered aerofoil is naturally unstable in pitch. Hence we need tail or canard to balance it. Thats what the figure shows. Flying wings/delta wings typically reduce this instability using inverse camber on Trailing edge side if tail/canard not present. Based on whether designer wants stable or unstable. Config, tail or canard can be more beneficial. But I digress. Perhaps most famous example of the effect I was talking about was the in relation to the Concorde. I had active fuel management system to manage its CG position.

https://twitter.com/nileshjrane/status/ ... 18560?s=20 ---> There is a phenomenon associated with this shift of CoL called "Mach Tuck" . Aircraft becomes nose heavy near M1 and beyond. I wonder if you have faced it in real life flying. Probably the plans that exist today are designed well enough for this effect not be much prominent.

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/12445 ... 70177?s=20 ---> It occurs on older aircraft. Not M2K, LCA etc.

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/12445 ... 15234?s=20 ---> Mach Tuck-in occurs when you're hauling high-g at Sonic speeds. As the aircraft decelerates rapidly, the sudden forward movement of CP causes a transient increase in pitch rate, causing sudden g-exceedance (beyond limit).

https://twitter.com/Amitraaz/status/124 ... 38657?s=20 ---> Vortex generators on elevators can also help a pilot to recover this, right?

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/12445 ... 66144?s=20 ---> Hmm! Not sure. I wonder. Normally we use VGs the main plane.

https://twitter.com/nileshjrane/status/ ... 54562?s=20 ---> Could help in some specific cases where tail tends to get into increased downwash of the main wing reducing tail efficiency or even stalling it. But I think that would be the case for rather old planes. None the planes that exist today would have this issue anymore.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 10643
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Postby Rakesh » 31 Mar 2020 08:25

Gurus (IR, JayS) please provide input on below...

https://twitter.com/nitjas/status/12441 ... 48736?s=20 ---> Sir, on the subject of Tejas air intake design, is this claim true?

Image

fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3594
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

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

Postby fanne » 31 Mar 2020 08:30

IF I may take a shot at it. LCA -IOC, LCA -FOC and LCAMK1 (123 planes in total) uses F404 and not f414. MWF will use F414, but a definite design of intake is not in public domain to make a comment that it is adequate or not.
No Tejas as of now (or in future) will use F414, MWF will
repeat
No Tejas as of now (or in future) will use F414, MWF will

Ps - Kaveri was supposed to have higher inflow than F404, and the design should be sufficient from that angle. It may or may not be inefficient on its own merit.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 10643
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Postby Rakesh » 31 Mar 2020 18:09

https://twitter.com/Leopard212/status/1 ... 23841?s=20 ---> Future of Indian Air Force Is TEJAS, and TEJAS variants is the future of IAF. Repeat it again and again. INDIA is proud of Air Commodore Kalianda Appaya Muthana (retd), Group Captain Harsh Vardhan Thakur, Group Captain Subroto Chaki, Wing Commander Pratyush Awasthi and Team Tejas at HAL. READ This!

I am going to put this article on page 1 of this thread. There is one paragraph in the article below that is going to give the import lobby on BRF so much takleef. The risk assessor on BRF claimed that the Tejas Mk2 would never come.

The pilot who helped Tejas breast the FOC tape
https://www.deccanherald.com/opinion/in ... 19475.html
31 March 2020 - By Air Vice Marshal Arjun Subramaniam (Retd)

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 10643
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Postby Rakesh » 31 Mar 2020 18:13

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/12448 ... 62210?s=20 ---> Chief of Test Flying originated the idea of LCA Mk-1A for the country and drove d entire decision making apparatus up to MoD to accept the case. His vision is on the threshold of taking shape as he retires today, leaving the legacy for his colleagues to further.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 10643
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Postby Rakesh » 31 Mar 2020 18:17

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/12448 ... 57952?s=20 ----> With so many flying & practising military strategists under one roof, you should be disheartened is something is not always brewing.

Above tweet is in response to the tweet below...

https://twitter.com/wasimabrar/status/1 ... 77473?s=20 ---> ORCA!!

@hvtiaf Sir @rhinohistorian Sir

Something is brewing...

Image

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 10643
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Postby Rakesh » 31 Mar 2020 18:24

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/12399 ... 60801?s=20 ----> Flavour of the day. Maiden flight of LCA FOC series production fighter SP-21 tail number LA-5021, piloted by HAL's Chief of Test Flying, Air Commodore KA Muthana VSM.

https://twitter.com/JA_Maolankar/status ... 33184?s=20 ----> Yet another white haired test pilot being lost to the system? We really need a formalized way of harnessing priceless flight test wisdom that is actually the nation’s investment and treasure. Test pilots need to be put to work till they turn senile!

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/12448 ... 43777?s=20 ---> Couldn't agree more! Not going to test till this gets formalised.

https://twitter.com/mikeslackenerny/sta ... 12193?s=20 ---> Where is Wing Commander Rajiv Kothiyal these days? Almost 20 years since he took first flight.

https://twitter.com/mikeslackenerny/sta ... 25728?s=20 ---> He is a pilot at Etihad now. Quit IAF in 2002!

https://twitter.com/BahadurManmohan/sta ... 80099?s=20 ---> Petty minded as we are, Wing Commander Kothiyal was not absorbed by ADA due they not meeting his requirement of an adequate 'grade' in DRDO hierarchy due his IAF rank! He left and joined civil aviation. The LCA program lost a wealth of experience! We, though, pay millions to foreign consultants!

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 10643
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Postby Rakesh » 31 Mar 2020 18:45

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.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9642
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby brar_w » 31 Mar 2020 20:06

What aam junta sees - Look fighter X can carry 30 missiles
What the operator sees - Ah..so they opened up additional hard points and developed new racks..and that means additional payload flexibility which potentially opens up new missions, or enhances the ones these platforms currently perform.

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4010
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby deejay » 31 Mar 2020 20:29

brar_w wrote:What aam junta sees - Look fighter X can carry 30 missiles
What the operator sees - Ah..so they opened up additional hard points and developed new racks..and that means additional payload flexibility which potentially opens up new missions, or enhances the ones these platforms currently perform.


Good Point. But purely from a sales perspective it is a good pitch. In a marketing research for a sports company, images shown to "experts" tended to bias their decisions despite factual knowledge suggesting something else. This was done for a sports website.

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4010
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby deejay » 31 Mar 2020 20:31

Rakesh wrote:...

https://twitter.com/BahadurManmohan/sta ... 80099?s=20 ---> Petty minded as we are, Wing Commander Kothiyal was not absorbed by ADA due they not meeting his requirement of an adequate 'grade' in DRDO hierarchy due his IAF rank! He left and joined civil aviation. The LCA program lost a wealth of experience! We, though, pay millions to foreign consultants!


Bleddy could not agree more. HAL applied this to me when I applied for a different job (no, no where close to flying).

srin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2077
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

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

Postby srin » 31 Mar 2020 20:38

Rakesh wrote:I am going to put this article on page 1 of this thread. There is one paragraph in the article below that is going to give the import lobby on BRF so much takleef. The risk assessor on BRF claimed that the Tejas Mk2 would never come.

The pilot who helped Tejas breast the FOC tape
https://www.deccanherald.com/opinion/in ... 19475.html
31 March 2020 - By Air Vice Marshal Arjun Subramaniam (Retd)


What a bitter-sweet paragraph
India’s LCA project has still some distance to go before it wins the complete trust of the IAF’s fighter pilots, with several of them arguing that even a futuristic twin-engine LCA MK II will not match up to the Rafale in every domain. However, it now appears to be on a stable footing with complete government and corporate backing, and an excellent and committed team. A current LCA test pilot argues, “LCA now represents India in a big way – not just HAL anymore. LCA-bashing should get behind us, sooner than later.”


Expectations, expectations - Rafale capabilities in Mig-21 size at desi cost :lol:

And this also goes to show how much the Tejas test pilots had swim against the tide. Respect.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 10643
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Postby Rakesh » 31 Mar 2020 20:55

brar_w wrote:What aam junta sees - Look fighter X can carry 30 missiles
What the operator sees - Ah..so they opened up additional hard points and developed new racks..and that means additional payload flexibility which potentially opens up new missions, or enhances the ones these platforms currently perform.

In addition to what deejay said, you and HVT Sir are both saying the same thing. See his tweet below....

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.

His point is with regards to carrying anything beyond 4-6 AAMs per aircraft is where the issue lies. Any professional air force will look at those pictures of the F-15EX and F-21 and quite frankly chuckle. It is meant - as you aptly put it - what aam junta sees. It is brochuritis onlee.

Air Combat is not "Rambo/Sylvester Stallone" style, where one person (or aircraft) takes on an entire air force with 30 AAMs. Missions are always flown in pairs or in four ship units. But no aircraft flies alone into combat or neither do they do in peace time. There are a number of reasons for that, which you are well aware of. I doubt even F-22 flies alone, but you would know more on that. And as HVT Sir put it earlier, a four ship formation (each carrying 4 AAMs) is more than sufficient for an air interception mission.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9642
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby brar_w » 31 Mar 2020 21:14

F-22 in OCA/DCA carries all 8 missiles in wartime. Only time it will carry fewer is when it is carrying a mixed strike role in which the missile count will be halved for a self escort mission. F-35 will carry 4-6 missiles for now. Later more because the # of targets to prosecute are going to be growing in the future given companion drones, decoys and UAS targets. I can see both the F-35A and F-22A carrying more than a dozen AIM-X's in future missions when performing specific misisons. But the USAF is unique given its expeditionary nature and the fact that it is likely to be numerically mismatched given its logistical train vs that of its expected opponent.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 10643
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Postby Rakesh » 31 Mar 2020 22:05

What are those specific missions? Nine times out of ten, would they be flying with a dozen AIM-9Xs? In an IAF scenario, a four ship formation, each carrying 10 AAMs (as those pictures of the F-21 and F-15EX show) would be unrealistic. 40 air-to-air missiles in a mission is overkill.

Another example of brochuritis, onlee this time in a movie. I think you have seen this already though. The Khan really knows marketing. That is one thing to learn from the Khan. Nobody does marketing like them.

A constructive criticism of Top Gun 2 from C.W. Lemoine, a retired USN Hornet pilot.

See from 1:36 onwards.


brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9642
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby brar_w » 31 Mar 2020 22:16

Rakesh wrote:What are those specific missions? Nine times out of ten, would they be flying with a dozen AIM-9Xs?


shaun wrote:What was the missile loading per strike A/c during desert storm ( even that wont be a good example as the opponent could not pitch enough A/c against !!)


viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7625&p=2424659#p2424659

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8297
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Postby Indranil » 01 Apr 2020 00:28

Where is this coming from?

Inlets for Mk1 and Mk1A are optimized for F404, not Kaveri. People keep rehashing things which were current from the turn of the century, primarily brought forward by the late Air Commodore Parvez Khokhar.

There is no perfectly optimized inlet. You can optimize for one design point and it will be suboptimal for every other point in the flight envelop.

Rakesh wrote:Gurus (IR, JayS) please provide input on below...

https://twitter.com/nitjas/status/12441 ... 48736?s=20 ---> Sir, on the subject of Tejas air intake design, is this claim true?

Image

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5427
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Kartik » 01 Apr 2020 01:24

Rakesh wrote:
brar_w wrote:What aam junta sees - Look fighter X can carry 30 missiles
What the operator sees - Ah..so they opened up additional hard points and developed new racks..and that means additional payload flexibility which potentially opens up new missions, or enhances the ones these platforms currently perform.

In addition to what deejay said, you and HVT Sir are both saying the same thing. See his tweet below....

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.

His point is with regards to carrying anything beyond 4-6 AAMs per aircraft is where the issue lies. Any professional air force will look at those pictures of the F-15EX and F-21 and quite frankly chuckle. It is meant - as you aptly put it - what aam junta sees. It is brochuritis onlee.

Air Combat is not "Rambo/Sylvester Stallone" style, where one person (or aircraft) takes on an entire air force with 30 AAMs. Missions are always flown in pairs or in four ship units. But no aircraft flies alone into combat or neither do they do in peace time. There are a number of reasons for that, which you are well aware of. I doubt even F-22 flies alone, but you would know more on that. And as HVT Sir put it earlier, a four ship formation (each carrying 4 AAMs) is more than sufficient for an air interception mission.


No it is not brochuritis. Please don't paint it all as just marketing gimmicks.

There was and is a serious concern in the USAF that if a shooting war were to erupt between the US and China, the PLAAF will swamp the limited number of F-22 and F-15 fighters with much larger numbers of fighters that will eventually overwhelm the technologically superior force. The simple reason being that when flying away from their bases, and carrying 4-6 missiles each, each F-22 or F-15 will fire salvos at each target and within no time be all out of missiles. At that time the numerically larger PLAAF fighter force would extract a heavy toll on the defending USAF fighters and tanker and AWACS assets. There was a very interesting RAND study that did a simulation of such a scenario and came up with very uncomfortable results for the USAF. It is one of the primary reasons why there are development programs for smaller form factor missiles that can be carried in larger numbers.

The scenario may not be the same for the IAF, but there is a reason why all folks on BRF go ga-ga over images like this.

Image
Image

This is an Air-Dominance fighter. Count the missiles in the first pic- 4 each of R-27s, R-77s and R-73Es, for a total of 12. 11 in the second. It doesn't need dual or triple racks because it has the hard-points to carry them individually. Doesn't mean that 11 or 12 are not carried. But in this loadout, 2 Su-30MKIs on CAP could in theory take on an entire PAF or PLAAF package. Imagine 4 Astras, 4 R-27s and 4 R-73Es in a Feb 27 like situation and the Su-30s would have extracted a toll on the F-16s. This type of loadout will not be normal, but just the fact that a Su-30 has this flexibility means a lot for the rare missions where a real shooting war is possible. Feb 27 came as a surprise because the IAF didn't expect the PAF to start firing missiles from within it's own airspace and set it's ROEs accordingly. Next time around, that may not be the case.

There are certain types of missions where it makes the most sense to go with this kind of loadout- for e.g. if the IAF wants to go after the AEW&C and tanker assets of the PAF, which will always be defended by escorts. The cost of those missiles will pale in comparison to what an AEW&C will cost in capability and $ to any air force. Expect the same for the PAF- if a real shooting war was to break out, expect them to come after our Netra and Phalcons and the escorts better be well armed.

To just say that 4 BVRAAMs and 2 CCMs is always more than enough is to say that these Su-30 images were just photo ops and don't represent a real mission loadout. As for the price of a missile, assess that versus the price of a single fighter or a single pilot. They can always acquire more missiles, especially if they're made locally, that shouldn't be the defining factor.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 10643
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: 4704
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: 690
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: 1593
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: 8207
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: 5427
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: 8297
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: 3059
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: 9642
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: 446
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: 5427
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.


Return to “Military Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests