LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 05 Jan 2017 11:37

^Yes, the same thought occurred to me too - dunno what the plan is. Perhaps pay in bits and pieces over the entire course of the acquisition's lifespan? It seems to me a better idea to go with the twin engined bird and merge AF and IN requirements (rafale or shornet) and increase LCA mk1 numbers.

maitya · Post by **maitya** » 05 Jan 2017 11:45

Indranil wrote:One thing that i have contemplated is why not ADA hand over MK1A and Mk2 development to HAL and get on full fledged development of AMCA. It will be good as all turf wars can be avoided and MK1A lessons will easily flow into Mk2. But, I think there is too much pride at stake here. I don't know if someone could whisper this scheme into the RM's ear.

Ummm, I'm not sure about MK2 development with HAL ... with not much of a design experience HAL will simply falter, a la IJT.

Apart from improvement/stretching in aerofoil shaping and integrating a heavier powerplant, I'm also hoping for the following structural technologies to be incorporated in Mk2:
1) A co-cured/co-bonded "integral" wing
2) An strengthened/high-performance CFRP usage (aka Boron fiber combined with carbon fiber prepreg which provides fro higher compression strength) - (my daydream, but who knows).
3) A strengthened secondary (or tertiary) SPAR that allows for wingtip Pylons (for locating defensive aids systems like MAWS/RWR or other ECM elements)
4) Internal subsystem re-arrangement to allow for a retractable IFR system and fully internal ECM/ESM capability ( a la SPECTRA).
etc etc

... and then there are multitude of next-gen avionics like AESA (why not Uttam, I ask), skin-flush air-data, ECM and ESM sensors etc.

Each of which is a technology in itself requiring multiple establishment co-ordination (e..g NAL for all of the above-mentioned structural changes, LRDE for Uttam etc) and then integrating them all-together ... can't be entrusted with a manufacturing/system integration house, who is better left to improving the Tier-1/Tier-2 supply-chain ecosystem, so that they can achieve 24 platforms/year manufacturing capability.

MK1A on the other hand is more of a avionics upgrade (ok, IFR integration is also there but that's part of MK1 FOC program so handled by ADA).

AMCA is important all-right, but all of these technologies are any required to be developed for it.

IOW, to take our IGMDP analogy, Mk2 is our Agni-IV step-up from Agni-II (MK1) series in terms of technology development for the ultimate product Agni-V (AMCA) ... while Mk1A is Agni-III equivalent "upgrade" (of Agni-II).

ashishvikas · Post by **ashishvikas** » 05 Jan 2017 13:19

I am a novice to put any fruitful point to this group but i am really thankful of all experts who provide great details. Indian Media( & mostly paid) is useless in their reporting.

A Big Thank you to all of you.

I wanted to ask one question:

I have seen Experts saying time to move from LCA mk2 to AMCA development even if mk2 needs to be closed. So, are we moving to world where we will have only requirements of twin engine fighters like Russians ? If not, which one will be our single engine fighter of future which can be inducted after 2030/2035 along with AMCA ?

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 05 Jan 2017 13:36

Ideally, a stealthy Mk3 which is spiral development of Mk2. Basically what the Chinese are doing with their J-10s. In this, respect if LM accepts to codevelop what they fielded for the South Korean program with us; or if SAAB agrees to merge their 5th gen program program with our Mk-3 version, we should be all ears.

brvarsh · Post by **brvarsh** » 05 Jan 2017 14:50

[Joke - no pun intended] If DRDO "Ek engine to bana nahi paa raha hai", how would they produce Two? Guess this is why twin engine variants are shelved

maitya · Post by **maitya** » 05 Jan 2017 15:19

Indranil wrote:Ideally, a stealthy Mk3 which is spiral development of Mk2. Basically what the Chinese are doing with their J-10s. In this, respect if LM accepts to codevelop what they fielded for the South Korean program with us; or if SAAB agrees to merge their 5th gen program program with our Mk-3 version, we should be all ears.

Yes we should be ... but before that we need to develop multi-axis thurst-vectoring tech.
(I mean not only the engine aspect, but basically rewrite the entire CLAW to incorporate thrust vectoring - requires years of hard-core CFD analysis and prototype flying and fine-tuning and retesting cycle - a solid decade+ work, there itself).

Canted tail and thurst-vectoring combo is quite difficult to master which nobody would be willing to share (aka co-develop), until and unless they are convinced that we are inches-away from fielding it on our own.

A lot of commonality and overlap with AMCA program though.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 05 Jan 2017 15:19

ashishvikas wrote:I am a novice to put any fruitful point to this group but i am really thankful of all experts who provide great details. Indian Media( & mostly paid) is useless in their reporting.

the media (no matter what you think of individual sources) and BRF 'experts' have one thing in common - they all like to put out their own version of 'the truth'. your best bet is to not be lazy and do your own reading - of media and experts and formulate your own opinions. it is harder, but ultimately more worthwhile

the internet is a fantastic place to hide and rant whatever is on your mind - it is harder to filter for useful information

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 05 Jan 2017 16:26

if SAAB agrees to merge their 5th gen program program with our Mk-3 version, we should be all ears.

SAAB does not have a currently funded 5th generation program. They've researched the matter but nothing really has happened beyond that in terms of interest from their primary customer when it comes to funding an actual program of record that will be set up to do 'serious' research into development.

Medium term, their goal is probably to support the European FCAS program as an industrial partner in the development and production.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 05 Jan 2017 16:31

I know. But that still puts them ahead of us in the development of a light stealth aircraft. It also allows us to come to the table as equals. Similarity in capability and similarity in consequence of success/failure.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 05 Jan 2017 19:59

Prasad wrote:Projections aside, do we really have the money to include 126 MII Light + 126 MII Medium? That is a big big number. And even with offset/MII/whatever that is a hefty bill. We had to scrounge around for $10bn+ for the Rafales and even that was tough. Unless the medium contract has a navy addition bringing in more economies of scale.

Modi had big plans. The biggest is his goal to make the MIC responsible for 25% of the GDP. Within the next 5 years!!!

Exports, per plan, will be a huge component.

The 25% seems .......... But exports are more than possible. I would think India can and should compete with China on this front.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 05 Jan 2017 20:01

The Chinese are likely to have ......

Threat perception. Key.

Is there any document on this topic?

Marten · Post by **Marten** » 05 Jan 2017 20:06

NRao wrote:Modi had big plans. The biggest is his goal to make the MIC responsible for 25% of the GDP. Within the next 5 years!!!

Exports, per plan, will be a huge component.

The 25% seems .......... But exports are more than possible. I would think India can and should compete with China on this front.

Source please, NRao Sir.

No one in their right minds would believe India, the worlds largest or second largest importer of arms, will ever get to $750bn exports. First of all, he has to get the imports to stop, then get the services to accept Made in India arms (instead of assembled in India), and THEN, find enough buyers for this fine stuff that is being smoked here. Sorry for my skepticism, but the incessant hankering for US or Russki maal has to stop first, right?

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 05 Jan 2017 20:10

NRao wrote:Modi had big plans. The biggest is his goal to make the MIC responsible for 25% of the GDP. Within the next 5 years!!!

25% of the GDP for manufacturing as a whole that is, not just the MIC.

Manufacturing currently accounts for ~17% of the GDP.

Manufacturing to be 25% of GDP: PM

Positioning and branding India as the ‘global manufacturing hub’, Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Saturday asserted that his government is working towards scaling up the share of the manufacturing sector to 25 per cent of the GDP.

“We are working aggressively towards making India a global manufacturing hub. We want the share of manufacturing in our GDP to go up to 25 per cent in the near future,” Modi said, inaugurating the Make in India Week in Mumbai.

Towards achieving this goal, the prime minister said that he was particularly keen on scaling up investments in the next generation infrastructure. "This includes roads, ports, railways, airports, telecom, digital networks and clean energy,” he said at the National Sports Complex of India at Worli here, after visiting the Make in India Centre at the Bandra-Kurla Complex, where he formally inaugurated the mega event, dubbed as Asia’s biggest multi-sectoral exhibition.

"In a year’s time, Make in India has become the biggest brand that India has ever created. Both within and outside the country, it has captured the imagination of people, institutions, industries, media and the political leadership,” Modi told a gathering of corporate leaders who had converged in Mumbai from across the globe.

Key projects

During the course of his address, the prime minister referred to his key projects like Digital India, Skill India and Start-up India.

“India offers you a solid platform to test and launch your making and designing capabilities. In addition, our maritime location makes it easy to market products in several other continents. We are trying to further enable and harness this vast potential with path-breaking initiatives. Campaigns like Digital India and Skill India have been designed to prepare people to take part in this process,” he said.

“From space shuttles to pollution control; from health to education; from agriculture to services; our young entrepreneurs and startups are showing us newer and faster ways for enterprise and delivery. My government is committed to support them and tap their energy fully. We want our youth to become job creators rather than job seekers.”

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 06 Jan 2017 01:38

HAL tender for Hush House for LCA division

HAL intends to set up a hush house for the LCA Tejas division to conduct engine ground runs while minimising noise and vibration effects on surroundings. Seems like an activity geared towards scaling up of the assembly line as more Tejas fighters are rolled out and sent for ground testing.

1. Introduction:
LCA is a state of the art aircraft fitted with GE-404 engine having thrust of around 85 KN. HAL intends to have a Hush house facility at LCA Tejas division, Bangalore to undertake ground runs of LCA Tejas aircraft to minimize noise and vibration levels in the near vicinity. This RFI is intended to seek information about firms having experience in providing Hush house facility for LCA Tejas division.
2. Requirement:
Hush House facility provides an enclosed, acoustically treated environment to run aircraft with the engine installed. It should consists of an environmentally controlled, acoustical control room for test operators to work during engine operation. The acoustic treatment provided by the facility should reduce the environmental impact on the surrounding area by reducing the sound created by running aircraft engines. The noise level outside the hush house with engine running should not be more than 80 decibel.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 06 Jan 2017 05:52

Hush House:

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 09 Jan 2017 22:41

Jingo Khush Hua!

Tejas-SP3 Joins first squadron of Tejas in Indian Air Force
https://twitter.com/IndDefenceWire/stat ... 9900591104

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 09 Jan 2017 23:16

DRDO chief S. Christopher likely to take demo flight in an LCA Tejas shortly, say sources.
ADA chief Cmde C.D. Balaji did a sortie recently.
https://twitter.com/livefist/status/818446332901761024

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 09 Jan 2017 23:20

Put MP in one of the flights, the man is fit and can check it out for himself. Eagerly waiting for SP-4.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 10 Jan 2017 02:17

Indranil wrote:I know. But that still puts them ahead of us in the development of a light stealth aircraft. It also allows us to come to the table as equals. Similarity in capability and similarity in consequence of success/failure.

Would it be truly possible to have a true stealth platform for a light bird of say, 7.5 tons? Internal fuel needs and payload requirements might push up the size of the airframe, and then you will need a huge engine to provide enough thrust for 5g level flight performance. I think you'll land up having another JSF.....can lca morph into something like that?

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 10 Jan 2017 04:06

You can surely have a light weight stealth fighter. It wouldn't have great range, or carry a lot of, or a very diverse payload but you could surely develop something. Get into a medium sized category and you'll need a pretty big engine to get there if you are relying on a single engine design.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 10 Jan 2017 05:12

Exactly. You have to limit what it can do in stealth mode. Here are some of the outlines.

1. One has to design a fighter with ~4,500 ltrs of internal fuel capacity. Such a plane is likely to have an empty weight of ~8.0 tons, clean TO weight (100% fuel) of ~ 13.5 Tons and an MTOW of about ~18 Tons. Power it with a ~140 kN engine. Such a plane is likely to have the same hang time of an Su-30, and a superior TWR.
2. In the stealth mode, it is only an A2A fighter carrying only 2 BVRs and 2 WVR AAM internally. Such weapon bays are small, shallow and can be dispersed, e.g. in the body fairings, chins etc.
3. In the multimode role, it will feature some signature reduction features like semi-recessed pylons carrying weapons with folded fins. In this mode, it is not a stealth aircraft.

Not difficult to envision. Is it?

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 10 Jan 2017 07:52

Indranil wrote:Exactly. You have to limit what it can do in stealth mode. Here are some of the outlines.

1. One has to design a fighter with ~4,500 ltrs of internal fuel capacity. Such a plane is likely to have an empty weight of ~8.0 tons, clean TO weight (100% fuel) of ~ 13.5 Tons and an MTOW of about ~18 Tons. Power it with a ~140 kN engine. Such a plane is likely to have the same hang time of an Su-30, and a superior TWR.
2. In the stealth mode, it is only an A2A fighter carrying only 2 BVRs and 2 WVR AAM internally. Such weapon bays are small, shallow and can be dispersed, e.g. in the body fairings, chins etc.
3. In the multimode role, it will feature some signature reduction features like semi-recessed pylons carrying weapons with folded fins. In this mode, it is not a stealth aircraft.

Not difficult to envision. Is it?

Interesting, hadn't thought of it like that. What roles would you set it up for? CAP, point defense....Has anybody come up with anything like this?

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 10 Jan 2017 07:54

brar_w wrote:You can surely have a light weight stealth fighter. It wouldn't have great range, or carry a lot of, or a very diverse payload but you could surely develop something. Get into a medium sized category and you'll need a pretty big engine to get there if you are relying on a single engine design.

My preference is to simply create a twin engined AMCA - simple and not handicapped by that entire lightest, smallest fighter baggage that the LCA had to deal with it.

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 10 Jan 2017 19:32

Indranil wrote:Exactly. You have to limit what it can do in stealth mode. Here are some of the outlines.

1. One has to design a fighter with ~4,500 ltrs of internal fuel capacity. Such a plane is likely to have an empty weight of ~8.0 tons, clean TO weight (100% fuel) of ~ 13.5 Tons and an MTOW of about ~18 Tons. Power it with a ~140 kN engine. Such a plane is likely to have the same hang time of an Su-30, and a superior TWR.
2. In the stealth mode, it is only an A2A fighter carrying only 2 BVRs and 2 WVR AAM internally. Such weapon bays are small, shallow and can be dispersed, e.g. in the body fairings, chins etc.
3. In the multimode role, it will feature some signature reduction features like semi-recessed pylons carrying weapons with folded fins. In this mode, it is not a stealth aircraft.

Not difficult to envision. Is it?

The problem arises when it has to carry bombs. Those have to be hung off pylons and are hard to recess in any way. US has a program for a SDB "small diameter bomb" and other such munition that can fit the weapon bay of F--22.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 10 Jan 2017 20:09

Interesting, hadn't thought of it like that. What roles would you set it up for? CAP, point defense....Has anybody come up with anything like this?

Do you REALLY need stealth to protect localized assets?

I doubt it. Better invest in detection of invaders.

LO is mostly useful when YOU invade very well defended areas. You can very confidently shed "stealth" once the stealths have taken care of the defense of the opponent. Point being "stealth" is a short period solution.

Stealth for CAP is mostly a luxury, great to have , but not needed. Waste of resources if you ask me. Invest those in the AMCA.

Arun.prabhu · Post by **Arun.prabhu** » 10 Jan 2017 22:26

Anything to give your forces an advantage. So low observability in defence, if it gives our pilots an advantage, is something to be desired.

OTOH, the monies spent on stealth aircraft can be used to build and train a fleet that is many times that of the stealthed fleet with concomitant freedom of action, greater tactical choices, better air cover for CAP, CAS, reconnaissance etc.

Given that weather radars have been able to track F-22s on known flight paths - they sense the air turbulence - and that planes make sound, produce heat, etc, all of which can be tracked and no low observable technology is going to be able to evade an integrated sensor network and the fact that the maintenance demands are more for LO planes, I'm not sure they really make sense in a rear ear between forces on equal footing.

Of course, using planes costing hundreds of millions of dollars to drop ordinance on idiots whose culture and technology belong in the Stone Age doesn't make sense either, but the Americans, whom our flyboys apparently want to emulate, do that, god know what silly notions our IAF airheads will get into their skulls next.

----

Admin Note:
Above is totally uncalled for. As first time poster no warning is being given.

ramana

ranjan.rao · Post by **ranjan.rao** » 11 Jan 2017 01:08

Why the RAM coating is not discussed for a light plane. Anyways it will have a low RCS, RAM coating should decrease it further.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 11 Jan 2017 01:34

Arun Prabhu: Good first post. Welcome to BRF.

CM : Yes, others have proposed similar concepts: LM/KAI KF-X-E, CAC J-2X, Saab GFF concept, TAI/Saab/EAD original TFX-C100, Mikoyan LMFS ... The last one is very close to the outlines I drew.

Neshant: Almost all major countries with defense RnD are developing SDBs. But carrying them internally should be left to AMCA and FGFAs.

Ranjan.rao: RAM coatings are going to be applied irrespective of the size of the aircraft.

NRao: Imagine the 2040-50 defense scenario. A hostility has broken out. Our fighters are on constant patrol. What aircrafts would you use? Your point defense fighters. Now if there are aggressor violating our airspace, they are likely to be stealth aircraft. If our defense fighters are not stealth, they will be at a disadvantage to these aggressors. So yes, point defense fighters being A2A fighters would require stealth in 2040-50 time frame.

And this is why I was saying in the Make in India fighter thread. Buying F-16s and Gripens today is nonsense. The first planes cannot and will not come in before 2021-22. So ask LM for its KF-X-E proposal. It will bring technology and know-how that we currently do not have and can apply to the AMCA and LCA.

Farooq · Post by **Farooq** » 11 Jan 2017 08:11

Arun.prabhu wrote:Anything to give your forces an advantage. So low observability in defence, if it gives our pilots an advantage, is something to be desired.

OTOH, the monies spent on stealth aircraft can be used to build and train a fleet that is many times that of the stealthed fleet with concomitant freedom of action, greater tactical choices, better air cover for CAP, CAS, reconnaissance etc.

Given that weather radars have been able to track F-22s on known flight paths - they sense the air turbulence - and that planes make sound, produce heat, etc, all of which can be tracked and no low observable technology is going to be able to evade an integrated sensor network and the fact that the maintenance demands are more for LO planes, I'm not sure they really make sense in a rear ear between forces on equal footing.

Of course, using planes costing hundreds of millions of dollars to drop ordinance on idiots whose culture and technology belong in the Stone Age doesn't make sense either, but the Americans, whom our flyboys apparently want to emulate, do that, god know what silly notions our IAF airheads will get into their skulls next.

That is an amazing thing to say. I am sure you are a wiser than wisdom itself. A moderator has praised your words, no less. Allah -o-Akbar. Our PAF boys will be very happy.

Arun.prabhu · Post by **Arun.prabhu** » 11 Jan 2017 09:03

Farooq wrote: That is an amazing thing to say. I am sure you are a wiser than wisdom itself. A moderator has praised your words, no less. Allah -o-Akbar. Our PAF boys will be very happy.

No offence intended, but I don't give a damn about the PAF. Let them have their chinese crap, their old F-16s and whatever else. I want IAF to be properly outfitted and prepared for war. I want cheap, effective, mass-producible weapons and I want skilled hands to wield them. I want excellent leaders who have wonderful morals and great strategic and tactical acumen to direct the skilled hands wielding those weapons. And lastly, I want politicians with courage and moral fiber to hold the leash on our armed forces.

Honestly, I don't think it is too much for a guy to ask.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 11 Jan 2017 09:12

Farooq wrote: That is an amazing thing to say. I am sure you are a wiser than wisdom itself. A moderator has praised your words, no less. Allah -o-Akbar. Our PAF boys will be very happy.

Did you notice the contradiction between the first line and last line of the post - each the diametric opposite of the other

Anything to give your forces an advantage. So low observability in defence, if it gives our pilots an advantage, is something to be desired.

and

using planes costing hundreds of millions of dollars to drop ordinance on idiots whose culture and technology belong in the Stone Age doesn't make sense either, but the Americans, whom our flyboys apparently want to emulate, do that,

Just want to make the point that our IAF airheads, (who should spend more time learning on BRF?) have been called names for not emulating the US of A and here they are getting butt kicked by being accused of wanting to emulate the US of A. It is another matter that I have not understood what our dear airheads are trying to emulate, but hey I may be a dumbo.

I was just wondering about the options that are on offer here for a timepass effort at educating our airheads about how to fight war
1. They can go for expensive stealth and refuse to use that against low tech forces who are in the stone age anyway
2. They can reject low observability and simply go ahead and attack stone age opponents saying that those people are in the stone age anyway, we don;t need low observability
3. Our airheads can selectively choose stone age adversaries the US does (like Bodos/Naxals for aihreads to hit) and choose to bomb them with whatever they have
4. They can learn to stick a thumb up their butts when we inform them on here China and Pakistan are our adversaries and they are hardly stone age

Lets move ahead of the curve..and all that

Farooq · Post by **Farooq** » 11 Jan 2017 09:17

Arun.prabhu wrote:
Farooq wrote: That is an amazing thing to say. I am sure you are a wiser than wisdom itself. A moderator has praised your words, no less. Allah -o-Akbar. Our PAF boys will be very happy.
No offence intended, but I don't give a damn about the PAF. Let them have their chinese crap, their old F-16s and whatever else. I want IAF to be properly outfitted and prepared for war. I want cheap, effective, mass-producible weapons and I want skilled hands to wield them. I want excellent leaders who have wonderful morals and great strategic and tactical acumen to direct the skilled hands wielding those weapons. And lastly, I want politicians with courage and moral fiber to hold the leash on our armed forces.

Honestly, I don't think it is too much for a guy to ask.

Actually, PAF will be happy endians think of their IAF as "Air Heads". What is even more encouraging is that moderators on a "knowledgeable" forum agree with it.

And you may give your best to your airheads, but since they are airheads, PAF will blow them to kingdom come. Yo! PAF has djinns with them.

Farooq · Post by **Farooq** » 11 Jan 2017 09:37

shiv wrote:. (keeping only the part of interest)

Just want to make the point that our IAF airheads, (who should spend more time learning on BRF?) have been called names for not emulating the US of A and here they are getting butt kicked by being accused of wanting to emulate the US of A. It is another matter that I have not understood what our dear airheads are trying to emulate, but hey I may be a dumbo.

I was just wondering about the options that are on offer here for a timepass effort at educating our airheads about how to fight war
1. They can go for expensive stealth and refuse to use that against low tech forces who are in the stone age anyway
2. They can reject low observability and simply go ahead and attack stone age opponents saying that those people are in the stone age anyway, we don;t need low observability
3. Our airheads can selectively choose stone age adversaries the US does (like Bodos/Naxals for aihreads to hit) and choose to bomb them with whatever they have
4. They can learn to stick a thumb up their butts when we inform them on here China and Pakistan are our adversaries and they are hardly stone age

Lets move ahead of the curve..and all that

Actually I am thinking as per that poster, Airheads will use the best of the best stuff India can make? I only hope India can put better folks than airheads in its Air Force.

Moving on, I agree with NRao above. Stealth has a purpose. Survivability in a hostile environment. 5th Gen has some more features other than stealth and some of those features could be included in upgraded 4th Gen. I am specifically talking of Super Cruise and Net Worked environment.

A fighter mission other than CAP which is air superiority only, into the hostile enemy airspace has three phases as I understand, namely Ingress, Over Target and Egress. All combat aircraft missions mostly would be multiple aircraft force packages. It is my belief that the Americans set out to define features of 5th Gen multirole JSF they had this mission profile in mind.

Ingress is never a straight line onto the target. It is a complicated multi leg path avoiding radar, SAM and other threat to get over the target or to increase the chances of reaching the target. Without, stealth, the Ingress routes are long and consume a lot of fuel. This is also when the aircraft is heavy with ammo and bomb loads. With stealth it is possible to plan a more direct Ingress route to target. This will consume lesser fuel and probably help in targeting extended ranges. Any external stores negate this advantage and will be used for other advantages they may give for a specific mission.

Over Target, a networked aircraft will have better SA viz. own aircraft and enemy assets. It will be able to call upon the right resource for the right target and make better battle space decisions. This also gives an opportunity for planners to lessen the number of aircraft in the package, freeing up resources for other missions.

Egress is all about Supercruise and quick exit. If a bird can go beyond the speed of sound without afterburners - wow!

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 11 Jan 2017 09:40

Indranil wrote:
NRao: Imagine the 2040-50 defense scenario. A hostility has broken out. Our fighters are on constant patrol. What aircrafts would you use? Your point defense fighters. Now if there are aggressor violating our airspace, they are likely to be stealth aircraft. If our defense fighters are not stealth, they will be at a disadvantage to these aggressors. So yes, point defense fighters being A2A fighters would require stealth in 2040-50 time frame.

Indranil - if I was fighting against India or the USA I would do exactly what Pakistan, ISIS and NoKo are doing. Develop strategies that cannot be countered by expensive weaponry, and warfighting philosophies that go against "conventional wisdom" in warfighting
1. Use cheap missiles
2. Arm them with nukes if possible
3. Show complete lack of concern for civilian deaths
4. Make rape coercion and torture normal
5. Use children where possible
6. Set up factories for human reproduction with a view to continuing war forever

Modern armed forces have no answers for these tactics and the US, for all its sophistication has invariably failed against such tactics.

The US has armed Pakistan for decades - keeping Pakistani forces just sophisticated enough to stress India. We lose by trying to beat US technology gifted to Pakistan. China is doing it now. I believe that our aim should be to utilize the most destructive standoff weapons we have and not try to outmatch technology in cases where rich donors supply technology cheaply to our adversaries. I am not saying that we should not have low stealth interceptors or controlling AWACS. I am saying that their ability to send aircraft should be degraded by intense attacks with offensive standoff dumb and cheap weapons

And if you look at the last 30 years - our gradual ability to beat Pakistan down has caused Pakistan to respond by using the unconventional asymmetric tactics. We need to take their missiles down and we need psy ops to counter their ideological war and greater understanding of the direction in which warfare is heading where the "most powerful countries" are moving towards high tech and not winning while the loswet tech nations are not getting defeated by high tech and are taking war into the territory of high tech nations

China should simply be threatened by nukes and missiles and by hitting them where they are weakest.

Arun.prabhu · Post by **Arun.prabhu** » 11 Jan 2017 10:44

Farooq wrote:
shiv wrote:. (keeping only the part of interest)

Just want to make the point that our IAF airheads, (who should spend more time learning on BRF?) have been called names for not emulating the US of A and here they are getting butt kicked by being accused of wanting to emulate the US of A. It is another matter that I have not understood what our dear airheads are trying to emulate, but hey I may be a dumbo.

Actually I am thinking as per that poster, Airheads will use the best of the best stuff India can make? I only hope India can put better folks than airheads in its Air Force.

Moving on, I agree with NRao above. Stealth has a purpose. Survivability in a hostile environment. 5th Gen has some more features other than stealth and some of those features could be included in upgraded 4th Gen. I am specifically talking of Super Cruise and Net Worked environment.

A fighter mission other than CAP which is air superiority only, into the hostile enemy airspace has three phases as I understand, namely Ingress, Over Target and Egress. All combat aircraft missions mostly would be multiple aircraft force packages. It is my belief that the Americans set out to define features of 5th Gen multirole JSF they had this mission profile in mind.

Ingress is never a straight line onto the target. It is a complicated multi leg path avoiding radar, SAM and other threat to get over the target or to increase the chances of reaching the target. Without, stealth, the Ingress routes are long and consume a lot of fuel. This is also when the aircraft is heavy with ammo and bomb loads. With stealth it is possible to plan a more direct Ingress route to target. This will consume lesser fuel and probably help in targeting extended ranges. Any external stores negate this advantage and will be used for other advantages they may give for a specific mission.

Over Target, a networked aircraft will have better SA viz. own aircraft and enemy assets. It will be able to call upon the right resource for the right target and make better battle space decisions. This also gives an opportunity for planners to lessen the number of aircraft in the package, freeing up resources for other missions.

Egress is all about Supercruise and quick exit. If a bird can go beyond the speed of sound without afterburners - wow!

You're talking about the phase where you haven't established air superiority with active Air defence umbrella and enemy interceptors in the air. I'm not sure stealth makes strategic or tactical sense even here. And since the Americans have only fought against middle eastern third raters armed with monkey models with their stealth platforms, I'm not convinced that the usefulness of stealth has been demonstrated on the battlefield.

Your argument for stealth states the problems with them. No external stores - fuel or weapons without compromising stealth. Can't use active sensors in battle because then you get a radar homing missile right up your ass. You Must have vast internal stores for fuel - to be supplemented by external fuel stores before entering detection range - to be able to carry a reasonable mass of ordinance. Internal ordinance stores that are nowhere near enough to ordinance to what can be carried on hard points on the wing. Oh and since the planes are visible to the naked eye, we have proof that the stealth technologies employed aren't effective at all frequencies on the electromagnetic spectrum. So what frequencies are they bad against? I've heard that the radars used in ww2 can see stealth fighters.

So, I fail to logic for stealth when, for the cost of many non-LO planes with much greater weapon carrying capacity and longer range by virtue of external stores, some of which we may lose but which we can afford to replace. Why would we want costlier, harder to replace planes that arent superior to conventional craft in the use cases that matter.

Arun.prabhu · Post by **Arun.prabhu** » 11 Jan 2017 11:20

shiv wrote: Indranil - if I was fighting against India or the USA I would do exactly what Pakistan, ISIS and NoKo are doing. Develop strategies that cannot be countered by expensive weaponry, and warfighting philosophies that go against "conventional wisdom" in warfighting
1. Use cheap missiles
2. Arm them with nukes if possible
3. Show complete lack of concern for civilian deaths
4. Make rape coercion and torture normal
5. Use children where possible
6. Set up factories for human reproduction with a view to continuing war forever

Modern armed forces have no answers for these tactics and the US, for all its sophistication has invariably failed against such tactics.

The US has armed Pakistan for decades - keeping Pakistani forces just sophisticated enough to stress India. We lose by trying to beat US technology gifted to Pakistan. China is doing it now. I believe that our aim should be to utilize the most destructive standoff weapons we have and not try to outmatch technology in cases where rich donors supply technology cheaply to our adversaries. I am not saying that we should not have low stealth interceptors or controlling AWACS. I am saying that their ability to send aircraft should be degraded by intense attacks with offensive standoff dumb and cheap weapons

And if you look at the last 30 years - our gradual ability to beat Pakistan down has caused Pakistan to respond by using the unconventional asymmetric tactics. We need to take their missiles down and we need psy ops to counter their ideological war and greater understanding of the direction in which warfare is heading where the "most powerful countries" are moving towards high tech and not winning while the loswet tech nations are not getting defeated by high tech and are taking war into the territory of high tech nations

China should simply be threatened by nukes and missiles and by hitting them where they are weakest.

Pakistan gets away with it because they have nukes.

ISIS gets away with it because no one in the west has been willing to stoop to their level. When Russia and hezbollah did, they got their asses kicked. NK gets away with it because no one is willing to defeat them and then rule the nation. Also, because they have nothing to lose.

In 2040, while I'm sure that Pakistan will remain a thorn in our side, we'll probably have to be prepared to defend our overseas interests - force projection over sea - and fight a war against Pakistan and/or china at the same time. OTOH, if current economic growth continues, it'll be more like North Korea and South Korea today than the more even footing between Pakistan and India. After all, if our economy is big enough to spend hundreds of billions on defence, Pakistan will be left in the dust. And when we spend that much, we can go all stealth or whatever. Note that by then, directed energy weapons will possibly have matured enough and have enough power and range that air forces become obsolete.

Arun.prabhu · Post by **Arun.prabhu** » 11 Jan 2017 11:27

Farooq wrote:
Arun.prabhu wrote: No offence intended, but I don't give a damn about the PAF. Let them have their chinese crap, their old F-16s and whatever else. I want IAF to be properly outfitted and prepared for war. I want cheap, effective, mass-producible weapons and I want skilled hands to wield them. I want excellent leaders who have wonderful morals and great strategic and tactical acumen to direct the skilled hands wielding those weapons. And lastly, I want politicians with courage and moral fiber to hold the leash on our armed forces.

Honestly, I don't think it is too much for a guy to ask.
Actually, PAF will be happy endians think of their IAF as "Air Heads". What is even more encouraging is that moderators on a "knowledgeable" forum agree with it.

And you may give your best to your airheads, but since they are airheads, PAF will blow them to kingdom come. Yo! PAF has djinns with them.

Questioning wisdom of leaders when they are being stupid is patriotism. Blindly following leaders when they are making mistakes is not. The rafale deal and the billions in cost that the IAF tried to foist on that project to the detriment of the other services and themselves - with limited budget, where would we get the money for all the rest that our armed forces sorely need - convinced me that the IAF leadership is made of airheads.

Arun.prabhu · Post by **Arun.prabhu** » 11 Jan 2017 11:34

shiv wrote:
Did you notice the contradiction between the first line and last line of the post - each the diametric opposite of the other
Anything to give your forces an advantage. So low observability in defence, if it gives our pilots an advantage, is something to be desired.
and
using planes costing hundreds of millions of dollars to drop ordinance on idiots whose culture and technology belong in the Stone Age doesn't make sense either, but the Americans, whom our flyboys apparently want to emulate, do that,
Just want to make the point that our IAF airheads, (who should spend more time learning on BRF?) have been called names for not emulating the US of A and here they are getting butt kicked by being accused of wanting to emulate the US of A. It is another matter that I have not understood what our dear airheads are trying to emulate, but hey I may be a dumbo.

I was just wondering about the options that are on offer here for a timepass effort at educating our airheads about how to fight war
1. They can go for expensive stealth and refuse to use that against low tech forces who are in the stone age anyway
2. They can reject low observability and simply go ahead and attack stone age opponents saying that those people are in the stone age anyway, we don;t need low observability
3. Our airheads can selectively choose stone age adversaries the US does (like Bodos/Naxals for aihreads to hit) and choose to bomb them with whatever they have
4. They can learn to stick a thumb up their butts when we inform them on here China and Pakistan are our adversaries and they are hardly stone age

Lets move ahead of the curve..and all that

So our enemies are Pakistan and China. What kind of a war do we plan to fight with them? Do stealth planes make sense in that war? How long do we assume this war will last? Can we replace the planes and pilots we'll lose faster than our opposition? Just a few of the questions you need to ask before you get ahead of the curve.

stealth because stealth is not. The tens of millions more for purchase and upkeep for each LO plane can be spent on infantry, better air defence, artillery, armour, more planes, training....

Farooq · Post by **Farooq** » 11 Jan 2017 12:00

Arun.prabhu wrote:
Farooq wrote:
Actually, PAF will be happy endians think of their IAF as "Air Heads". What is even more encouraging is that moderators on a "knowledgeable" forum agree with it.

And you may give your best to your airheads, but since they are airheads, PAF will blow them to kingdom come. Yo! PAF has djinns with them.
Questioning wisdom of leaders when they are being stupid is patriotism. Blindly following leaders when they are making mistakes is not. The rafale deal and the billions in cost that the IAF tried to foist on that project to the detriment of the other services and themselves - with limited budget, where would we get the money for all the rest that our armed forces sorely need - convinced me that the IAF leadership is made of airheads.

Oh! that is a step down. From the entire IAF being airheads to just the leadership being airheads. Good for PAF with such airheads making decisions.
IAF = Indian Airhead Force

from now on. PAF to party.

Farooq · Post by **Farooq** » 11 Jan 2017 12:03

Arun.prabhu wrote:
Farooq wrote:
You're talking about the phase where you haven't established air superiority with active Air defence umbrella and enemy interceptors in the air. I'm not sure stealth makes strategic or tactical sense even here. And since the Americans have only fought against middle eastern third raters armed with monkey models with their stealth platforms, I'm not convinced that the usefulness of stealth has been demonstrated on the battlefield.

Your argument for stealth states the problems with them. No external stores - fuel or weapons without compromising stealth. Can't use active sensors in battle because then you get a radar homing missile right up your ass. You Must have vast internal stores for fuel - to be supplemented by external fuel stores before entering detection range - to be able to carry a reasonable mass of ordinance. Internal ordinance stores that are nowhere near enough to ordinance to what can be carried on hard points on the wing. Oh and since the planes are visible to the naked eye, we have proof that the stealth technologies employed aren't effective at all frequencies on the electromagnetic spectrum. So what frequencies are they bad against? I've heard that the radars used in ww2 can see stealth fighters.

So, I fail to logic for stealth when, for the cost of many non-LO planes with much greater weapon carrying capacity and longer range by virtue of external stores, some of which we may lose but which we can afford to replace. Why would we want costlier, harder to replace planes that arent superior to conventional craft in the use cases that matter.

You are right boss. You have convinced me and a lot of people that your Air Force and also the people who write their strategies is made up of Air Heads. Thanks.