LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 28 Oct 2015 19:43

Philip and Cybaru, Knock it off. The guy asked a simple question no need to be sarcastic.
Thanks,
ramana

Re-read the IAF in 1965 thread. Looks like the CAP/ORP pilots were flying a lot of sorties and a short turnaround time is good.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 28 Oct 2015 19:55

On the range front, I think Vivek's calculation had two aspect: Distance and time. Someone mentioned the range here as 300 kms but I remember Vivek putting forth the calculation that flight time is 1 hour. I understand that range and flight time are both subject to payload and flight profile. But for a given combination of payload and flight profile, will 300 kms be equivalent to 1 hour flight time worth of fuel?

Secondly, while combat radius has been calculated here as 300 kms, will not the usable combat radius (the distance at which the fighter will actually go and hit the target) be something between 200-250 km considering that ingress and egress flight path will not necessarily be straight line. And the a/c might require time over target as well....300 km seems like single pass weapon drop.

And one also needs to factor in the distance of the base within Indian border...barring few exception, the a/c will cover ~100 km inside Indian territory.

The way I see it, Tejas with drop tanks and higher precision weaponry will be used for missions >200 km radius while those involving supporting ground troops or hitting target 50-100 km inside Pakistan will be carried w/o such drop tanks.

srin · Post by **srin** » 28 Oct 2015 20:00

JTull wrote:I just don't see the point of LCA with a single Brahmos-M. What can LCA achieve with it's short legs that a ground/ship launched Brahmos Block-III or Nirbhaya cannot? But OTOH imagine during Kargil type situation live TV report of a flight of Su-30MKI taking to air with a load out of 3 Brahmos-M each on offensive patrols would cause brown pants all over the place.

I can see why Brahmos-M would be useful for NLCA against an enemy naval task force. One per fighter isn't adequate but if NLCA is a prime fighter on the carrier and Mig-29Ks aren't immediately available, it is better than nothing.

Though not sure if it can take off with a Brahmos and then would it be able to land with it ?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 28 Oct 2015 20:12

I don't recall where I read but just this week, some LCA honcho was saying weapons from dual hardpoints will be tested soon.

Deejay, What close support missions do you think LCA can support: weapons, range and its safety from ground fire.

I suppose it can drop weapons from heights over 3km to avoid most of the ack-ack. The ECM pods should help for SAMs.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 28 Oct 2015 20:47

Karan M wrote: Bwahahaha - after all the complaints and huge grouses that LCA was so bad maintenance wise, now we get to know the current turn around time is 20 minutes!!

Which is where the context matters about how demanding IAF ASRs can be. For context, in peacetime Su-30 sortie rate has been upto 8 daily (http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/indian-a ... uk-1204336) & more can be pulled out at war.

For LCA, if used round the clock, assuming even 30 mins for TAT, detailed checks and what not, mission briefs and 1 hr for the flight/combat, that can translate to around 16 sorties per day. Spares burn etc will be far less than that on the Su-30 and costs likewise.

<SNIP>

Karan - the statement by the HAL person is misleading and he seems to using the words loosely. No a/c can be back in the air after mere 14 minutes or 20 minutes of landing. And while actual transfer of fuel might take four minutes, the whole process of fuel transfer will take more than 4 minutes.

Here is an extract of typical time required for various Turn Around Tasks from USAF - this is basis their study of deployment in 80s and 90s for F-16 and F-15.

Time given against each point is in minutes.

Land and Taxi: 10
Make Aircraft Safe for Ground Ops: 5
Shut Down Systems: 2
Conduct Post-Flight Inspection/Debrief: 15
Re-arm: 50
Service: 20
Refuel: 30
Conduct Pre-Flight Inspection: 15
Start Engine: 5
Perform Final Systems Check: 5
Arm: 5
Taxi: 10
Wait in Queue: 5
Take Off: 3

TOTAL: 180 minutes or 3 hours

It is my contention that HAL personnel is most likely talking about time required for one of the procedures above. Pre-flight inspection or Post-flight inspection.

Now, assuming for fighter like Tejas, we take 2 hours and not 3 for full TAT, then with 1 hour of flight time, we're simplistically talking about 8 sorties over a 24 hour cycle. However, an a/c will require more time as with each flight hour, there will be maintenance requirement as well. So, your total sortie generation ability will depend on flight time, TAT and Maintenance hours required for an a/c after X number of flight hours.

Aditya_M · Post by **Aditya_M** » 28 Oct 2015 21:08

rohitvats wrote:Land and Taxi: 10
Make Aircraft Safe for Ground Ops: 5
Shut Down Systems: 2
Conduct Post-Flight Inspection/Debrief: 15
Re-arm: 50
Service: 20
Refuel: 30
Conduct Pre-Flight Inspection: 15
Start Engine: 5
Perform Final Systems Check: 5
Arm: 5
Taxi: 10
Wait in Queue: 5
Take Off: 3

TOTAL: 180 minutes or 3 hours

Intriguing. I'm thinking some of these things can happen in parallel - re-arm and refuel along with debriefing. Plus ten minutes each way for taxiing and five minutes in the queue? It feels three times as much as it should be.

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 28 Oct 2015 21:09

Do carrier a/c s have higher turn around times? But then they have to fly for far fewer minutes as the carrier is parked close enough?

Raveen · Post by **Raveen** » 28 Oct 2015 21:09

rohitvats wrote:
Karan M wrote: Bwahahaha - after all the complaints and huge grouses that LCA was so bad maintenance wise, now we get to know the current turn around time is 20 minutes!!

Which is where the context matters about how demanding IAF ASRs can be. For context, in peacetime Su-30 sortie rate has been upto 8 daily (http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/indian-a ... uk-1204336) & more can be pulled out at war.

For LCA, if used round the clock, assuming even 30 mins for TAT, detailed checks and what not, mission briefs and 1 hr for the flight/combat, that can translate to around 16 sorties per day. Spares burn etc will be far less than that on the Su-30 and costs likewise.

<SNIP>
Karan - the statement by the HAL person is misleading and he seems to using the words loosely. No a/c can be back in the air after mere 14 minutes or 20 minutes of landing. And while actual transfer of fuel might take four minutes, the whole process of fuel transfer will take more than 4 minutes.

Here is an extract of typical time required for various Turn Around Tasks from USAF - this is basis their study of deployment in 80s and 90s for F-16 and F-15.

Time given against each point is in minutes.

Land and Taxi: 10
Make Aircraft Safe for Ground Ops: 5
Shut Down Systems: 2
Conduct Post-Flight Inspection/Debrief: 15
Re-arm: 50
Service: 20
Refuel: 30
Conduct Pre-Flight Inspection: 15
Start Engine: 5
Perform Final Systems Check: 5
Arm: 5
Taxi: 10
Wait in Queue: 5
Take Off: 3

TOTAL: 180 minutes or 3 hours

It is my contention that HAL personnel is most likely talking about time required for one of the procedures above. Pre-flight inspection or Post-flight inspection.

Now, assuming for fighter like Tejas, we take 2 hours and not 3 for full TAT, then with 1 hour of flight time, we're simplistically talking about 8 sorties over a 24 hour cycle. However, an a/c will require more time as with each flight hour, there will be maintenance requirement as well. So, your total sortie generation ability will depend on flight time, TAT and Maintenance hours required for an a/c after X number of flight hours.

You are assuming you debrief and brief every single time you land, which is not the case if your mission is area def lets say. Here's an example of a 20 minute or so turnaround:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49L9BlYQSjw

Other manufacturers including SAAB claim quick turnarounds, the plane is ready to go in 20 (or less), you might have to switch out the pilot at some point, but the plane is good to go.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 28 Oct 2015 21:13

Rohit, that TAT is highly inflated and probably refers to the F-4 era before advances occurred.

For instance HAL mentions:
This also involves fitting “pressure refuelling” of the kind that exists in Formula One racing cars, which requires fuel to be pumped under pressure into the fuel tanks. Refuelling the Tejas takes just four minutes, and two more to fill drop tanks as well.

In your TAT list, fueling is a full 30 minutes. The difference is between conventional refueling and hot/pressure refueling.

Refuel: 30

In short that list and timings is probably thoroughly obsolete.

This stuff is irrelevant to the LCA's calculations per se and depends as much on stuff like airbase layout, IAF procedures etc.

Land and Taxi: 10
Make Aircraft Safe for Ground Ops: 5
Taxi: 10
Wait in Queue: 5
Take Off: 3

That's 35 minutes off.

Then there is this portion where BITE and automated procedures would drastically reduce things:

Shut Down Systems: 2
Conduct Post-Flight Inspection/Debrief: 15
Re-arm: 50
Service: 20
Conduct Pre-Flight Inspection: 15
Start Engine: 5
Perform Final Systems Check: 5

That's 112 of which the biggest chunk is arming. Again, huge advances there in all segments & arming in particular is dependent on your onboard systems and also how many men and loading equipment sets you possess.

In short, a 20 min TAT is entirely plausible provided there is no battle damage - for instance, the service time above, can become anything from hours to days depending on whether the aircraft is perfectly fine (which would be the working assumption or damaged beyond just LRU replacement)

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 28 Oct 2015 21:15

Rohit there are at least two real life examples of turn around within minutes for continuous sorties. One is Longewala. the other was the heli air lifts that moved troops in a massive airlift in Bangladesh.

180 minutes is simply too long for some emergency wartime situations. I have read accounts of pilots waiting only so long as it takes to refuel and reload munitions done at breakneck speed by ground staff.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 28 Oct 2015 21:24

rohitvats wrote:On the range front, I think Vivek's calculation had two aspect: Distance and time. Someone mentioned the range here as 300 kms but I remember Vivek putting forth the calculation that flight time is 1 hour. I understand that range and flight time are both subject to payload and flight profile. But for a given combination of payload and flight profile, will 300 kms be equivalent to 1 hour flight time worth of fuel?

Secondly, while combat radius has been calculated here as 300 kms, will not the usable combat radius (the distance at which the fighter will actually go and hit the target) be something between 200-250 km considering that ingress and egress flight path will not necessarily be straight line. And the a/c might require time over target as well....300 km seems like single pass weapon drop.

And one also needs to factor in the distance of the base within Indian border...barring few exception, the a/c will cover ~100 km inside Indian territory.

The way I see it, Tejas with drop tanks and higher precision weaponry will be used for missions >200 km radius while those involving supporting ground troops or hitting target 50-100 km inside Pakistan will be carried w/o such drop tanks.

The term combat radius automatically implies usable radius :
For instance (wiki): Combat radius is a related measure based on the maximum distance a warplane can travel from its base of operations, accomplish some objective, and return to its original airfield with minimal reserves. The fuel time limit for powered aircraft is fixed by the fuel load and rate of consumption.

Shukla says: Without external fuel tanks, the Tejas has a combat radius of barely 300 kilometres.

In terms of the english language, that would mean >250 and almost 300 but not quite there. So say around 280km.

Vivek puts the CR @40% of range (the delta of 20% is for the fight/reserves). His numbers IIRC came out at ~240km (600km range at 3500 kg payload). Which is why I said the actual numbers are better than Viveks estimates but not by a huge amount (so his estimates are fairly accurate).

In real life though - the LCA is more likely than not, to go out with another central fuel tank (at least another 725Ltrs one) & IAF tends to use tanks (there is no "must not use tanks" sorta logic apart from the obvious rational need to maximize performance where you wouldn't need it)http://media.defenceindustrydaily.com/i ... IAF_lg.jpg

In short, with the central tank & internal fuel, I see combat radius as 300kms (with some portion from the internal fuel & the 725Ltrs entirely allocated as an extra for the fight, sortie buffer, which is fine & sort of the conservative tricks I employ to see the actual CR of the bird and hence that map of the Prithvi).

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 28 Oct 2015 21:39

rohitvats wrote: Karan - the statement by the HAL person is misleading and he seems to using the words loosely. No a/c can be back in the air after mere 14 minutes or 20 minutes of landing. And while actual transfer of fuel might take four minutes, the whole process of fuel transfer will take more than 4 minutes.

Here is an extract of typical time required for various Turn Around Tasks from USAF - this is basis their study of deployment in 80s and 90s for F-16 and F-15.

Time given against each point is in minutes.

Land and Taxi: 10
Make Aircraft Safe for Ground Ops: 5
Shut Down Systems: 2
Conduct Post-Flight Inspection/Debrief: 15
Re-arm: 50
Service: 20
Refuel: 30
Conduct Pre-Flight Inspection: 15
Start Engine: 5
Perform Final Systems Check: 5
Arm: 5
Taxi: 10
Wait in Queue: 5
Take Off: 3

TOTAL: 180 minutes or 3 hours

It is my contention that HAL personnel is most likely talking about time required for one of the procedures above. Pre-flight inspection or Post-flight inspection.

Now, assuming for fighter like Tejas, we take 2 hours and not 3 for full TAT, then with 1 hour of flight time, we're simplistically talking about 8 sorties over a 24 hour cycle. However, an a/c will require more time as with each flight hour, there will be maintenance requirement as well. So, your total sortie generation ability will depend on flight time, TAT and Maintenance hours required for an a/c after X number of flight hours.

Rohit, I don't think there is any error in the statement as such. Gripen advertises its turn-around time to be 10 min (with 5 men i think). It is well known that Gripen had this requirement as design goal right from start. (One link i posted yesterday, says this 10 min is for A2A mode. For A2G its 20min for Gripen-E)

But of coarse this is a desperate measure under desperate conditions. The list you have put up is compiled using Desert Strom-I data. USAF wasn't really desperate there, was it?? I saw this exact table yesterday while googling about ICT, its given in a doc related to "Sorty-rate model". The doc says,

While it may appear that substantial time could be saved by performing the post-flight inspection, re-arming, service, and refuelilng operations in parallel, safety considerations prevent doing so. When refuelling or re-arming operations are in progress, only fuels and munitions personnel are
permitted near an aircraft.

During war, for rapid turn around, most of the pre- and post-flight checks would be deleted, hot refuelling would be used, men will work simultaneously on multiple things on the jet (definitely they would have a well rehearsed algorithm for all this). Pilot won't even come out of the cockpit. Now this 10min would be best possible rate in ideal situation, realistically may be 20 mins is realizable (This is like quoting mileage for a vehicle which was demonstrated only under an ideal condition in lab, in reality it will be always less on road.). But of coarse its not sustainable for one aircraft to do this sortie after sortie. Generally a/c components, particularly engine components have limits on continuous operation. So one particular jet will perhaps be doing only 2 or max 3 such rapid sorties in one day. After that it will have to be kept on ground for usual maintenance which will be many long hours.

Also as Karan has mentioned, this data is quite old now, systems have become much better now. That surely has reduced a lot of time for many activities. (But Karan the data is for F-15/F16 from DS-I as per the paper I saw, not for F-4 era). Also if this is a requirement, then the a/c will have bulit in features facilitating this procedures at rapid pace. The Gripen video posted above highlights this well enough.

So, its doable in quite short time, given the a/c has been designed accordingly with required features. But it could be done only once or perhaps twice at max per jet per day in my opinion, that too throwing all safety procedures in dustbin. Its a risk and it will be taken only during desperate times by the AF. And of coarse any airforce worth its salt would have a well thought of and well rehearsed algorithm for this process.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 28 Oct 2015 22:01

ramana wrote:Philip and Cybaru, Knock it off. The guy asked a simple question no need to be sarcastic.
Thanks,
ramana

But gotta admit I cracked up when I read now LCAs will be fit on the Brahmos. "hardening the missile to fit the plane on it" is a classic.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 28 Oct 2015 22:09

Thanks Nilesh. The HAL statement is clearly around the aircraft attributes itself & hence seems fairly accurate. He is not speaking about the entire AFB procedures but what the aircraft is designed to achieve viz its serviceability.

The two key safety relevant portions which may be broken out and not done in parallel are hot refuelling & arming, both of which are separate from the basic aircraft maintenance and serviceability aims he is speaking of.

vasu raya · Post by **vasu raya** » 28 Oct 2015 22:10

podded Jammer means can they make expendable ones that fly closer to the emitters say on the Nirbhay airframe that is air launched or ground launched? or maybe even the Abhyas drone

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 28 Oct 2015 22:23

Is it possible for LCA airframe to do a flip-flop just to fire a mini-Brahmos mid-air? In another scenario, to reduce strain on wings, can LCA do the flip flop on fully load of A2A missiles or A2G bombs, just to drop fuel tanks? I am thinking there is a chance that fuel tanks or missile's burnt fuel can hit the tail.

Jaguar's overwing missiles can be seen here: link

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 28 Oct 2015 22:26

Singha wrote:not just crews but extra ready engines and consumables too. there would be no time for in-place bugfixing but pull the LRU/engine out and debug/repair offline. the IDF allegedly did that in their wars to up the sortie rates. perhaps everyone can do it in wartime.

and strike sorties these days will get longer as fwd airbases of old will be hammered with cruise missiles and SRBMs. air patrols some of them will get extended with AAR.

I think you guys are not getting why the IAF is asking for quick turn around. Its not that they intend to do it all the time, but if they have to, then its a good attribute to have.

Suppose IAF HQ is told R&AW or IDS have prioritized a high priority target and it must be hit within the next x time. Or if the PAF manages to sortie enough aircraft to pose a threat to one of our IFR birds & even the ones on hot standby are not enough and the next section must launch ASAP.

It is under all these conditions that the quick TAT is very useful.

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 28 Oct 2015 22:36

additional info on this refueling thingie

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.de/2013/12/h ... hters.html

As the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) incrementally refined and improved the fighter, each new prototype incorporated improvements and additions. The most recent prototype has a pressure refuelling system that lets the Tejas be topped up Formula One style, in just 8 minutes and then flown back into combat.

Now what i don't understand is has this been improved from 8 mins to 4 mins or is it something that needs to be improved

This one is from tarmak

http://tarmak007.blogspot.in/2013/01/te ... s-ada.html

The ADA boss said that LSP-8 has pressure-refueling capabilities (the entire aircraft can be filled with fuel just in 5-6 minutes as against the 30-minutes taken for gravity filling).

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 28 Oct 2015 22:39

Karan M wrote:Thanks Nilesh. The HAL statement is clearly around the aircraft attributes itself & hence seems fairly accurate. He is not speaking about the entire AFB procedures but what the aircraft is designed to achieve viz its serviceability.

The two key safety relevant portions which may be broken out and not done in parallel are hot refuelling & arming, both of which are separate from the basic aircraft maintenance and serviceability aims he is speaking of.

Gripen also has something called as "Tiger start" where you can put RM-12 in full throttle from cold in minimum time. From cold start to TO is like 90 sec or so. It has severe effect on engine life though. So it can afford to shut down its engines i guess, if you see the video posted above.

AFAIK, GE F404 engine does not have this feature.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 28 Oct 2015 22:45

So, there are two single-pylon multiple-racks in development.

1. One for two tandem 450 kg bombs
2. Twin arm (inverted V shaped?) for jammer, plus A2A missile. Will the same pylon on the other wing carry two A2A missiles? I am guessing that they are speaking of the mid-wing hardpoint and a BVR A2A missile (considering that the self protection jammer weighs about 100 kgs).

Another interesting pylon could be a T-shaped pylon to carry two A2A missiles and a jammer.

kmkraoind · Post by **kmkraoind** » 28 Oct 2015 23:21

vasu raya wrote:podded Jammer means can they make expendable ones that fly closer to the emitters say on the Nirbhay airframe that is air launched or ground launched? or maybe even the Abhyas drone

Just a noob question. When in dire situations, will pilots jettison jammer pods, laser pods as they do with munitions and fuel tanks. Will these pods rigged with explosives and explode themselves when jettisoned? or these pods are non-jettisonable and will remain with aircraft all the time?

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 29 Oct 2015 00:16

KMK - LDPs and Jammers wont be jettisoned. They are far too expensive. Plus, jammer is required for "dire situations".

vasu raya · Post by **vasu raya** » 29 Oct 2015 00:21

This was the concept I was refering to,

USAF orders additional MALD-J jammers from Raytheon

Raytheon Missile Systems Air Warfare Systems vice president Harry Schulte said: "MALD-J adds a jamming capability to the current decoy function of the MALD that disrupts enemy integrated air defence systems using jamming and radar signature technology.

He added: "This weapon will provide unprecedented capability and flexibility to the US Air Force and improve the survivability of our Airmen and their aircraft."

Weighing less than 300lb, the MALD-J is an expendable, close-in jammer designed to degrade and prevent an early warning or acquisition radar from establishing a track on a strike aircraft, while also maintaining the ability to fulfil the basic decoy mission.

Employed from the F-16 C/D Fighting Falcon and B-52 bomber, the unmanned MALD-J is capable of navigating and operating closer to hostile radars compared to the conventional electronic warfare (EW) systems, thus keeping aviators and aircraft away from enemy's path.

Designed to work with and use other EW platforms, the device can function either as a stand-alone system or in pairs, and is also able to loiter in the target area for an extended period of time, ensuring mission completion.

The ADM-160 MALD is an advanced, air-launched and programmable flight vehicle designed to confuse enemy integrated air defence systems, by accurately duplicating all combat flight profiles and radar signatures of the US and allied aircraft in the battlefield.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 29 Oct 2015 03:00

^^^ That is more like a decoy. You use it in addition to the self-protection jammer (internal/external). The latter is what is being talked about for LCA. Shedding 100-odd kgs does not provide any significant aerodynamic advantage. Plus you have lost your jammer!

vasu raya · Post by **vasu raya** » 29 Oct 2015 05:28

Its more about risk reduction, the decoy is helping further by Jamming the emitters, there are some 500 odd Amraams (originally meant for the talibs) that the IAF has to contend with, spreading them across decoys is a useful strategy

then there are plans of bringing back cruise missiles not sure if the calculation is good only for the hypersonic ones, but with a 100kg Jammer payload the loitering ability of Nirbhay is increased it can probably overlap the time that the Tejas spends on a typical mission

these are really platform neutral and the MKI which has a higher mission time can carry these with it and choose when to deploy

then the cost, as an anecdote, during the recent Uttarakhand floods, lots of choppers were used in bad weather, lots of risky flying, use of AWACS to serve as ATC was opined as an overkill, one Mi-17 was lost, maybe due to CFIT, the loss of an asset is greater than the operational cost the AWACS would have incurred. god forbid, if a fighter is lost, in retrospect we might consider the cost of a expendable Jammer to be worth it.

maybe Jammers depend a lot on the internally stored threat libraries which are constantly updated, if your SIGINT is not comprehensive or near real time then decoys are worth it

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 29 Oct 2015 09:02

On a serious note,look at the EMB AEW aircraft.They all have a phased array "slab" antenna atop the fuselage.Imagine if the slab is replaced with a missile.Just "rock and roll" and launch a missile. Jags have for aeons practiced toss-bombing This is just another aerial manouevre. take a hard look at the Ekranoplam WIGs.They carried several monster missiles atop the fuselage.

Nevertheless,the LCAs would be far more useful in support of ground forces in the close support role (than LR strike),as we do not have a dedicated GA aircraft after the MIG-27s are pensioned off. SU-25s and A-10s are no longer in production sadly. Attack helos are far too vulnerable unless very heavily armpured like Russian helos.Even these are vulnerable to MANPADS and would need cpuntermeasures,etc.Read my earlier posts about how the Apaches got badly burnt in Afghan ops from small arms fire,MANPADS,RPGs,etc.,and were thereafter sparingly used.The other alt. is to develop a GA version of the Jaguar,with an armoured cockpit et al,thus removing the need for yet another aircraft for the same,like Scorpion whatever.

It would be very interesting to examine the costs of a GA variant of a Jag,LCA and comparative costs with a light attack bird like the Scorpion,or armed AJTs like the Hawk,Yak-130,etc.Replacements for the 100+ MIG-27s have to be found.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 29 Oct 2015 09:08

For another thread, but the armed versions of IJT/Hawk/HTT-40 would do a fine job at that.

rohankumaon · Post by **rohankumaon** » 29 Oct 2015 14:51

Saurav Jha tweeted
‏@SJha1618
Once the Tejas program kicks into high gear offer license production to interested parties in Africa.

vina · Post by **vina** » 29 Oct 2015 16:07

Once the Tejas program kicks into high gear offer license production to interested parties in Africa.

This is hilarious. Outside of S. Africa (which already has Gripen), the rest of the continent, cannot make anything worthwhile nor any country which can buy this sort of thing.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 29 Oct 2015 16:36

Would IAF fly LCA in "Exercise Livewire" tomorrow?

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 29 Oct 2015 17:19

rohankumaon wrote:Saurav Jha tweeted
‏@SJha1618
Once the Tejas program kicks into high gear offer license production to interested parties in Africa.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 29 Oct 2015 17:25

imo Sri lanka, Afghanistan, Iraq and Myanmar are better bets. bangladesh too.

nits · Post by **nits** » 29 Oct 2015 18:29

Sir - Af, Iraq and Myanmar are fine but what Aerial Threat Sri Lanka and Bangladesh will have and from whom to have a formidable Air Force... ? Also most of this country will need a Line of Credit to afford planes and their long term servicing...

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 29 Oct 2015 18:57

SA do have a fighter fleet of 24 aircraft and the possiblity of another 24 is possible which could be the Tejas. The advantage for SA will be when other African nations need aircraft they can get it from SA and some of the work being done there. Anything is possible. The opportunities are many. What need to be fixed is the need to have the engine program running in parallel. Once that's fixed then we have our own aircraft which we can export worldwide without any objection or issues from anyone.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 29 Oct 2015 19:08

rohankumaon wrote:Saurav Jha tweeted
‏@SJha1618
Once the Tejas program kicks into high gear offer license production to interested parties in Africa.

With or without engines.

If prior, then which one?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 29 Oct 2015 19:13

We need to be grounded in reality and not dream of khyali pullao.
This hoping to set up mfg facilities for LCA in Africa is just that.

Till last month even IAF acceptance was in doubt.

At best setup a base overhaul facility in SA and sell some planes to those who want it.

Smacks of the Panchatantra tale of the milk maid who tosses her head and loses the milk jug.

Intentions to compete in international markets is good but should think of fulfilling domestic requirements first.

Prasad · Post by **Prasad** » 29 Oct 2015 23:15

Indonesia and malaysia might be better bets.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 29 Oct 2015 23:20

its never about making $$ initially. its about building footprint and relations. once you get your footprint in, you make it sticky. people cannot change planes like they change phones.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 29 Oct 2015 23:28

Sales is one thing

License production another

But when you keep tossing out red meat you get carried away.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 30 Oct 2015 00:32

vina wrote:
Once the Tejas program kicks into high gear offer license production to interested parties in Africa.
This is hilarious. Outside of S. Africa (which already has Gripen), the rest of the continent, cannot make anything worthwhile nor any country which can buy this sort of thing.

if they can fund it, who cares. give them a maint base once IAF reqs are filled. our basic problem with at least two of the countries is the israeli radar and missiles plus LDP, we'll have to find replacements.

egypt, algeria and even ethiopia operate fairly advanced aircraft.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopian ... _inventory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algerian_ ... _inventory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_ ... _inventory