LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 19 Oct 2016 02:37

Not the right thread but...
viewtopic.php?p=2060019#p2060019

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 19 Oct 2016 02:45

@tsarkar
Nice paper. Thanks for that. In last 2-3 decades there is some improvement in FCS with introduction of methods like Adaptive control, Nonlinear Dynamic Inversion, it seems. Previously FCS would used linearised methods and gains scheduling. I am not very sure but my gutt feeling it there is definitely some improvement in the FCS due to this. And we shouldn't forget, Gripen/Rafale are from late 1980's/Early 1990's jets.

To me, there seems to be something peculiar about this "Swing-role" capability. Even ADA guys are bragging about it in Tejas. I will try to dig out if I get time. Unfortunately I am not good with control theory and find it hard to understand the intricacies even if I read something.

Also, can't imagine, why there cannot be plug and play for all ammunition with data link to the aircraft?? I could understand for dumb bombs that they probably don't interact at all with the aircraft systems. But anything that talks to aircraft system should be plug and play, at least for new gen aircrafts and weapons.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 19 Oct 2016 04:36

JayS wrote:That's one hell of a Typo...

May be we should send someone from BRF to interview HAL/ADA folks. There are many here who can produce excellent quality articles, far far better than what these duffers can write. Can we do that?? Like BRF representative asking for interview for an article on BRF.

+100

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 19 Oct 2016 04:55

JayS wrote:
How many of our fighters can be reconfigured mid-air for various roles like change from A2A role to A2G role like LCA can?? Anyone knows??

Su-30MKI and now the MiG-29UPG and the Mirage-2000I/TI. These don't need to land and have their FCS reconfigured from A2A to A2G

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 19 Oct 2016 04:57

indranilroy wrote:
Akshay Kapoor wrote:Indranil your comments ?
I couldn't find where Air Cmde (R) Muthanna said that Tejas was underestimated.

It was Cmde Balaji who said that, not Air Cmde Muthanna.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 19 Oct 2016 05:12

tsarkar wrote:^^ I'm not sure about the older MiGs but Mirage 2000 in 80s, Su-30MKI and MiG-29K came before Tejas with FBW, flight control computers and stores management systems. Need to check for Jaguar and Sea Harrier, but I don't recall any SHAR pilot doing any such mental calculations.

In fighters that lacked FCS, the pilot needed to be aware of the limitations of the airframe, its stall and max alpha for the fighter and strike roles.

The Jaguar and Sea Harrier both lack FBW FCS, so the pilot would have had to work out the envelope limits for the airplane in either configuration. And as Indranil pointed out, that would mostly mean being on the conservative side and not pushing the airplane to its limits for fear of departing controlled flight. Higher pilot workload with a likelihood of not being able to max the airplane's performance due to the fear of exceeding limits.

But newer generation airplanes did away with this- for e.g. the Rafale in the heavy stores configuration is restricted to 5G maneuvers and the pilot cannot exceed that. Upon release of the heavy stores, the FCS automatically reconfigures itself and will allow the pilot to pull 9G maneuvers.

From what I've read about the Mirage-2000, it had genuine carefree handling, and pilots were able to really throw it around and the airplane would recover..but whether that also meant that it was managing stores and reconfiguring itself automatically, or whether the pilot had to throw switches in the cockpit to manually switch between FCS for air to air and FCS for air to ground is not confirmed.

By the way, when reading about the Kargil war, the Mirages were tasked for a specific mission. There were those Mirages that carried the BVR missiles and escorted the strike Mirage that carried the LGBs, the designator or their dumb bombs and only their close combat Magic IIs for self defence.

They were immediately rushed into service with the Mirages of 7 Squadron. Initial missions were flown using dumb bombs only. Each aircraft would be configured with 12 bombs, 1 ventral fuel tank and 2 ‘MAGIC-2’ Air to Air Missiles. The mission would depart and meet up with fighter escorts from 1 Squadron, and then fly into the Indian Side of Jammu and Kashmir, with Mig29’s operating as top cover. The attacks took place initially on Point 5140 near Tololing in the Dras Sector and 4 strikes took place over 3 days. The Indian Army re-took this position on the 20th June after fighting in tandem with continuous IAF Strikes.

Mirage-2000 in Kargil- BRF article

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 19 Oct 2016 06:22

The other feature of "swing role" is avionics and flight profile planning. In the old days separate dedicated aircraft were used - with the air defence version featuring a radar that had only air to air capability. Similar designs destined for different roles were F-8 Crusader versus A-7 Corsair, MiG 23 vs 27 and the Hawk dedicated air defence version for turd world export. Mission planning did not call for the kind of flight profile and fuel management for low ingress, time over target and getaway for the air defence versions. In the case of aircraft with the capability to do both - the mission had to be planned before-hand apart from the fact that navigation even for early IAF Jaguars was a type of "moving map display" where the pilot had a pen that he moved over a map on his knee.

Newer avionic enabled the same hardware to do both jobs - ie air to air search and track or air to ground target designation and stores management/arming/release while the flight computer could do the mission planning for air to ground or air to air. And I think multiple mission profiles could simply be stored in memory and switched on on demand.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 19 Oct 2016 12:04

From Gripen Brochure:

Multi–role capabilities
From the very beginning, Gripen has
been designed to be a true multi-role and
swing-role fighter – meaning it can perform
air-to-air, air-to-surface and reconnaissance
missions. Gripen can seamlessly change
between roles within a single sortie if
needed. It means Gripen can perform a
wide range of missions, from air policing and
tactical air reconnaissance to offensive and
defensive counter strikes.

The way I understand is - Multi-role aircraft can perform variety of roles but the jet has to be configured for each role separately before take off. Swing-role is it can do so mid-way in the sortie itself, maybe just on flick of a switch.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 19 Oct 2016 17:35

JayS wrote:From Gripen Brochure:
Multi–role capabilities From the very beginning, Gripen has been designed to be a true multi-role and swing-role fighter – meaning it can perform air-to-air, air-to-surface and reconnaissance missions. Gripen can seamlessly change between roles within a single sortie if needed. It means Gripen can perform a wide range of missions, from air policing and tactical air reconnaissance to offensive and defensive counter strikes.
The way I understand is - Multi-role aircraft can perform variety of roles but the jet has to be configured for each role separately before take off. Swing-role is it can do so mid-way in the sortie itself, maybe just on flick of a switch.

Sir, that switch existed on the Mirage 2000. From the FCS description http://www.icas.org/ICAS_ARCHIVE/ICAS19 ... -4.5.1.pdf Page 5

...the pilot selects a "COMBAT" or "HEAVY LOADS" configuration on a switch which connects such gains so as to limit the aircraft load factor to a set value...

Multi-role / Omni-role / Swing-role - same wine in different bottles.

The limitation in multi/omni/swing role is not the FCS but 1. the pylon interface 2. human 3. operational

Different weapons have different pylon interfaces. For example, the pylon interface for Magic 2 carried nitrogen to cool the seeker head. For aircraft like Jaguar, the missile seeker is used as the primary sensor since Jaguar IS does not have any radar of its own.

The pylon interface for R-77 or Astra or Derby will physically interface with radar for initial cueing.

The pylon interface for R-73 or Python will physically interface with the HMCS.

So different weapons work differently and have different pylon interfaces. Pylon interfaces can be changed only on the ground, so the role is decided based on the mission the aircraft will provide.

A aircraft can be configured for multirole - eg. carry Super 530D for BVR combat and Belouga dispenser for CAS - for the same sortie, as the Mirage 2000 image posted earlier shows.

The second limitation is human

Kartik wrote:By the way, when reading about the Kargil war, the Mirages were tasked for a specific mission. There were those Mirages that carried the BVR missiles and escorted the strike Mirage that carried the LGBs, the designator or their dumb bombs and only their close combat Magic IIs for self defence.

They were immediately rushed into service with the Mirages of 7 Squadron. Initial missions were flown using dumb bombs only. Each aircraft would be configured with 12 bombs, 1 ventral fuel tank and 2 ‘MAGIC-2’ Air to Air Missiles. The mission would depart and meet up with fighter escorts from 1 Squadron, and then fly into the Indian Side of Jammu and Kashmir, with Mig29’s operating as top cover.
Mirage-2000 in Kargil- BRF article

The limitation in this case was not aircraft but human. Sq 7 pilots trained on A2G delivery and Sq 1 pilots trained on A2A. Both are highly demanding regimes in the Himalayas where airspace to maneuver is limited between aircraft ceiling and mountain heights (4000-5000 meters) vis-a-vis A2A and A2G at sea level or over desert.

It is from this perspective that IAF wanted two seater for Su-30MKI carrying 8000 kg payload with the pilot focussing on A2A and WSO on A2G. And similarly the Indian FGFA version of PAKFA was initially slated to be a two seater.

The third limitation is operational - a Mirage 2000 on a bomb run lasing a target with Litening/ATLIS 2 cannot simultaneously provide SARH guidance for Super 530D for an enemy fighter attacking from another angle.

From this perspective, it made sense to configure fighters for dedicated roles.

The scenario where a JSF or Rafale or Tejas or Gripen is lasing a target on a bomb run and is bounced and "painted" by a BVR enemy fighter from another angle, the best it can do its use HMCS and launch a MICA/Python/R-73E with LOAL. It certainly wont be able to use radar and LOBL capabilities, unless it breaks off its bomb run to point its radar FoV cone at the attacker.

Added Later -

BTW, aircraft are very predictable on bomb runs, especially more after LGBs are dropped since the designator needs to stay focussed on the target, and catching aircraft on bomb runs is desired by fighter pilots.

In 1965, the Vampires at Chamb were picked up by Sabres on their bomb runs and 3 Vampires were shot down.
In 1971, the Sabres at Boyra were picked up by Gnats on their bomb runs and 3 Sabres were shot down.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 19 Oct 2016 20:24

^^I am not contesting whether M2K has swing role capability or not. I am contesting "whether swing role is something different and unique" or "its trivial feature of an FCS jet and every FCS enabled aircraft could do it anyway but Gripen/Rafale/Tejas developers chose to use it as marketing gimmick".

I accept the pylon interface glitch, but I would guess that during war the ground crew would keep the weapons specific pylon attached to the weapon and then attach the whole thing to the common interface of the wing, to reduce turn around time (of coarse after removing previously attached pylon if any). I have seen the same thing in Gripen videos, read somewhere about RAF doing the same. In fact Gripen's marketed minimum time required for turnaround is 10min for A2A and 20min for A2G. So yes its not uniform and depends on weapons/roles. I was talking about weapon+_interface specific pylon as a whole package.

A simple bike could be configured for different type of modes such as sports, commute etc by actually changing engine tuning, break-settings etc. Even cheap HH bikes could be tinkered with to some extent in such manner, but only in garage. But some high end bikes have these configuration provided as modes which can be changed on the go (because of the electronic controls they have). This is the difference that I was trying to highlight between Multi-role and swing-role.

Anyways my query originated by the surprize I had when I got to know that no fighter in IAF can do hot refuelling. I thought its fairly trivial feature by now. And after seeing the particular emphazise on swing-role from ADA folks I had a question that which all of our jets can do that. I had expected all FCS enabled and upgraded fighters in the list - Su30MKI, M2K, Mig29 (and others confirmed that).

OK, while writing the post I was Googling some more.

Definition of Swing-role from Mil Dictionary site:

http://www.military-dictionary.org/DOD- ... swing-role

swing-role is the ability to employ a multi-role aircraft for multiple purposes during the same mission

This article tries to describe difference between Multi-role and Swing-role wrt Typhoon. Looks very nice.

https://fightersweep.com/3818/typhoon-s ... le-part-1/

As an example, the difference between Swing-Role and Multi-Role is succinctly defined by the UK Defence Concepts and Doctrine Centre (DCDC): “Swing-role describes the capability to switch between different roles within a sortie, whereas multi-role and multi-mission implies the ability to reconfigure air platforms for different roles and missions between sorties.”

There are significant limitations to Typhoon’s ability to execute Swing-Role sorties in a high threat environment versus a ‘near peer’ threat with the Tranche 1 aircraft. In fact the Royal Air Force (RAF) describes the Typhoon as a “…highly capable and extremely agile multi-role combat aircraft…” Note that the RAF itself does not yet describe the Typhoon as Swing-Role.

I am yet to read the article fully myself but the intro paras sufficient to tell that Swing-role is not a trivial thing for FCS enabled fighter. This is 2016 article and it says Typhoon will be truly swing-role only in 2020..!!

I guess F16 got the swing role capabilities only in C/D blk 52 version onwards (sae 2-3 references to this on net including F16.net). F15 got it in mid-80s with E version.

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 19 Oct 2016 20:53

Effective swing role is not a matter of FCS only. Can Jaguar be effective interceptor or air dominance fighter?

Rafale, Su-30, F-16, F-15 are genuine swing role aircraft.

vina · Post by **vina** » 19 Oct 2016 20:57

tsarkar wrote: Multi-role / Omni-role / Swing-role - same wine in different bottles.

The limitation in multi/omni/swing role is not the FCS but 1. the pylon interface 2. human 3. operational

Different weapons have different pylon interfaces. For example, the pylon interface for Magic 2 carried nitrogen to cool the seeker head. For aircraft like Jaguar, the missile seeker is used as the primary sensor since Jaguar IS does not have any radar of its own.

The pylon interface for R-77 or Astra or Derby will physically interface with radar for initial cueing.

The pylon interface for R-73 or Python will physically interface with the HMCS.

So different weapons work differently and have different pylon interfaces. Pylon interfaces can be changed only on the ground, so the role is decided based on the mission the aircraft will provide.

A aircraft can be configured for multirole - eg. carry Super 530D for BVR combat and Belouga dispenser for CAS - for the same sortie, as the Mirage 2000 image posted earlier shows.

Agreed. But these days. The pylon is not hard wired like in the old days, but rather software controlled and the via the Pylon Interface Bus (PIB) . Even a short range IR guided missile will be cued in via the radar and the IRST seeker (like in Mig 29 and SU30) and also of course the HMDS. Yes. The Mirage 2000 is a control configured vehicle and it's FCS (though analogue is a pretty well developed and proven one, but will be tough to reprogram for any new kind of thing...unless they ported the Rafale's FCS back into the M2K which I doubt).

The second limitation is human

The limitation in this case was not aircraft but human. Sq 7 pilots trained on A2G delivery and Sq 1 pilots trained on A2A. Both are highly demanding regimes in the Himalayas where airspace to maneuver is limited between aircraft ceiling and mountain heights (4000-5000 meters) vis-a-vis A2A and A2G at sea level or over desert.

It is from this perspective that IAF wanted two seater for Su-30MKI carrying 8000 kg payload with the pilot focussing on A2A and WSO on A2G. And similarly the Indian FGFA version of PAKFA was initially slated to be a two seater.

The third limitation is operational - a Mirage 2000 on a bomb run lasing a target with Litening/ATLIS 2 cannot simultaneously provide SARH guidance for Super 530D for an enemy fighter attacking from another angle.

From this perspective, it made sense to configure fighters for dedicated roles.

There is a system / technological limitation as well. That is where a current gen AESA or even maybe a PESA like the Bars in the SU-30 can interleave the two modes and can do both with just the radar alone (i.e. ground target ranging and imaging, along with throwing multiple beams at air to air targets), in addition to a2g with the ldp . Sure. the radar cannot point backwards if he enemy is attacking from the rear, but the frontal arc, it sure can.

The scenario where a JSF or Rafale or Tejas or Gripen is lasing a target on a bomb run and is bounced and "painted" by a BVR enemy fighter from another angle, the best it can do its use HMCS and launch a MICA/Python/R-73E with LOAL. It certainly wont be able to use radar and LOBL capabilities, unless it breaks off its bomb run to point its radar FoV cone at the attacker.

It can theoretically shoot an active radar guided missile if it has a data link and is cued by either another fighter or an AWACS . Technology has moved on from SARH missiles

Added Later -

BTW, aircraft are very predictable on bomb runs, especially more after LGBs are dropped since the designator needs to stay focussed on the target, and catching aircraft on bomb runs is desired by fighter pilots.

But, laser is needed today only for moving targets. For fixed targets, the weapon of choice would be GPS guided bombs, which allow the aircraft to drop and then turn away ! And with wing kits and stuff, the bomb run need not be predictable anymore, especially if the shooting aircraft is different from the one painting

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 20 Oct 2016 01:04

At the Air Force Day Celebration on 8th Oct 2016

From: https://www.facebook.com/tejas.lca

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 20 Oct 2016 01:16

^^GPS is old tech. IRNSS it is

Mihir · Post by **Mihir** » 20 Oct 2016 01:49

Kartik wrote:
JayS wrote:That's one hell of a Typo...

May be we should send someone from BRF to interview HAL/ADA folks. There are many here who can produce excellent quality articles, far far better than what these duffers can write. Can we do that?? Like BRF representative asking for interview for an article on BRF.
+100

An "article on BRF" won't get much traction. You need to publish on websites with better circulation like Swarajya or Livefist.

In any case, this is already happening. See Karthik Kakoor's articles on the Tejas website. Here's a good example.

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 21 Oct 2016 13:35

Dileep wrote:We are worried about the injin being phoren and unkil having a tight grip on it.

But remember that even if we have the Kaveri flowing at full force, all the unkil need to do is to block sale of some 'silicon' and 'glass' to screw us completely.

Almost 100% of the BOM of avionics is unkils that we take for granted. Every time we fill in an "end user certification" I am made to remember this fact.

The importance of developing a local aerospace engineering base is that domestic industry learns to find a way to solve problems.
This becomes possible only after they have developed the skills to overcome difficult challenges.

If tomorrow countries stopped the sale of copper, oil, iron..etc to the US, American ingenuity would find an alternative by next Monday.

But if every problem results in simply handing over bags of money to import the solution, the above can never happen.
The country is forever dependent.

Rammpal · Post by **Rammpal** » 21 Oct 2016 13:48

"..The importance of developing a local aerospace engineering base is that domestic industry learns to find a way to solve problems.
This becomes possible only after they have developed the skills to overcome difficult challenges...", vis-a-vis,

"..If tomorrow countries stopped the sale of copper, oil, iron..etc to the US, American ingenuity would find an alternative by next Monday... "

A Clinton win could very well do just that

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 21 Oct 2016 14:40

Neshant wrote: If tomorrow countries stopped the sale of copper, oil, iron..etc to the US, American ingenuity would find an alternative by next Monday.

America gets all the attention - but Pakistan has also done that for years

Bhaskar_T · Post by **Bhaskar_T** » 22 Oct 2016 17:18

SP-3 had its maiden flight on 28th Sept 2016. Almost one month is about to get over since its maiden flight. Is this delay because of sophisticated checks or some surprise/fine-tuning requirements have been discovered. LCA-Tejas fb page has mentioned before that ideally delivery to IAF is planned to occur with in 1 week of first flight.

Why is there a delay?

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 22 Oct 2016 18:51

They might have already handed over for all we know. The IAF Sq seats right next door.

GShankar · Post by **GShankar** » 23 Oct 2016 20:30

X-posting from ABM thread.

Lilo wrote:
‘S-400 Triumf to complement India’s existing ballistic defence shield’: former DRDO chief V K Saraswat

.....

Status of LCA Tejas
Speaking at the same event, Commodore CD Balaji, director of Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) said that the final operational clearance (FOC) for the indigenously developed Light Combat Aircraft - Tejas - that was recently inducted into the Indian Air Force (IAF), is expected to get further delayed to middle of 2017. “The LCA has completed about 3270 flight tests.... We are expecting to receive the final operational clearances by the middle of next year,” he said.
Confirmation that Indian BMD is already operational .

FOC is mid 2017!!? seems like it can only happen after the contract with a phoren company for 2nd single engine fighter (new name for light fighter) has been signed or something like that.

ashishvikas · Post by **ashishvikas** » 23 Oct 2016 23:13

GShankar wrote:X-posting from ABM thread.

Lilo wrote: Confirmation that Indian BMD is already operational .
FOC is mid 2017!!? seems like it can only happen after the contract with a phoren company for 2nd single engine fighter (new name for light fighter) has been signed or something like that.

Is Air to Air refueling testing a requirement for FOC ? I believe this is time(1yr+) taking development.. and will push FOC to 2018.

Or this has been pushed to mk1a ?

Akshay Kapoor · Post by **Akshay Kapoor** » 24 Oct 2016 00:26

^ A simple google or some effort reading the previous threads would have answered your question.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 26 Oct 2016 01:35

From LCA FB Page:

All the while the Air Force Version of Tejas getting all the attention of the fans, we would like to bring up the Naval LCA to gain some attention. The efforts are on for an all important of flight testing to be commenced soon. The carrier compatibility testing is all about getting all the minutest details in place before even commencing any kind of testing. The carrier compatibility testing philosophy does not have any room for mistakes or missing facts. It has to be precise, complete and to the point, every time and all the time.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 26 Oct 2016 15:10

Behold!

Complimenting the effort put on by everybody back home, here we present an image of Tejas carrying two 1000 lbs MK-11 bombs in TANDEM for the first time for an exclusive test flight to know what happens when one released in presence of the other. We take this opportunity to dedicate this image to the armament designers and all associated in designing and realizing a special pylon for this configuration. Days will not be far when there will be six of these heavier stores on-board. This is a step closer.

#JaiHind
#TejasOfficialArchive #Tejas_LCA #NFTC #IADN

Disclaimer: Please share the Post only with the Tags and Write Up. Kindly do not Edit or Reproduce this Image in any manner. Copyright: #ADA

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 26 Oct 2016 15:40

Awesome.

LCA is becoming a true bomb truck.

What could be possible configs with 4x1000lbs bombs??
- 4x1000lbs bombs on innermost wing pylons
- 2CCM on outermost pylons
- 1x1200lts EFT tank on central pylon

what else the two middle wing pylons could carry?? BVR?? LGB?? SPJ??

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 26 Oct 2016 15:48

They could carry

a. Two 1000lbs on the central, 2*1200 ltr on the inner, one 1000lb (LGB) on each midwing and 1 CCM on the outermost wing pylon.
b. Two 1000lbs on the central, 2*1200 ltr on the inner, two 500lb on each midwing and 1 CCM on the outermost wing pylon.
c. Two 1000lbs on the central, 2*1000 lbs on the inner, one 1000lb on each midwing and 1 CCM on the outermost wing pylon.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 26 Oct 2016 16:51

Indranil wrote:They could carry

a. Two 1000lbs on the central, 2*1200 ltr on the inner, one 1000lb (LGB) on each midwing and 1 CCM on the outermost wing pylon.
b. Two 1000lbs on the central, 2*1200 ltr on the inner, two 500lb on each midwing and 1 CCM on the outermost wing pylon.
c. Two 1000lbs on the central, 2*1000 lbs on the inner, one 1000lb on each midwing and 1 CCM on the outermost wing pylon.

~4000kg in all three configs.

Assuming it will be escorted by other jets in such heavy config, we would not have BVRs but we could put SPJ on one of the mid-wing pylon for some more protection??

rakall · Post by **rakall** » 26 Oct 2016 17:00

We need special tandem pylons for :

1. Similar tandem loadout of 2 LGBs per pylon
2. Tandem pylons for 2 BVRAAMs per pylon (inboard pylon can handle even 3 BVRAAMs )

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 26 Oct 2016 17:49

I think you really mean 'Parallel' not 'tandem'. Tandem arrangement for BVR/LBG not possible due to length constraint. Parallel possible.

See this image of LCA with LBG.

http://bharatshakti.in/bahrain-airshow- ... not-to-be/

Might be a good idea for Mk2 to shift CCM pylons to wingtip, freeing up some space on the wing for tandem arrangement.

Akshay Kapoor · Post by **Akshay Kapoor** » 26 Oct 2016 20:27

With this kind of a heavy load out even with 1 drop tank we are talking about a 150 km combat radius. But with the glide bombs we can hit 30 km more. I am not an aviator but reading up on Vivek Ahuja's previous work I would say ball park max weapons tonnage would 2.5 tons circa + 1 drop tank. But even 2 tons is a damn solid tonnage. And thats why we need numbers... flying from forward bases , with quick turn around and robust support they can saturate not only PAF radar picture but also do saturation bombing. Thats what I want to see..sortie after sortie after sortie .....

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 26 Oct 2016 21:03

JayS wrote:
Indranil wrote:They could carry

a. Two 1000lbs on the central, 2*1200 ltr on the inner, one 1000lb (LGB) on each midwing and 1 CCM on the outermost wing pylon.
b. Two 1000lbs on the central, 2*1200 ltr on the inner, two 500lb on each midwing and 1 CCM on the outermost wing pylon.
c. Two 1000lbs on the central, 2*1000 lbs on the inner, one 1000lb on each midwing and 1 CCM on the outermost wing pylon.
~4000kg in all three configs

I know

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 26 Oct 2016 22:18

I feel so sorry for the poor guys at the LCA development teams that I cannot express it a civilized language. Here they are working their ass off to build a great fighter and that effort will be curtailed with the introduction of some imported design with screwdrivegiri in production.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 26 Oct 2016 22:40

Akshay Kapoor wrote:With this kind of a heavy load out even with 1 drop tank we are talking about a 150 km combat radius.

How did you arrive at this? By the way the ADA boffins present the realistic combat range unlike's Gripen's best case brochures.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 26 Oct 2016 23:35

rakall wrote:We need special tandem pylons for :

1. Similar tandem loadout of 2 LGBs per pylon
2. Tandem pylons for 2 BVRAAMs per pylon (inboard pylon can handle even 3 BVRAAMs )

exactly what I was thinking..that while this is a commendable thing, the spacing between the dumb bombs indicates that carrying 2 LGBs on a single pylon is not possible.

I think you meant side by side pylons on a single hardpoint for the BVRAAMs and not tandem?

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 26 Oct 2016 23:46

Pratyush wrote:I feel so sorry for the poor guys at the LCA development teams that I cannot express it a civilized language. Here they are working their ass off to build a great fighter and that effort will be curtailed with the introduction of some imported design with screwdrivegiri in production.

maybe you could go and solve the internal dispute between ADA and HAL over whether to build the Mk1A or the Mk2? That would help !

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 27 Oct 2016 07:43

Posting as data point for future ref: What ACM Arup Raha said about Tejas in June 2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8skV2Do9Ms

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 27 Oct 2016 08:15

Kartik wrote:
Pratyush wrote:I feel so sorry for the poor guys at the LCA development teams that I cannot express it a civilized language. Here they are working their ass off to build a great fighter and that effort will be curtailed with the introduction of some imported design with screwdrivegiri in production.
maybe you could go and solve the internal dispute between ADA and HAL over whether to build the Mk1A or the Mk2? That would help !

Your point being? Has the IAF committed to the LCA Mk2? The why is it paying $8 billion for only 36 aircraft when the MMRCA envisaged 126 aircraft for this amount.

Only in India we see citizens welcome good jobs flying out and claim good domestic products are inferior to imports.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 27 Oct 2016 08:19

Kartik wrote:
Pratyush wrote:I feel so sorry for the poor guys at the LCA development teams that I cannot express it a civilized language. Here they are working their ass off to build a great fighter and that effort will be curtailed with the introduction of some imported design with screwdrivegiri in production.
maybe you could go and solve the internal dispute between ADA and HAL over whether to build the Mk1A or the Mk2? That would help !

Excuse me what is the dispute between the ADA and HAL. just because some poster on the other thread miss understand what was posted dose not make the misunderstanding correct. The mk to be produced is a function of orders. No signed contract will equal no production. As things stand, I will not be surprised if the LCA line comes to a halt after 40, unless the firm order is placed with the HAL.

So please tell me where is the firm order with firm price and and for what number's.

Also the mk2 was a result of the IAF taking a look at the NOT and saying we want that plane.

The only thing firm is the order is 40 Mk1. Every other so called order is vapour ware, in the absence of the signed contract.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 27 Oct 2016 08:53

Raha ji said 20 + 20 + 120 -> total 160 in 10 years