LCA News and Discussions

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.
dsingh
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 6
Joined: 17 Apr 2009 02:20

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby dsingh » 23 Mar 2011 18:18

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.

Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2468
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Katare » 23 Mar 2011 18:29

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!?!

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Singha » 23 Mar 2011 19:10

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.

sankum
BRFite
Posts: 592
Joined: 20 Dec 2004 21:45

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby sankum » 24 Mar 2011 03:27


ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 52528
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby ramana » 24 Mar 2011 07:03

Some good info on other projects in that article.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16238
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby NRao » 24 Mar 2011 08:53

shiv wrote:
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?


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.


True.

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.

__________________________________________________


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.


Interesting that this topic resurfaces every 5 years or so.

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.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Singha » 24 Mar 2011 09:09

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.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16238
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby NRao » 24 Mar 2011 09:29

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.

chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby chackojoseph » 24 Mar 2011 10:18

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.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Singha » 24 Mar 2011 10:32

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.

chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby chackojoseph » 24 Mar 2011 10:50

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.

neerajb
BRFite
Posts: 811
Joined: 24 Jun 2008 14:18
Location: Delhi, India.

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby neerajb » 24 Mar 2011 14:47

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.


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?

Cheers....

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35017
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby shiv » 24 Mar 2011 15:06

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, :lol: A few 400 kph landings and the tyres are worn and the brakes need replacing.

chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby chackojoseph » 24 Mar 2011 16:47

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.


When in war, the economics of maintaining a fighter may not be visible.

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.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35017
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby shiv » 24 Mar 2011 17:28

We are on the wrong thread - but Nying Chi airfield - visible on Google earth is within Smerch/Pinaka range.

chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby chackojoseph » 24 Mar 2011 17:47

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.

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13102
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby negi » 25 Mar 2011 22:50

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.

VishalJ
BRFite
Posts: 992
Joined: 12 Feb 2009 06:40
Location: Mumbai
Contact:

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby VishalJ » 26 Mar 2011 02:24


Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4274
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Kartik » 26 Mar 2011 03:30

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, :lol: A few 400 kph landings and the tyres are worn and the brakes need replacing.


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.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36296
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby SaiK » 26 Mar 2011 03:44

Even with say higher T/W ratio > 1.something?

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35017
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby shiv » 26 Mar 2011 05:44

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.

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.

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.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36296
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby SaiK » 26 Mar 2011 05:48

Perhaps they need reverse thrusters for landing.

VikramS
BRFite
Posts: 1778
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby VikramS » 26 Mar 2011 06:16

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.


:rotfl:

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?

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35017
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby shiv » 26 Mar 2011 06:36

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?


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.

neerajb
BRFite
Posts: 811
Joined: 24 Jun 2008 14:18
Location: Delhi, India.

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby neerajb » 26 Mar 2011 12:55

SaiK wrote:Perhaps they need reverse thrusters for landing.


Perhaps brake chute is an effective/simpler option.

Cheers....

suryag
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3371
Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby suryag » 26 Mar 2011 13:06

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

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35017
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby shiv » 26 Mar 2011 15:15

neerajb wrote:
SaiK wrote:Perhaps they need reverse thrusters for landing.


Perhaps brake chute is an effective/simpler option.

Cheers....


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.

VishalJ
BRFite
Posts: 992
Joined: 12 Feb 2009 06:40
Location: Mumbai
Contact:

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby VishalJ » 26 Mar 2011 21:11


pragnya
BRFite
Posts: 728
Joined: 20 Feb 2011 18:41

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby pragnya » 26 Mar 2011 21:59

Vishal Jolapara wrote:More Tejas KH2004 > http://vishal.jolapara.in/2011/02/16/hal-tejas/


great pictures vishal. thanks.

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??

VishalJ
BRFite
Posts: 992
Joined: 12 Feb 2009 06:40
Location: Mumbai
Contact:

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby VishalJ » 26 Mar 2011 22:37

pragnya wrote:great pictures vishal. thanks.

You're Welcome! :wink:

pragnya wrote: the nozzle seems to be a bit canted. :?:


Its not canted but the angle of the shot makes it look so,
the shadowy/bottom part is the Vertical Stabilizer

VishalJ
BRFite
Posts: 992
Joined: 12 Feb 2009 06:40
Location: Mumbai
Contact:

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby VishalJ » 28 Mar 2011 05:05

^^ Hopefully this photo below should satisfy you that all is well..... : :D

KH2004 Lifting-off (HIGH RES) > http://www.airliners.net/photo/1890806/L/

suryag
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3371
Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby suryag » 01 Apr 2011 12:33


suryag
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3371
Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby suryag » 01 Apr 2011 20:17

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)

chiru
BRFite
Posts: 210
Joined: 17 Jun 2009 12:46
Location: mahishooru

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby chiru » 01 Apr 2011 22:34

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

VishalJ
BRFite
Posts: 992
Joined: 12 Feb 2009 06:40
Location: Mumbai
Contact:

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby VishalJ » 02 Apr 2011 16:06

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/


vic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2415
Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby vic » 04 Apr 2011 08:14

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.

Pogula
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 41
Joined: 22 Jan 2011 08:04

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Pogula » 04 Apr 2011 09:25

vic wrote:So my guess is that first comabt ready LCA Mark2 squadron will come into being in 2010.


You mean 2020.

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.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 52528
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby ramana » 04 Apr 2011 09:43



Half and empty tanks are more challenging as the lift generated could impact separation from the aircraft.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36296
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby SaiK » 04 Apr 2011 10:03

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?


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Thakur_B, uskumar and 55 guests