LCA News and Discussions
Re: LCA News and Discussions
In today's BVR combat it would be low observable characteristics and second would be sensors, the most important factors determining the outcome. Given LCA Mark II, would have more advanced sensors ( than PLAF or PAF have would have access), is specifically optimized for interdiction,would out match J10 and J11s in BVR and close combat ( given low sig and better Radar and sensors). The IAF pilots have better training than their PLAF or Pukis counterparts. So if IAF manages to get some where 60-65 SQs, (and if even if bulk of them is Mark IIs LCA)it would be able to take care both of them, in simultaneous two front war. It would be more worthwhile to scrap MRCA and spent money towards getting AMCA operational service before end of the decade and increase production rate of LCA Mark II to 24-30/yr to fill the SQ numbers. LCA mark II would be cost half the money than Mirage 2000 and would be more capable aircraft as well as sanction proof. In mean time there is threat of war Russians or French can supply from there inventories.
Regards,
DSingh.
Regards,
DSingh.
Re: LCA News and Discussions
Dsingh saab, bhagwan se prathna hai hamari ki aap sahi our hum galat niklen.......par hame ye kyon lagta hai ki aapke pigs do fly.....very high.....very high!?!
Re: LCA News and Discussions
the fact that we are spending a lot to beef up nonexistent SAM network in NER with Akash and Spyder says we are not taking threat likely. both should be decent performers against swarm attacks by manned a/c and cruise missiles imho.
Re: LCA News and Discussions
Some good info on other projects in that article.
Re: LCA News and Discussions
True.shiv wrote:I am not NRao but he means J-30 not J-20. It was a dig at the hype around the J-20, which was not even called J-20 officially.vardhank wrote:
Sorry, have I missed something? J-30? or did you mean J-20?
Also, mods, I didn't really know where to post this bit, so please move it wherever you think works best...
If it's the J-20, then yes, it's the one Chinese plane I do worry about. If (as per that Russian analysis) it's meant to be an anti-shipping platform, then it's pretty damned scary. Where are we on developing anti-stealth defences (sensing, tracking, weapons etc), especially ones small enough to be used on ships or in the air?
Also, note: J-10 :: 2010ish, J-20 :: 2020ish, J-30 has got to be 2030ish. The kicker should be access to files for the Rafale and PAK-FA. With access to partial gyan see what the J-20 looks like.
__________________________________________________
Interesting that this topic resurfaces every 5 years or so.shiv wrote:No Chackoji. More modern aircraft ar designed to be more easy to service simply because they are designed around self diagnostics and LRUs- Line Replaceable Units. The F-7 does not even begin to fall in that class although it was probably easier to maintain than and F-4 Phantom among the aircraft of its era.
As an aside AM Philip Rajkumar has an article about DARIN I upgrade in the latest Vayu and as a test pilot he says that making a Jaguar take off in Bangalore carrying 4 x 1000 lb bombs and 2 drop tanks in Bangalore summer at 37 deg C and Bangalore altitude (about 1000 metres above MSL) was a hair raising experience. That Jaguar would only just make the take off. Will scan and post the quote.
Now imagine F-7s in Tibet at 5000 meters.
I guess I should wait for the scan, but, now that India has a AR, does he talk about that option. It should be possible to use smaller amount of fuel in the tanks (NOT drop tanks) and refuel on-the-way.
IF the IAF can degrade Chinese refueling capabilities over Tibet, it would go a long way in helping the ground forces.
Re: LCA News and Discussions
how the chinese will manage to continuously refuel 700 F-7 type fighters over tibet is left as an exercise for reader?
they would need 100s of tankers for just that and given the F-7 limitations in internal fuel would still suffer from its lowish combat radius.
bottomline is F-7 could well be used as a point-defence bird over various places in Tibet with 4 AAMs and guns but thats about it. this is the same way we will use our Bisons in the plains - confront strike a/c, launch missiles, harass them, break up strikes, pick off stragglers in the herd, target incoming cruise missiles but remain well within our dominant area.
we should focus on the Su27 and J10 mostly...around 400 airframes at the moment. and I believe the Su27 is not greatly oriented as a strike bird in chinese service.
they would need 100s of tankers for just that and given the F-7 limitations in internal fuel would still suffer from its lowish combat radius.
bottomline is F-7 could well be used as a point-defence bird over various places in Tibet with 4 AAMs and guns but thats about it. this is the same way we will use our Bisons in the plains - confront strike a/c, launch missiles, harass them, break up strikes, pick off stragglers in the herd, target incoming cruise missiles but remain well within our dominant area.
we should focus on the Su27 and J10 mostly...around 400 airframes at the moment. and I believe the Su27 is not greatly oriented as a strike bird in chinese service.
Re: LCA News and Discussions
Why this confusion?
The issue of refueling is related to how much ware individual air crafts can take-off with.
Besides, IIRC, the other option was to have real long runways. Real long. Granted that poses other problems given today there are stand-off assets that can make those "real long runways" real short very quickly.
The issue of refueling is related to how much ware individual air crafts can take-off with.
Besides, IIRC, the other option was to have real long runways. Real long. Granted that poses other problems given today there are stand-off assets that can make those "real long runways" real short very quickly.
-
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 4297
- Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
- Location: From Frontier India
- Contact:
Re: LCA News and Discussions
If China manages to keep the Sukhois, J-10's against the Indian Airforce, the F-7's can wreck havock in other roles like point defence, escorts and straffing. China need not refuel 700 of its F-7's. Even if it can manage to keep 100 of them flying (including replacemant), (along with newer aircrafts), even with lower payload, they can cause a lot of headache.
IMO, LCA MK-1 with a lot of equipment stripped should be deployed against North/East and South East to counter and play the role of F-7's and they will be anytime superior to the Chinese junk. This will also allow IAF to not waste precious premium resources countering J-7's.
If Akash batteirs are in NE, the Chinese airspace will be protected by their own SAM networks. Tejas Mk .5 should be able to perform better with their low observable profile.
IMO, LCA MK-1 with a lot of equipment stripped should be deployed against North/East and South East to counter and play the role of F-7's and they will be anytime superior to the Chinese junk. This will also allow IAF to not waste precious premium resources countering J-7's.
If Akash batteirs are in NE, the Chinese airspace will be protected by their own SAM networks. Tejas Mk .5 should be able to perform better with their low observable profile.
Re: LCA News and Discussions
the chinese are building their tibet runways very long - 14,000ft has been measured on google earth for one such.
dont think we need to dumb down the tejas - we need it fit and sharp to deal with ingressing strike packages , in concert with leftover bisons and upg Mig29/M2k.
The MRCA , AMCA, MKI and the big dog PAKFA will take the war within tibet...backed by Phalcons and EMB145s and tankers and ELINT a/c.
dont think we need to dumb down the tejas - we need it fit and sharp to deal with ingressing strike packages , in concert with leftover bisons and upg Mig29/M2k.
The MRCA , AMCA, MKI and the big dog PAKFA will take the war within tibet...backed by Phalcons and EMB145s and tankers and ELINT a/c.
-
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 4297
- Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
- Location: From Frontier India
- Contact:
Re: LCA News and Discussions
Bisons may not be left in some time. A Tejas MK .5 would be the best even through 2040. A plane with fast ingress and a lot of CAP capabilities. it should make Chinese think of sending their premium package to NE. The Mk .5 can inhabit the bases in NE, which are lying unused.
We should restrict MMRCA to 50 or so.
My prefered line up is 150 LCA Mk .5, 40 MK1's, 200 Mak2,3,4 etc, < 100 MMRCA's, 200 SU-30 MKI's.
As the fifth gen will fill in, I would prefer
LCA MK .5 to MkXX + AMCA + FGFA + UCAV's.
We should restrict MMRCA to 50 or so.
My prefered line up is 150 LCA Mk .5, 40 MK1's, 200 Mak2,3,4 etc, < 100 MMRCA's, 200 SU-30 MKI's.
As the fifth gen will fill in, I would prefer
LCA MK .5 to MkXX + AMCA + FGFA + UCAV's.
Re: LCA News and Discussions
Do those J-7s/F-7s have provision for MAR? I guess no. Even if Chinese retrofit those antiquated birds with aerial refuelling kit, won't they face the same issues which prevented us from fitting those on Bisons?Singha wrote:how the chinese will manage to continuously refuel 700 F-7 type fighters over tibet is left as an exercise for reader?
they would need 100s of tankers for just that and given the F-7 limitations in internal fuel would still suffer from its lowish combat radius.
Cheers....
Re: LCA News and Discussions
Without asking my unkal i would guess that F-7s do not have AAR capability.
It is interesting to think about 14000 foot runways in Tibet.
The minimum landing speed of an aircraft is just below the speed required to keep it in the air - although a pilot could force his aircraft to hit the ground when it is flying fast enough to stay in the air. Unkal tells me that the landing distance increases by 3.5 % per 1000 feet AMSL. So the landing distance would increase by 50% in Tibet and the F-7 landing speed would be nearly 400 kmph. And that only if the pilot gets his speed just right and he has jettisoned all extra fuel and munitions. Any extra weight, or tailwind increases landing distance.
Now imagine what this does to tyres and brakes, A few 400 kph landings and the tyres are worn and the brakes need replacing.
It is interesting to think about 14000 foot runways in Tibet.
The minimum landing speed of an aircraft is just below the speed required to keep it in the air - although a pilot could force his aircraft to hit the ground when it is flying fast enough to stay in the air. Unkal tells me that the landing distance increases by 3.5 % per 1000 feet AMSL. So the landing distance would increase by 50% in Tibet and the F-7 landing speed would be nearly 400 kmph. And that only if the pilot gets his speed just right and he has jettisoned all extra fuel and munitions. Any extra weight, or tailwind increases landing distance.
Now imagine what this does to tyres and brakes, A few 400 kph landings and the tyres are worn and the brakes need replacing.
-
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 4297
- Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
- Location: From Frontier India
- Contact:
Re: LCA News and Discussions
When in war, the economics of maintaining a fighter may not be visible.Chinese fighter jets train over Tibet
However, it said, J-7s (cloned from older, MiG-21 Russian jets) had been flying in regularly for temporary duty at major commercial airports in Tibet.
Link
always be put to equally good military use. Though there are no reports of PLA Air Force units being permanently stationed in Tibet, the annual deployment of J-7 fighter aircrafts for training and area familiarization from Gongga airport during the fair weather from
July to October is a regular feature.
Nyingchi airfield located just 40 kilometers from the contested Sino-Indian border in Arunachal Pradesh the Gunsa airfield only 90 kms from the disputed territory in northern sector can really be instrumental in rapid force buildup in these sensitive areas. The situation becomes more intricate when viewed holistically along with other infrastructure projects and facets in and around Tibet. For instance, all the above airports are in close vicinity of major military garrisons.
Further, the capability of Chinese force projection and subsequent sustenance of operations through timely logistic replenishments would grow manifold when these airports are exploited in tandem with others like Kashi, Korla, Hotan, Yushu, Kangding and Chengdu, all located close to the Tibetan periphery. This integration would enable the Chinese forces to be deployed virtually from anywhere in China, as also significantly extend the reach of the Chinese Air Force over the Indian subcontinent.
It is therefore imperative that a detailed rethink about the security implications of the Chinese infrastructure in Tibet, especially in light of the progressively improving air connectivity, be carried out, so that suitable response strategies and options for future courses of action may emerge.
LCA-MK .5 will help harrasing any attempt from these airfields, support ground troops, CAPS etc.
Heavier assets, being premium, can be dedicated for premium roles.
Re: LCA News and Discussions
We are on the wrong thread - but Nying Chi airfield - visible on Google earth is within Smerch/Pinaka range.
-
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 4297
- Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
- Location: From Frontier India
- Contact:
Re: LCA News and Discussions
I just realised that I am not questioning the maintanibility of modern fighters or anything. I am only trying to say that Libyan example was bad. Otherwise, we are on same page.
-
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 13112
- Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
- Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .
Re: LCA News and Discussions
Shiv ji any idea about the tire life on IAF jets ? I know Tu-142 and IL-38 have to change their wheels(tire+rim) every 6-7 sorties.
Re: LCA News and Discussions
KH2004 just after rotation > http://jetphotos.net/showphotos.php?userid=30826
Re: LCA News and Discussions
Shivji, it will be the take-off distance that will be the biggest factor that decides such a long runway. Tibetian airfields will be at such an elevation that with the lower air density, to be able to get off the runway with a decent warload, they'd need to go on and on with a very long take off run.shiv wrote:Without asking my unkal i would guess that F-7s do not have AAR capability.
It is interesting to think about 14000 foot runways in Tibet.
The minimum landing speed of an aircraft is just below the speed required to keep it in the air - although a pilot could force his aircraft to hit the ground when it is flying fast enough to stay in the air. Unkal tells me that the landing distance increases by 3.5 % per 1000 feet AMSL. So the landing distance would increase by 50% in Tibet and the F-7 landing speed would be nearly 400 kmph. And that only if the pilot gets his speed just right and he has jettisoned all extra fuel and munitions. Any extra weight, or tailwind increases landing distance.
Now imagine what this does to tyres and brakes, A few 400 kph landings and the tyres are worn and the brakes need replacing.
Re: LCA News and Discussions
Even with say higher T/W ratio > 1.something?
Re: LCA News and Discussions
Not disputing that. But I consulted my unkal Googal for this. Takeoff distance is varied by payload and headwind. And power when available may compensate somewhat. After the plane gets to unstick speed - taking off and raising the landing gear rapidly reduces drag and enables the aircraft to speed up further and climb.Kartik wrote: Shivji, it will be the take-off distance that will be the biggest factor that decides such a long runway. Tibetian airfields will be at such an elevation that with the lower air density, to be able to get off the runway with a decent warload, they'd need to go on and on with a very long take off run.
Takeoff is more predictable in the sense that the aircraft (weight) can be optimised for takeoff for the existing temperature and wind direction and weather. But all this is less predictable for landing. He cannot adjust the weather, tailwind and temperature to be just right for his time of landing. The pilot may have to jettison all stores and most of his fuel. He may have to retain just enough fuel to come around once again - or perhaps not even that.
The aircraft is always coming in at a relatively higher speed for landing and has to touch down at exactly the right speed and keep enough distance for the aircraft to roll. In the mountains he may not have a clear view of the runway from 10 km away to fine tune this like when I fly a PC Flight Simulator and have a drop down menu for weather. Apart from low cloud and winds he may also have to maneuver around nearby mountains to see the runway and there may be a steep landing approach. The a/c is admittedly much lighter but is affected again by tailwind. Also airbrakes after landing don't work below certain speeds and in any case are less effective at altitude giving the wheel brakes a lot of work to do - apart from the fact that the tyres wear out more every time the aircraft hits the ground at speeds 30-50% higher than at seal level. If nothing else this raises the logistics stakes further.
Re: LCA News and Discussions
Perhaps they need reverse thrusters for landing.
Re: LCA News and Discussions
shiv wrote: In the mountains he may not have a clear view of the runway from 10 km away to fine tune this like when I fly a PC Flight Simulator and have a drop down menu for weather.
BTW you commented on some thread that some Chipanda air-base is under Smerch Pinaka Range. The question which came up was whether the IAF/IA has assets to deploy these iron-rainers in remote areas? Do they have a come-in, shoot, and scoot kind of capability where they can do the damage in 10-15 minutes and be out of the area in another 5min?
Re: LCA News and Discussions
IAF has. IA I don't know. But really this is the wrong thread although I am as guilty as the next guy in continuing a discussion that is fascinating to me.VikramS wrote: BTW you commented on some thread that some Chipanda air-base is under Smerch Pinaka Range. The question which came up was whether the IAF/IA has assets to deploy these iron-rainers in remote areas? Do they have a come-in, shoot, and scoot kind of capability where they can do the damage in 10-15 minutes and be out of the area in another 5min?
Re: LCA News and Discussions
Perhaps brake chute is an effective/simpler option.SaiK wrote:Perhaps they need reverse thrusters for landing.
Cheers....
Re: LCA News and Discussions
Flight test update, nowadays they update every saturday
from
LCA-Tejas has completed 1606 Test Flights successfully. (16-Mar-2011)
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-204,PV3-272,LSP1-64,LSP2-170,PV5-30,LSP3-35,LSP4-34,LSP5-17)
to
LCA-Tejas has completed 1613 Test Flights successfully. (24-Mar-2011).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-205,PV3-272,LSP1-65,LSP2-170,PV5-31,LSP3-36,LSP4-34,LSP5-20)
on an average 1 flight/day
from
LCA-Tejas has completed 1606 Test Flights successfully. (16-Mar-2011)
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-204,PV3-272,LSP1-64,LSP2-170,PV5-30,LSP3-35,LSP4-34,LSP5-17)
to
LCA-Tejas has completed 1613 Test Flights successfully. (24-Mar-2011).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-205,PV3-272,LSP1-65,LSP2-170,PV5-31,LSP3-36,LSP4-34,LSP5-20)
on an average 1 flight/day
Re: LCA News and Discussions
The thin atmosphere at 15000 feet will make the brake parachute less effective than normally and in any case the plane will be landing at a higher than normal speed.neerajb wrote:Perhaps brake chute is an effective/simpler option.SaiK wrote:Perhaps they need reverse thrusters for landing.
Cheers....
Re: LCA News and Discussions
More Tejas KH2004 > http://vishal.jolapara.in/2011/02/16/hal-tejas/
Re: LCA News and Discussions
great pictures vishal. thanks.Vishal Jolapara wrote:More Tejas KH2004 > http://vishal.jolapara.in/2011/02/16/hal-tejas/
just wondering what is at the bottom of the engine nozzle in the 3rd picture?? - http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php? ... 983&nseq=0
something seems extended. also the nozzle seems to be a bit canted.
added later : ok. it is the fin which answers the first part. looked odd to me at first.
can somebody clear for me the second part of the doubt??
Re: LCA News and Discussions
You're Welcome!pragnya wrote: great pictures vishal. thanks.
Its not canted but the angle of the shot makes it look so,pragnya wrote: the nozzle seems to be a bit canted.
the shadowy/bottom part is the Vertical Stabilizer
Re: LCA News and Discussions
^^ Hopefully this photo below should satisfy you that all is well..... :
KH2004 Lifting-off (HIGH RES) > http://www.airliners.net/photo/1890806/L/
KH2004 Lifting-off (HIGH RES) > http://www.airliners.net/photo/1890806/L/
Re: LCA News and Discussions
Flight test update
From
LCA-Tejas has completed 1613 Test Flights successfully. (24-Mar-2011).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-205,PV3-272,LSP1-65,LSP2-170,PV5-31,LSP3-36,LSP4-34,LSP5-20)
to
LCA-Tejas has completed 1620 Test Flights successfully. (31-Mar-2011).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-205,PV3-272,LSP1-65,LSP2-172,PV5-32,LSP3-38,LSP4-35,LSP5-21)
From
LCA-Tejas has completed 1613 Test Flights successfully. (24-Mar-2011).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-205,PV3-272,LSP1-65,LSP2-170,PV5-31,LSP3-36,LSP4-34,LSP5-20)
to
LCA-Tejas has completed 1620 Test Flights successfully. (31-Mar-2011).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-205,PV3-272,LSP1-65,LSP2-172,PV5-32,LSP3-38,LSP4-35,LSP5-21)
Re: LCA News and Discussions
today was a nice day !! around noon saw tejas zoom above my coll campus and within 15 secs a jag was tailing it - both heading west
Re: LCA News and Discussions
KH2004 slightly more detailed belly view shot the following day > http://www.airliners.net/photo/1893657/L/
and
KH2004 coming around Inverted > http://vishal.jolapara.in/2011/02/16/hal-tejas/
and
KH2004 coming around Inverted > http://vishal.jolapara.in/2011/02/16/hal-tejas/
Re: LCA News and Discussions
So the first LCA Mark-2 will roll out on 2014. Rest of PVs of Mark-2 say another 3 will roll out, fly and be tested between 2014-16-18.
The production series of Mark-2 will enter production in 2016, and will start to roll out for induction in 2018. So my guess is that first comabt ready LCA Mark2 squadron will come into being in 2010.
The production series of Mark-2 will enter production in 2016, and will start to roll out for induction in 2018. So my guess is that first comabt ready LCA Mark2 squadron will come into being in 2010.
Re: LCA News and Discussions
You mean 2020.vic wrote:So my guess is that first comabt ready LCA Mark2 squadron will come into being in 2010.
By the way, that is not bad at all if only they stick to the time-line this time.
I am more worried about them keeping up with the AMCA program in parallel with so little help from the private industry.
Re: LCA News and Discussions
Half and empty tanks are more challenging as the lift generated could impact separation from the aircraft.suryag wrote:Tejas readies for more drop tank tests at ATR
Re: LCA News and Discussions
Would have to be tried at various speed levels as well right, and in all direction of the wind. But as long as the aircraft does not lose sudden altitude it should be safe as gravity + aircraft direction should keep it away from contact after release. Apart from clean separation, what would be the condition when the tank can come in contact again within seconds?