LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 16 Feb 2016 11:23

We should then go agile and plan concurrent engineering from r&d after mk1a entry. Parallel path to faster establishment of advanced facilities, tools and lines to get there fast.

we can't afford to continue to be meager anymore

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 16 Feb 2016 14:48

Shreeman wrote:
It is a matter of comparative timelines. During the same time, while producing its own medium and high end systems the chinese factories knocked off another 60 kits to spare.

Singha wrote:we are competing with china here not TSP assembly remember? kamra is just another assembly line in addition to the ones in chengdu and so on....consider the overall productivity and local parts aspects.

I think both of you missed the point I was making. What is there to praise Pakistan in assembling 60 a/c from CKD made in China kits. We have also assembled hundreds of MiG 21s, 27s, Jaguars and Su-30s from CKD kits

I think there is no need to set up a competition with Pakistan either in "lightweight fighter" category or speed of CKD kit assembly. There is no guarantee that in a war only Tejas will have to face the JF 17.

I would prefer it if we discussed our problems from the viewpoint of what slows down and paralyses our requirements rather than talking about how fast others are making planes. I am not convinced that simply "making planes fast" is an answer precisely because of the bottlenecks that we have. It is our bottlenecks that are a problem for us, not their speed - and those problems do not apply to China or Pakistan. Our bottlenecks include the fact that one crash paralyses a program and sets it back by several years. This has never been an issue for China, or Russia or the US for that matter. There is an inherent problem in the Indian system and this problem even extends to a contemptuous general public who are unconvinced that Indian engineers are capable. If there are crashes they are incompetent. If there are no accidents they are too slow.

The other point is the equivalence that is inadvertently drawn using a few facts and much rhetoric. From an aviation enthusiast's viewpoint, anyone who asks about the actual capabilities of Chinese aircraft and avionics compared with the widely available specs of Indian and Western aircraft one is rapidly made to shut up with rhetoric of how China is moving in leaps and bounds and numbers have their own dynamic. Yes, but sorry that is rhetoric and I can provide some myself. Where are the facts? What are the real capabilities of the J-10 for example. Would a large number of Tejas aircraft somehow compensate for the capabilities of the J-10, now a presumably "mature" Chinese design? In what way would the Tejas be used against China if we rapidly made 200 of them. Would they be point interceptors over Indian airspace a la MiG 21 or would they be stealthy intruders taking out Chinese defences. if so - what would be their range and armament capability? Would they be be better as close air support or as interdictors. What is their ARM capability. What stand off munitions do we have for the Tejas? Would they help take out Chinese airfields? Which ones?

Shreeman · Post by **Shreeman** » 16 Feb 2016 21:29

shiv,

The praise is in seeing at some leVel, despite rampant corruption, which side of the bread is buttered correctly. You point out correctly the many reasons this is hampered on the eastern side of the border. But then withhold the credit to the western side that has not tied itself in knots over whether they should beg. Or the far eastern side that hasnt bothered with whether they should steal. The credit for getting the AXACT diploma, even if it is a piece of paper, is still due. 99% will not be able to tell the difference between that and the chaudhary charan singh university formerly named tau devi lal school.

Platforms are just that. You could quickly make 200 simulators and train pilots or 200 LCA balloons and park them secretly in bases. Neither serves the purpose of giving the rank and file some confidence in the basic ability of the flying article or even an improved justification of their jobs. Short of a hot war, every platform is both a morale booster and a deterrent. 200 of them serve the same purpose as the nukulars.

The point is continuous improvement, motivation of the supporters and continuous risk assessment by the opponents. Remember, even in the best plane half the pilots are *still* going to be shot down because the other side is a better pilot or ground defenses make piloting moot. Bht the 56inch chest confidence on a daily basis motivates everyone changing such things as do I join the airlines to do I initiate peace talks, again.

Numbers alone do nothing of the sort that you ask. Half of the 30s, 100+ of them are hanger queens. Christmas tree is a term. Making something teaches everybody around you. Not just the half dozen test pilots or seleCted HAL R&D employees or the odd blogger with inside access.

With 200, engine is suddenly a given, as a project. With 200, crashes dont matter. Like 21 or dhruv. With 200, you can afford to flip off the french. And the 200 teach your line employees something other than russian or french or american. Each one of these defends against the J10 in a different way. One that reduces the continuing cupping by the balls by such an opponent as the western front. No one was really motivated by castros ideology in miami. Becaause despite bay of pigs, there was no imaginable threat to the mainland. By contrast, everyone daily talks the western challenge first.

I disagree that quantity is meaningless. In an ideal world no one would build these. But if you are facing 60, then you need a production line that makes up for that number. The justification for the light part started out as the need for simultaneously building toilets. Now it is the existing facts on the ground, a la arjun. Sorry, there is nothing served by making,maintaining, flying less than 16-32 new a year.

There is something to be said for showing that you children have own toys to play with. Not just watch the neighbors. It doesnt have to be a match with a score every time.

Shreeman · Post by **Shreeman** » 16 Feb 2016 21:51

JTull wrote:
SaiK wrote:The 54 Rafale M is not necessary, and he should canvas for NLCA for Vishal.

Should we say this? is it not logical?
I don't know about Rafale M, but NLCA is not enough. We need to a mix of lighter and heavier aircraft with PLAN going for Flanker derivatives. NLCA will simply not have enough legs.

I conjecture that this is a three legged cheetah analogy. The flanker derivatives of today cant fly off with enough to have the legs to be more meaningful than the lighter one. Tomorrow, with 50 more meters, different materials, who knows. But even then, at least for the next 10-20 years, they wont be F22 level superior to 29ks.

Within 500 miles, you have land based flankers of your own. This adds another 500 mile bubble. Your routine 4 legged one may in the best case gives you a 1000 mile bubble. Why is this not enough jugaad for the next 10-20? What role will the $$B play in those 10-20 in building a twin engine of your own?

You can either field nlca+29k for the next 10-20 or forever be a screwdriver shop. Each generation adds an exponential order of complexity and ever widening gap with the top dogs.

Or you could give up on the manned side altogether and start you DOOs on the UAVs. Thats not happening either.

member_29245 · Post by **member_29245** » 17 Feb 2016 00:37

JTull wrote:
SaiK wrote:The 54 Rafale M is not necessary, and he should canvas for NLCA for Vishal.

Should we say this? is it not logical?
I don't know about Rafale M, but NLCA is not enough. We need to a mix of lighter and heavier aircraft with PLAN going for Flanker derivatives. NLCA will simply not have enough legs.

We should give some su30mki and some su34 to the Indian navy based at southern coastal bases and Andaman and Laccadivs

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 17 Feb 2016 00:50

India has a decision to make - fall prey to IAF brass ' poor decision regarding MMRCA or be self reliant. IAF needs go invest to increase MKI availability. A 20% increase could make 50 extra aircraft available. Purchasing an additional 50 MKIS with the current 50% availability would give only 25 additional airframes.

Rafale is a waste of money. Increase availability of MKI and field LCA Mk1 and 1a in 100s plus put Kaveri on a Mig21 test bed ( maybe create two test beds). This would be a much better for national security though probably bad for the babus eyeing making a killing in business promotion " funds.

Khalsa · Post by **Khalsa** » 17 Feb 2016 01:00

Sometimes I feel that this thread should be renamed as India's Light Weight Fighter Jet AeroSpace Programme

Why ? I feel a particular approach needs to be taken when approaching, contributing or reviewing this thread.
This will sound absolute and yes someways it is... (and that helps).

If you are here only to find out how Tejas is contributing to the Mig-21 replacement, Light Weight Fighter Category, 45 Squadrons to 36 Squadrons and oh crap....
Then prepare to read all doom and gloom on most days with the occasional good news of LCA edging towards FOC.

However if you want to read about
Tax Money on hard earned cash earned by guarding the frontier at Siachen or by working at a hot stuffy State bank of India in Ludhiana making it to the grass roots by employing a ton of Indians then read on to be amazed.
If you want to read about India learning (sometimes again) to built most of the parts of an aeroplane by itself then read on
If you want to read about the end of systemic corruption in foreign deals for defence then read on
If you want to read about the how the supply of hard earned Indian cash to Phoren was stopped in the 21st Century then read on.

I acknowledge Singha's post about Pakistanis being quick about assembling 60 CKDs into planes. hell yeah I give them that. They have a massive fear of us in their head and this propelled this deal to fruition in record time.
I am sure if money was signed off for similar deal with China , we would lag. We are bit lazy sometimes because we are reasonably stronger vis-a-vis China.

However remember the effort and time being poured into LCA will ensure there are no guessing games when it comes to AMCA. The HALs, the ADAs, the DRDOs will be much much much wiser next time they enter into a partnership with the IAF. And they will be wiser for the benefit for the IAF just as the IAF works for the safety of our republic.

I have been frequenting the LCA, Rafael, Su-30, FGFA threads and the content just about completely overlaps each other every third day thanks to the press who whip us up by scaring the end of IAF is coming and its all downhill from here.

Lets keep this thread about the LCA Light Weight Fighter and the Aerospace Programme that is the (re-usable) gestation chamber.

Wish you all very happy thinking my dear band of thinkers.

Meanwhile if you any of you bas#$% has a high flying uncle or aunty in the top echelons of the Defence or Ministry, spread the good news of Tejas in their ear instead of cricket.
God I hate that time waster of a game. Thank you Brittania for teaching my country a game that takes 5 days to conclude.

Y. Kanan · Post by **Y. Kanan** » 17 Feb 2016 01:18

How badly will the LCA programme be affected by the pending Rafale deal? After spending at least $300 million for each Rafale, will there be much left for LCA?

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 17 Feb 2016 01:21

it will deeply scar LCA and AMCA. Just going by the past data how they supported LCA.

tough times ahead,.. we have proven bad decisions made in the history books blaming it on cold war to stupid politics

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 17 Feb 2016 05:23

Shreeman wrote: The praise is in seeing at some leVel, despite rampant corruption, which side of the bread is buttered correctly. You point out correctly the many reasons this is hampered on the eastern side of the border. But then withhold the credit to the western side that has not tied itself in knots over whether they should beg.

<snip>

I disagree that quantity is meaningless.

I need to point out that our numbers should not be dictated by the other person's numbers but by capability. I have demanded discussion of capability. Quantity is not meaningless but quantity as a ratio of the other side's quantity is a numbers game that ignores too many factors including the need for research into how wars may have to be fought. Mind you - its not the IAF that ignores these factors. It is a BRF game that makes numbers into a competition, and then uses those west vs east number ratios to lambast India and praise Pakistan or China. I find these things pointless and meaningless because they only encourage people who know nothing else to post similar things with zero analysis and a brief Google search. The quality of the forum simply drops a few notches below its usual low bar, in my opinion. Our discussions shift from cost to numbers as comparison. To me these are bean counter talk and not aviation talk.

I must also quibble with your statement that with 200 planes crashes won't matter. There are so many sides to this issue that I will leave my quibble as it is and not enter into too many details bar saying that India's crash prevention/handling system has fundamental impediments that will prevent us from reaching that magic 200 number anytime soon. I will also say that India has a unique population and media that have been sensitized to the idea that the IAF chooses flying coffins and allows its pilots to die willy nilly. I see these opinions on BRF as well. This only adds to the road-blocks to production because public voices do matter.

The Indian public, part of which is represented on BRF do not want to see any crashes of military aircraft just like we do not want to see any avalanche deaths in Siachen. To me this only shows deep ignorance of some bare truths, but saying this only causes anger.

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 17 Feb 2016 05:34

IAF own research paper says it needs 57 fighter SQ. Quite researched paper

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 17 Feb 2016 05:42

fanne wrote:IAF own research paper says it needs 57 fighter SQ. Quite researched paper

The navy started approaching the numbers they wanted by getting involved with Indian industry and moved ahead over 30 years. We have discussed time and again that this can be the only way forward for the IAF. Numbers are not going to come soon. Capital acquisitions like planes were never cheap and are only getting more expensive and all exporters are interested in keeping their bank balances healthy from our imports.

The IAF must move from being a force of brave soldier-khshatriyas who are magically handed readymade weapons to add a mix of technician-engineer shudras who design and forge weapons. If they start now it will be 30 years before we get where we need to be

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 17 Feb 2016 06:00

Question:
What can 200 LCA Mark 1s be used for given a strike radius of say 500 km and an armament choice of dumb bombs and LGBs, or a mix of SRAAMs and BVRAAMs

What will their role be against China?

sivab · Post by **sivab** » 17 Feb 2016 06:28

shiv wrote:Question:
What can 200 LCA Mark 1s be used for given a strike radius of say 500 km and an armament choice of dumb bombs and LGBs, or a mix of SRAAMs and BVRAAMs

What will their role be against China?

500Km is pretty decent.

Intercept chinese fighters across LAC in AP, Sikkim, Bhutan, HP, J&K?

Bomb Lhasa? Dibrugarh to Lhasa is ~500km.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 17 Feb 2016 06:45

CAS support in the border regions and air defence over the border region and vital areas.

the Jags as we know do not perform well at high alt so they cannot really provide much help in the himalayan sector - this is a known fact because IAF has never based them in that way till date. this is a pity as we have lot of jags.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 17 Feb 2016 07:50

Mk1a should roll out now to shunt all dirty politics. ADA does not have the same schedule luxury after perhaps the current policy and admin tightening the screws on tranches.

Let it roll

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 17 Feb 2016 08:03

shiv wrote:
fanne wrote:IAF own research paper says it needs 57 fighter SQ. Quite researched paper
The navy started approaching the numbers they wanted by getting involved with Indian industry and moved ahead over 30 years. We have discussed time and again that this can be the only way forward for the IAF. Numbers are not going to come soon. Capital acquisitions like planes were never cheap and are only getting more expensive and all exporters are interested in keeping their bank balances healthy from our imports.

The IAF must move from being a force of brave soldier-khshatriyas who are magically handed readymade weapons to add a mix of technician-engineer shudras who design and forge weapons. If they start now it will be 30 years before we get where we need to be

more importantly, the IN succeeded by strictly keeping out all vested interests.

Shreeman · Post by **Shreeman** » 17 Feb 2016 09:21

shiv wrote:Question:
What can 200 LCA Mark 1s be used for given a strike radius of say 500 km and an armament choice of dumb bombs and LGBs, or a mix of SRAAMs and BVRAAMs

What will their role be against China?

Freeing up the light and heavy twins doing truck and shuttle duties in the west to permanently focus on the east, north east.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 17 Feb 2016 11:06

200 LCA or >200 LCA? Why?

My stab at this -

Presently I see our fighters being used in 03 major roles where different king of options like bombing, air to air, front gun, air to ground missiles, EW will be used

- CAS
- CAP
- Ground Attack at enemy targets (Interdiction)

Probably in the Indian scenario where you will never leave one front vacant even if the war is only on the opposite front, a 32 Sqn AF will be saturated with CAP and Interdiction duties and very few CAS resources available. A 40 Sqn AF will probably free up some more assets for CAS and a 50 Sqn AF will leave the bulk of assets for CAS which will become a major problem for the opposition army. LCA has precision strike capability and is going to have AESA. In air to ground mode, this radar networked (if possible) with ground assets should make a massive headache to the easily spot-table, handsome pakistani downhill skiers or even their sweet cheeni biladels

Given that we will engage opposition army from air in CAS role close to our borders in most cases (within 500 kms range), 200(+) LCA available for CAS duties looks attractive.

Just my two paise.

kapilrdave · Post by **kapilrdave** » 17 Feb 2016 11:10

We can do a lot of things if we have Tejas in numbers. We can swarm the paki air bases and destroy every single air asset in the first wave itself. Similarly we can swarm nearby chinese air bases as well. A swarm of 4.5 gen potent fighters will be a chilling thought for the adversaries. The chinese need not to have a monopoly on "waves theory" afterall

.

member_29245 · Post by **member_29245** » 17 Feb 2016 11:33

Numbers play an important role in their own way

Shouldn't be discounted

hanumadu · Post by **hanumadu** » 17 Feb 2016 11:48

If Tejas Mk1 is at least as capable as JF-17, we should match JF-17 in numbers and then some. In case of a prolonged war or two pronged war, or America giving more F-16's to pakis, the LCAs will come in use. There is every chance Mk1A and Mk2 time lines will slip. So better be safe than sorry. Sure, it will cost us a bit, but the upside is a vibrant aero space industry, all the small and medium industries get rewarded for their efforts over the years, may get export orders seeing IAF field it in numbers, may speed up Kaveri integration with LCA which will be very useful with export orders in case of Uncle playing hard ball with GE engines. Take a punt IAF.

SidSom · Post by **SidSom** » 17 Feb 2016 13:34

from Tarmaak twitter feed.....

HAL to set up second assembly line for LCA to build 16 aircraft from current 8, approval being fast tracked: Parrikar @TheHindu

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 17 Feb 2016 14:01

^^ And I thought the existing one itself was having 16per yr capacity once its fully stabilized since this was the plan for years now.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 17 Feb 2016 14:08

over the next 15 years, USAF will be retiring some 1000+ F-16 of atleast block40 std and inducting JSF. by 2030 it is likely to be mostly a JSF af with all the teens gone. even the F22 will be nearing retirement as I doubt they will fund beyond a 1st MLU.

the danger is very very clear to me. in order to 'balance' and 'control' India periodically they will be giving out some of these F-16 along with pkg of excellent munitions like say 16 here, 10 there, 12 there....it soon adds up.

there would be others willing to get these planes in eastern europe , south america and africa but none so 'strategic' and important all-lie as TSP.

JF17 production will surely reach 300+ as it replaces the F7, older F-16, MirageIII and MirageV fleet entirely. add to that the 100-200 retired F-16 they will surely get in installments.

we better be prepared to match that with 500 Tejas (all marks) and overwhelm that with 1000 Tejas (all marks) while freeing the 350 MKIs + future pakfa/amca to deal with the chinese.

yes we will still have to pay for the expensive GE engines since we made a hash of kaveri but thats water under bridge now.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 17 Feb 2016 14:12

Finally someone is reading BRF! The prod. issue has been debated for a few years now on BRF. A new facility will also make it easy for HAL to insist in the future that its several factories be kept busy with orders.This is a ploy to keep the [pvt. sector out of aircraft production where their better productivity will expose the profligacy of the DPSU units like HAL.This is where the GOI should be very,very careful.By building a second entity to make fighters,it does not mean that the current manufacturing culture that prevails at HAL;delays,cost escalation experienced in MKI manufacture compared with Russian built/supplied aircraft in official reports,is carried on into the new facility. What should be first done is to revamp the current facility to produce at least one LCA/month,later upto 16,apart from building a new facility.This will only encourage the "chalta hai" attitude of the DPSUs to go on forever and ever and ever...! Only competition from the pvt. sector will bring about a change in functioning of the DPSUs.Even for the FICV requirement,somehow the (much maligned-for the right reasons) OFB has squeaked into the final list.

kit · Post by **kit** » 17 Feb 2016 15:10

Now that everyone and his uncle (sic!) is interested in "make in India" .. F16 IN , F18 ( production lines) , Gripen (entire production line) , Eurofighter ( Eurofighter city !) ..where does poor Tejas stand ?

habal · Post by **habal** » 17 Feb 2016 16:17

Euro and american fighter jets will make India eventually a vassal state, because:

a. they will take their own sweet time coming.
b. in the interim, there will be one destabilization/regime change plan after another. India will have to silently look on since so many of our eggs are in western basket. And that would also be exactly the times we would have to display our strategic independence.
c. IG did regime change in bangladesh, otherwise we would have bee fighting pakistan in west & east. Imagine that ! So risk taken today will benefit generation tomorrow.

shashtang pranams to manekshaw ji, aurora ji, jfr jacobji, IGji for that. Without your spirit of adventure and foresight we would have been in far deeper swamp today.

d. Modiji do the nation a favor, better not to have any at all rather than these western engines and related platforms.

even if LCA flies slightly worse with kaveri, that should be the only choice.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 17 Feb 2016 16:32

I am digressing a bit here simply to pose another question based on ideas that the Tejas should match JF-17 in numbers or that enough Tejas should be available in case the US infuses F-16s into Pakistan.

I must ask, what is the use of 200 Tejas or 200 of any aircraft if we cannot paralyse every single radar and airfield that Pakistan has within a week of the start of war and gain absolute air dominance? After that it does not matter if the US sends 25,000 F-16s to Pakistan no? They will have no place to land or take off.

The initial days of war will have to be spent gaining air dominance - at least over most theatres of operation. Would 200 LCA cut it? If not what else would be needed to complement them?

Vipul · Post by **Vipul** » 17 Feb 2016 16:42

Making LCA's in large numbers is fine but has the US agreed to give more then the initial 100 engines to power them? Reality check -Increasing the number of Tejas in service is not entirely in our hands.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 17 Feb 2016 16:49

^ would that mean that we have to take up the shornet or perhaps gripen production in the private sector?

I wonder what has led the modi govt to come to the conclusion that MP has discussed? Mki? Important sops in other areas such as nuclear power? Hals production woes? Or is it posturing for a better raffle deal although one doubts this..

So...tejas will probably n be caPped at 120 and some unnecessary and expensive phoren fighter will be plugging the gaps.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 17 Feb 2016 17:00

^that means kick GTRE's butts to get their current engine ported to LCA TD. and begin works on 120kN wet. Invest heavy in test facilities and put them on high visibility projects direct under PMO

habal · Post by **habal** » 17 Feb 2016 17:10

why is there inordinate delay in providing a MiG-29 platform for the Kaveri to test out in dual-engine setup. Even a Rafale test bed would do. Both M-88 and RD-33 have similar output range as Kaveri. If those in power today feel that it is unnecessary to do so, then I would like to question the basis for their conclusion. We are frittering away our accumen. Flying on drones and UAV can always be taken up at stage-2 of single engine test bed. What is the delay for beginning test on dual-engine test bed ?

Even if France or some other country has promised some kind of engine-tech, there is no harm in developing an entirely indigenous effort even further. There is no harm in having 2 seperate engine lines.

member_26622 · Post by **member_26622** » 17 Feb 2016 17:31

When did anyone did a count of Chinese air force strength? We are easily outnumbered 1 is to 4 and worsening every day as China pumps out domestic 4.5 gen/stealth jets

500 LCA's is mandatory to 'DETER' any misadventure from Paki+Chini brotherhood. We need to make 50 per year minimum so high time to rope in another private player with deep pockets to bear the risks (Reliance is the only one as Tatas are overloaded with debt and Mahindra is conservative)

And Yes >> Hats off to Pakis for inducting 60 JF-17's. They are following agile implementation while we are stuck in old fashioned FOC/IOC/NOC BS age. Better to get down to business with chinese goods than keep dancing around trees with french maidens.

SidSom · Post by **SidSom** » 17 Feb 2016 17:37

I really dont think China is going to join Pak in an all out war with India. They are not so dumb. They will tacitly provide all required material and posturing to ensure that our national power is diminished to the largest extent possible. They will defame us in UN and all other forums. They will give 100 jf17s free to maintain Paks integrity etc etc, but fly their jets against India would be counter productive.

srai · Post by **srai** » 17 Feb 2016 18:05

SidSom wrote:from Tarmaak twitter feed.....

HAL to set up second assembly line for LCA to build 16 aircraft from current 8, approval being fast tracked: Parrikar @TheHindu

nileshjr wrote:^^ And I thought the existing one itself was having 16per yr capacity once its fully stabilized since this was the plan for years now.

Probably the second line would be necessary for making Naval and Trainer variants as well as extra capacity for export orders or additional IAF orders. First assembly line would be fully utilized for the next six years with current IAF orders which eventually will be producing at max capacity of 12-16/year.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 17 Feb 2016 18:51

Sorry to keep pushing the point.

I still have not understood exactly how 200 or 500 Tejas will deter or defeat the PLAAF. Could someone go into a bit of detail and explain exactly what those LCAs will be doing? So far I have only heard obvious no brainer statements like "PLAAF outnumbers IAF" and "Numbers have their own quality/dynamic"

But these statements mean nothing. Everyone keeps repeating them like "Allah ho Akbar" There must be something deeper which everyone seems to know but I don't. Could someone explain? Has someone thought this through or are the same old cliches simply being repeated?

geeth · Post by **geeth** » 17 Feb 2016 19:19

It will deter PLAAF as follows...

If they come in large numbers, they have to fire their load from far away ( beyond the reach of LCA). This will force them to carry larger missiles and in turn lesser explosive power..plus they have to keep their maal on ground beyond the LCA range... In effect, their fighters with shorter range and smaller payload will be useless for attack role.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 17 Feb 2016 19:20

defeating PLAAF must consider engaging what could perhaps branded as aged fighters available at disposal for any mission (from kamikazi or drop and return ops).

1. what is the mission we are talking?
2. countering what capability?
3. what are their weaknesses [capability, platforms, tools, etc]?

based on the answers, we can find our weaknesses

geeth · Post by **geeth** » 17 Feb 2016 19:25

In addition we can shoot down in coming cruise missiles and stop the incoming long range fivhters/bombers somewhere outside indian airspace