Newbie Corner & Military Miscellaneous

nirav · Post by **nirav** » 26 Dec 2009 22:30

I wanted some information on the role of Simulators used for training in the air force ...

Are the Simulators used for getting acquainted to the Aircraft type/systems and BFM or weapons employment too is covered ?

Any pointers/links would be appreciated..

sunny y · Post by **sunny y** » 27 Dec 2009 00:59

Hi....I am looking for some good books on the following topics. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

1) Wars fought by India especially 1962 one.
2) On our Intelligence agencies.
As far as I know Mr RN Kao didn't write any books or did he ??
If there is anything that Mr Kao wrote & is availaible in the market, can somebody please let me know about it.
3) There was this book written by Ex-RAW that created a huge controversy & then eventually a case was filed in the court against the author. Unfortunately I could remember neither the book's name nor the author's.
4) Any good book related to terrorism affecting South Asia.
5) Finally any good book store in Delhi where one can find books related to Armed Forces easily. Actually, couple of them that I'd been to had only novels & some similar stuff.

Thanks

VijayKumarSinha · Post by **VijayKumarSinha** » 27 Dec 2009 04:41

Are there any weapon loading competitions in IAF like in the link given below?

http://www.mindef.gov.sg/imindef/public ... _news.html

The servicemen have to undergo a series of challenges comprising a theory test, uniform inspection, timed weapons loading and composite tool kit inspection.

Amit J · Post by **Amit J** » 27 Dec 2009 18:33

Hi

New member to BR Forum, been using BR main website for a lot of research for the last one year. Been active in other intl defence forum for the same period. Would request a Forum Mod to get in touch with me as i am unable to do that being a new member.

Looking forward to healthy discussions here

Cheers
AJ

Mayuresh · Post by **Mayuresh** » 28 Dec 2009 17:04

Team,

An extremely newbie question: What is the use of the main gun on a warship, say the Delhi Class destroyers? They have the 100mm AK-100 gun, Talwar Class frigates have a 100mm main gun, the Rajput class destroyers have a 76mm main gun, etc.

Wikipedia says (for Talwar class): One 100mm A-190(E) gun is fitted forward for use against ship and shore based targets. The gun can fire 60 rounds a minute out to a range of 8.2 nautical miles (15.2 km). The weight of each shell is 16 kilograms (35 lb).

I am wondering which enemy ship could come so close (< 15km) to the frigate without being detected by its radar and being engaged by anti-ship missiles. Also, when would the Talwar class frigates go so close to enemy shores so as to engage shore-based targets small enough to be destroyed with a 100mm gun

AFAIK, warships usually have
1. Anti-ship missiles for other ships
2. SAMs for the aircraft threats
3. Torpedos+ASW equipment including a helo for submarine threats

Can the main gun:
1. Destroy incoming anti-ship missiles? (I think it would be too difficult to do that)
2. Destroy incoming torpedos? (almost impossible, considering that the torpedos would be under water)

The only explanation I can see is that the gun may be used against pirate boats/ special forces boats which may come close to the ship and sabotage it (just too difficult in the high seas, but a possibility nevertheless)

Curiously, the Kolkata class destroyers do not feature any main guns (no information on wikipedia atleast)

ArmenT · Post by **ArmenT** » 28 Dec 2009 20:46

^^^^^
Can't speak for IN tactics, but the USN has used ship's main guns to take out shore based defenses in several wars. Standard tactics consist of shelling the bunkers and gun emplacements at the shore line for a few hours before sending in the Marines to land and secure the beachhead. Artillery is also a bit cheaper than launching missiles.

Dmurphy · Post by **Dmurphy** » 28 Dec 2009 23:02

Mayuresh, my very limited knowledge tells me, some targets of opportunity are such sitting ducks, like the ones mentioned by ArmenT, that they can dealt with the 'old school' way. In the same vein, one could also question the logic behind having guns in supersonic, 4++ Gen fighters like the MKI which can be armed to teeth with WVR and BVR missiles, that too when it's sure to face supersonics in combat!

Here perhaps, a transport aircraft or a strategic bomber can be fired at with the gun, perhaps as a warning shot to force it to fall in line and obey or may be even to bring it down at leisure.

Mayuresh wrote:Can the main gun:
1. Destroy incoming anti-ship missiles? (I think it would be too difficult to do that)
2. Destroy incoming torpedos? (almost impossible, considering that the torpedos would be under water)

The main gun, IMHO, is never used (or for that matter cannot be used) as a defensive weapon. Close in Weapon Systems (CIWS) like the Phalanx on INS Jalashwa or Kashtan on Talwar Class Frigates are assigned the role of bringing down anti ship missiles.

Over to the gurus now.

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 28 Dec 2009 23:13

Dmurphy wrote:..............In the same vein, one could also question the logic behind having guns in supersonic, 4++ Gen fighters like the MKI which can be armed to teeth with WVR and BVR missiles, that too when it's sure to face supersonics in combat! Here perhaps, a transport aircraft or a strategic bomber can be fired at with the gun, perhaps as a warning shot to force it to fall in line and obey or may be even to bring it down at leisure. ...............

You seem to underestimate the gun in fighters.
In fact, gun is a quite effective weapon v/s fighters. It is and will continue to be used in dogfights as a very lethal weapon.

negi · Post by **negi** » 28 Dec 2009 23:27

The ship mounted guns perhaps have given way to the modern missiles in modern age but they still are cost effective when it comes to anti piracy operations and taking on smaller patrol aircraft ,more importantly the basic premise behind having guns on ships and fighters is there is only so many missiles an AC or a Ship can carry so if push comes to shove a fighter pilot or the ship's captain would prefer to have guns instead of nothing to save his skin.

Shameek · Post by **Shameek** » 28 Dec 2009 23:36

Gaur wrote:You seem to underestimate the gun in fighters. In fact, gun is a quite effective weapon v/s fighters. It is and will continue to be used in dogfights as a very lethal weapon.

The gun in aircraft is also used to strafe ground targets. In most of todays BVR world, that might be more true than the use in dogfights.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 28 Dec 2009 23:54

in stealth vs stealth (why does it remind me of "spy vs spy" ?

) confrontation neither aircraft might detect AND ID the other aircraft at BVR ranges. guns will be invaluable in that case.

re: guns on ships
a rubber dingy is coming at your ship at full speed. it may or may not be a bomb laden terrorist boat. what would you do if you don't have guns ? fire a $ 3 mn missile at a $500 rubber dingy ? what if there are 10-15 dingy boats coming towards you ? expend your whole lot of anti-ship missiles on them ?

Mayuresh · Post by **Mayuresh** » 28 Dec 2009 23:54

negi wrote:The ship mounted guns perhaps have given way to the modern missiles in modern age but they still are cost effective when it comes to anti piracy operations and taking on smaller patrol aircraft ,more importantly the basic premise behind having guns on ships and fighters is there is only so many missiles an AC or a Ship can carry so if push comes to shove a fighter pilot or the ship's captain would prefer to have guns instead of nothing to save his skin.

Thanks, Negi.

I think we are confusing the question as to why guns are necessary on warships. My Q. was specifically about the main gun, which is around 100mm. The anti-aircraft guns' presence is completely justified, as you rightly pointed out that there are only so many missiles that can be carried, so after exhausting the SAMs, the ship would have to resort to anti-aircraft guns, which would be the 30mm Gatling guns on the Delhi class destroyers. Surely the main gun would be cumbersome to fire at an aircraft.

For the main gun, I still think its uses are extremely limited in a modern combat, probably for anti-piracy operations and against some small boat-like targets. I am still a little curious to know how India shall be able to use the main Gun on the Delhi class destroyers for shore based operations. Shall we take the ship to wothin 15 km of the TSP coast to bomb some bunkers on the shores / coast / etc.? Seems a risky proposition in the face of shore-based missiles ready to take out a warship with whatever available missile defences they may have

Mayuresh · Post by **Mayuresh** » 28 Dec 2009 23:57

Rahul M wrote: re: guns on ships
a rubber dingy is coming at your ship at full speed. it may or may not be a bomb laden terrorist boat. what would you do if you don't have guns ? fire a $ 3 mn missile at a $500 rubber dingy ? what if there are 10-15 dingy boats coming towards you ? expend your whole lot of anti-ship missiles on them ?

True, but for such threats, we can use the 30mm Gatling guns. We anyways won't be able to visually acquire the dingy at the extreme ranges of the main gun (i.e. approx 15 km)

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 29 Dec 2009 06:20

As regards the use of a 100 mm gun, how would a warship stop a tanker or other ship that has to be intercepted and boarded?

They have to come close - say within hailing distance to signal to the ship, but if it does not stop? They can't ram it. Firing an antiship missile will sink it. A gun comes in handy to fire a proverbial "shot across the bows." I am not sure if CIWS cannon which are slaved to sensors to fire a cloud of shells can be commanded to miss a target and I don't think firing off 2000 shells in a few seconds is the best way to stop a big ship. The main gun can be aimed at any spot manually, and aimed to miss the target. At worst a ship can actually be hit above the waterline first as a sort of "Guess what's coming your way" to get the ship to stop, or change direction.

andy B · Post by **andy B** » 29 Dec 2009 06:32

Rahul M wrote:in stealth vs stealth (why does it remind me of "spy vs spy" ? ) confrontation neither aircraft might detect AND ID the other aircraft at BVR ranges. guns will be invaluable in that case.

re: guns on ships
a rubber dingy is coming at your ship at full speed. it may or may not be a bomb laden terrorist boat. what would you do if you don't have guns ? fire a $ 3 mn missile at a $500 rubber dingy ? what if there are 10-15 dingy boats coming towards you ? expend your whole lot of anti-ship missiles on them ?

In recent years it was also found that guns for fighters are quite invaluable for straffing ground targets as well thus the Typhoon which had the internal capability but didnt quite have the Mauser 27mm in the start was again fitted out with the same....the big bad A10's most valuable weapon is again the GAU 8 gatling gun. There was a recent article in regards to the A10 in AFM or ACM in which crews acknowledged the gun to be the biggest asset and the same was said by Army Personnel who had called in the Warthog for suppport...

Mayuresh · Post by **Mayuresh** » 29 Dec 2009 08:45

shiv wrote:I am not sure if CIWS cannon which are slaved to sensors to fire a cloud of shells can be commanded to miss a target and I don't think firing off 2000 shells in a few seconds is the best way to stop a big ship.

Surely, you are exaggerating, Mr. Feynman... Sorry, Mr. Shiv

It is more like 2000 rounds a minute, so a short 1 second burst would be 30 rounds, probably not the most effective way to stop a ship. And you say the CIWS cannon cannot be slaved to missing a shot... that is terrible

so point taken about the main gun's usage.

I guess the ship would first use signalling flares and communication equipments to ask the other ship to stop. If nothing works, the main gun may be asked to fire some warning shots or above the hull shots.

Thanks a lot, everyone. It just did not seem obvious to me for the gun to have a role against other warships during the war

Now I know it does seem to have applications against small-boat targets as mentioned earlier and during peace-time operations for stopping the other ship as Shiv mentioned.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 29 Dec 2009 09:30

Mayuresh wrote: Now I know it does seem to have applications against small-boat targets as mentioned earlier and during peace-time operations for stopping the other ship

Mayuresh - wartime also - for blockading ports and disrupting civilian shipping traffic to some other country.

BTW - those CIWS systems have a rate of fire of 4000 to 4500 rounds per minute, but 2000 rounds in "a few seconds" is an exaggeration unless I argue that 30 seconds is a "few seconds"

anand_sankar · Post by **anand_sankar** » 29 Dec 2009 13:03

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/news ... wsid=12127

Phew! Finally, some progress for the IAF in litigation with land-grabbers in Jalahalli, on Bangalore's outskirts.

I remember some years back Wing Commander Raghunath, the then Bangalore IAF PRO, trying to explain to me the intricacies of the cases. When it got too complex to understand, he simply narrated the story of the Camel and the Arab. Typical forces humour!

VijayKumarSinha · Post by **VijayKumarSinha** » 29 Dec 2009 20:59

Unfortunate tragedy:

Fire breaks out at BARC, two research students killed

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 29 Dec 2009 21:41

Gaur wrote:
Carl_T wrote:Hello, does anyone know the differences in strategic roles the different fighter planes play, or perhaps point me to a resource? I'm completely at a loss to what the difference in role between planes like the Tejas/MCA/MRCA/F-35/other foreign planes is.
Tried wikipedia? It is enough to answer these questions.
Anyways, in short:
Tejas: Lightweight Multirole fighter. Replacement for Mig-21 which are primarily for air defence (however, they were later upgraded to be able to perform limited ground attack). Tejas, being a multirole fighter, can also perform ground attack roles.
Read the links given on first page of LCA thread.
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 58&start=0

MCA: It is just a proposal. However, the proposal is to develop a 5th gen (stealth) Multirole aircraft with emphasis on good ground attack capabilities (which basically constitutes of good range and large payload).

MRCA: Is not an aircraft. It consists of 5 different aircrafts competing to be ordered by IAF. Wikipedia page on MRCA competition is pretty extensive on this. There is also a comparision table for different competitors. So it would help to visit it.

F-35: 5th gen (stealth) multirole fighter in development. Made as a cheaper alternative for F-22.

Wikipedia has articles on all these aircrafts. After reading them, if you have furthur queries, then you can post them here.

Thank you, I actually have read the wikipedia pages for all of them. (And yes I understand the MRCA is a competition), I was thinking along the lines of, "What role will Tejas play in the air force, how is it different from the say the role F-35 is supposed to play in the US forces compared to the F-22, etc."

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 29 Dec 2009 21:45

shiv wrote:
Carl_T wrote:
Among "military" aircraft one tends to have military transports, fighters, bombers, fighter-bombers (or multirole aircraft), reconnaissance ("recce") aircraft, tankers, trainers and AEW or AWACS aircraft.

All the aircraft you have named are specifically jet engined, supersonic multirole combat aircraft that can shoot down other planes in one role, attack ground targets in another role and also double up as recce aircraft in some instances.

I understand that, I'm completely new to this, and what I don't understand is the difference between the jet-engined supersonic multirole combat aircraft. Eg, what is different between the F-16 and the comparable Tejas, or how does the role of the F-22 in the USAF differ from the Tejas in the IAF. All these are probably simple questions to you guys but alphabet soup to me

.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 30 Dec 2009 06:44

Carl_T wrote: I understand that, I'm completely new to this, and what I don't understand is the difference between the jet-engined supersonic multirole combat aircraft. Eg, what is different between the F-16 and the comparable Tejas, or how does the role of the F-22 in the USAF differ from the Tejas in the IAF. All these are probably simple questions to you guys but alphabet soup to me .

First off I want to say that the LCA is not yet in service and so has no "role" yet that can be compared, So we can only talk about "expected role"

There is fundamentally no difference in role. The differences lie only in capability and technology in performing that role. Having said that the F 22 has been used in the very specialized SEAD (Suppression of Enemy Air Defence) role. By virtue of its stealth it is less likely to attract hostile missiles, and it can be armed with weapons to destroy enemy radars and communication centers and render them useless against raids by less stealthy aircraft that will be used later. The degree of stealth of the LCA is currently unknown in the public domain.

Sizes, ranges, electronics and weapons capability differ.

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 30 Dec 2009 09:57

Carl_T wrote: Thank you, I actually have read the wikipedia pages for all of them. (And yes I understand the MRCA is a competition), I was thinking along the lines of, "What role will Tejas play in the air force, how is it different from the say the role F-35 is supposed to play in the US forces compared to the F-22, etc."

I see that Shiv Saar has already answered. Yet if I may add to the discussion, I now understand what you mean to ask. You would have noticed from wiki articles that nearly all the modern fighters are "multi-role" in nature. This means that they can perform following roles:
1> Air to air combat (mainly air superiority, air defence, point defence)
2> Air to ground combat ( support fire for ground troops, sead etc)

So as you can see, any modern fighter (including F-22, F-35, F-16, Tejas etc) perform many similar roles. So it depends upon the user (ie; air force) to design a strategy to assign each fighter different roles. But then the question arises, how to assign roles when all fighters are mulri-role? Aren't they basically the same? Answer is no. Few basic things that characterize a fighter are agility, radar, payload, range, avionics (electronics) and weapons package. Among them, agility is something that is difficult to compare as every fighter claims to be superior in that respect. For each fighter, these parameters differ. Therefore, though each fighter can perform many roles, it performs some role better better and some role worst than others (depending upon the combination of factors mentioned).
Even one parameter may have a huge bearing upon the role the a/c plays.
Eg:F-18 Super Hornet is a multirole a/c. EA-18G Growler is F-18 SH with some additional avionics. So while both are same aircrafts (with only difference being electronics), there is huge difference in their role. EA-18G is for electronic warfare while F-18SH is not.
I see that you have mentioned F-16 and F-22 in your posts. They can serve as another example.
F-16 is a multirole aircraft. It is able to perform ground attacks and destroy enemy radar. So can F-22. But F-22 has much greater advantage for that role because it is a stealth fighter (which means that it will be detected far later than F-16 on the radar, by which time there could be little time to react). So, F-22 would be preferred for that job as Shiv Sir had explained.
You also mention Tejas. Though it is still in development, it is a multirole a/c and can perform a variety of roles. It will be upon IAF to evaluate its strong/weak points and decide its specific duties. Even then, it can be safe to assume that it will have a role in IAF similar to that of F-16 in USAF.
Hope that answers your question. If not, then feel free to ask.

Venu · Post by **Venu** » 30 Dec 2009 20:01

X posting from Indian Military Aviation thread

Gagan wrote:Photo in Livefist:

My word, she's a beauty.

What will it have in the space behind rear pilot and below the engine? Does it have any internal weapons bay?

Also, is it only me who feels LCH is carrying lesser weapons for its size? Even though I dont know how it compares to Apachhi's, tiger's or havoc's size wise, but to a naked eye LCH is looking a bit toothless.

Gurus, spare my ignorance and pls take me to light from darkness.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 30 Dec 2009 21:26

venu, why don't you do a genuine comparison with the choppers you named in stead of general comments to add more meat to your 'feelings' ? and then post it in this thread ?
we will all appreciate it. and please don't just copy-paste from wiki.

What will it have in the space behind rear pilot and below the engine?

fuel tank ? avionics bay ?
internal weapons bay in a 5.5 tonne helo ? how much space will there be ? a couple of ATGM at max ? anything more will absolutely ruin the profile.

Also, is it only me who feels LCH is carrying lesser weapons for its size?

the image you see isn't indicative of all it can carry, just some it can carry. even so please give us some examples to understand what it should carry for its size.

cheers !

bart · Post by **bart** » 30 Dec 2009 21:40

Venu wrote: Also, is it only me who feels LCH is carrying lesser weapons for its size? Even though I dont know how it compares to Apachhi's, tiger's or havoc's size wise, but to a naked eye LCH is looking a bit toothless.

Does the word 'light' mean anything to you? It is not designed to be an Apache, it meets India's unique high-altitude requirements that perhaps even Apache can't handle.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 30 Dec 2009 22:05

no perhaps about it. the apache or any other helo can't handle it.

Bob V · Post by **Bob V** » 31 Dec 2009 00:03

Venu wrote:
What will it have in the space behind rear pilot and below the engine? Does it have any internal weapons bay?

Also, is it only me who feels LCH is carrying lesser weapons for its size? Even though I dont know how it compares to Apachhi's, tiger's or havoc's size wise, but to a naked eye LCH is looking a bit toothless.

Gurus, spare my ignorance and pls take me to light from darkness.

There is space behind the rear seat and below the engine which may house the Avionics Data Receivers & Processing units. The weapons system configuration hasn't been finalised . It is supposed to carry a weapon load adequate for the flight profiles and mission objectives that it has been built. Do 24 rockets,4 anti-tank missiles and a optically guided 20mm canon look insufficient ?

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 31 Dec 2009 00:22

bob, I think it will carry more than 4 ATGMs. at SL payload is around 1.5 t IIRC. can't they use quad racks ?

hnair · Post by **hnair** » 31 Dec 2009 00:39

Here is a general question:
The current rare earth magnet/superconducting magnets makes electric motors really compact and efficient. Fuel cells can convert gassy stuff into electricity much more efficiently.

Query: Why not bring both tech together? Why don't we still have an electric(rotor or otherwise) craft that uses power from fuel cells? Dont know about mil usage, but for recreational/small-operations fliers, that would reduce (again not eliminate) the time and money spend on certifications, inspections etc. If it is fuel storage and weight issues, I would assume with hydrogen cars becoming less of a rarity in auto-shows, that should have been fixed right? So what is causing this from not taking off?

I mean imagine the advantage of this tech, if we could have it in India, where we can introduce bush piloting at much lower costs.

hnair · Post by **hnair** » 31 Dec 2009 01:02

bart wrote:
Venu wrote: Also, is it only me who feels LCH is carrying lesser weapons for its size? Even though I dont know how it compares to Apachhi's, tiger's or havoc's size wise, but to a naked eye LCH is looking a bit toothless.

Does the word 'light' mean anything to you? It is not designed to be an Apache, it meets India's unique high-altitude requirements that perhaps even Apache can't handle.

Adding on to to bart's. As per the LCH's publicly available requirements, the craft seems to be designed for very high altitude fist fights with cruise missiles/UAVs (read Panda@Tibet) in mountainous areas or bringing much deserved heat for paki SSG shivering inside sangaars than as "helicopter armor" (Apache, tiger, Ruskie giants etc). If this thing works out, I would salute this as the first MAJOR weapon system in the world, that is developed from scratch by India for a uniquely Indian requirement. If Rumsfeld didnt halaal the Comanche program, we might not have been able to say that (Btw, Rahul M-saar, you forgot Comanche and its V shaped under fuselage from your "list of inspirations for LCH" post

)

<speculation> One reason for the position of the electro-optical ball might be because of this role of chasing down slow moving air targets, rather than tracking ground ones?

Bob V · Post by **Bob V** » 31 Dec 2009 02:59

Rahul M wrote: can't they use quad racks ?

no (as of now since one among the ATGM types to go onboard, has already been selected ), because there are restrictions on the amount of weight that one can hang on the outboard stations.

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 31 Dec 2009 06:29

shiv wrote: First off I want to say that the LCA is not yet in service and so has no "role" yet that can be compared, So we can only talk about "expected role"

There is fundamentally no difference in role. The differences lie only in capability and technology in performing that role. Having said that the F 22 has been used in the very specialized SEAD (Suppression of Enemy Air Defence) role. By virtue of its stealth it is less likely to attract hostile missiles, and it can be armed with weapons to destroy enemy radars and communication centers and render them useless against raids by less stealthy aircraft that will be used later. The degree of stealth of the LCA is currently unknown in the public domain.

Sizes, ranges, electronics and weapons capability differ.

Gaur wrote:
So as you can see, any modern fighter (including F-22, F-35, F-16, Tejas etc) perform many similar roles. So it depends upon the user (ie; air force) to design a strategy to assign each fighter different roles. But then the question arises, how to assign roles when all fighters are mulri-role? Aren't they basically the same? Answer is no. Few basic things that characterize a fighter are agility, radar, payload, range, avionics (electronics) and weapons package. Among them, agility is something that is difficult to compare as every fighter claims to be superior in that respect. For each fighter, these parameters differ. Therefore, though each fighter can perform many roles, it performs some role better better and some role worst than others (depending upon the combination of factors mentioned).

Thank you for the info, very informative. What are the particular strengths of the Tejas that separate it from other multirole craft? Is it going to have 3d thrust vectoring? I would think that is ideal for a dogfighter, which I imagine will be the role it would play.

Also, being a stealth plane, is the F-35 going to be playing a similar role to the F-22? I understand it has a superior radar and avionics.

pgbhat · Post by **pgbhat** » 31 Dec 2009 07:08

^
I think it would be more accurate to say that Tejas would be used as an interceptor, replacing Mig-21s in that role.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 31 Dec 2009 07:10

Carl_T wrote: What are the particular strengths of the Tejas that separate it from other multirole craft? Is it going to have 3d thrust vectoring? I would think that is ideal for a dogfighter, which I imagine will be the role it would play.

Also, being a stealth plane, is the F-35 going to be playing a similar role to the F-22? I understand it has a superior radar and avionics.

Strengths of the Tejas: The main "strength" is that is is designed and built in India and that makes it relatively (relatively!!!!!) less immune to sanctions. India is primarily an arms importing nation while other nations also export wars to India. Sanctions have tied India's options down and a project like the LCA (the whole project, not merely the plane itself) is of some strategic importance to India in the experience it gives and the skilled manpower it creates. India allowed the skilled manpower developed for the HF 24 project to wither away from strategic stupidity. Indians are a major tech powerhouse of strategic stupidity.

3D thrust vectoring" (3DTW) service aircraft in the world has this yet. The Tejas will not have it. India currently lacks the technical capability to do this.

"Dogfighter" - the term "dogfighter" was romanticized by WW1 and WW2 books. (eg "Biggles"). Dogfighting may be something that is going to go into the history books. Aircraft are now becoming so maneuverable that the weak link in the chain is the pilot who cannot remain conscious if the "dogfight" maneuvers go beyond a particular value of G forces. Human endurance is the limit imposed on maneuverability and even if an a/c with 3DTW s super-maneuverable it is useless beyond a point The way ahead is long distance shootdown (BVR AAM) but that is limited by issues of accurate identification of friend or foe. Another area to look ahead at are unmanned UCAVs

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 31 Dec 2009 07:12

pgbhat wrote:^
I think it would be more accurate to say that Tejas would be used as an interceptor, replacing Mig-21s in that role.

Bhat garu. The LCA is multirole. Even the MiG 21 has evolved into multirole though.

pgbhat · Post by **pgbhat** » 31 Dec 2009 07:19

shiv saar, I stand corrected.

Dmurphy · Post by **Dmurphy** » 31 Dec 2009 07:32

shiv wrote:Bhat garu. The LCA is multirole. Even the MiG 21 has evolved into multirole though.

Yeah, as they say, they set out to make a MiG-21 replacement, but Tejas will come out as good as the Mirage!

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 31 Dec 2009 09:59

Carl_T wrote: Thank you for the info, very informative. What are the particular strengths of the Tejas that separate it from other multirole craft? Is it going to have 3d thrust vectoring? I would think that is ideal for a dogfighter, which I imagine will be the role it would play.

In short:
1>3D thrust vectoring: There is no current fighter "in service" which has 3D tv.
Only F-22 has 2D tv and Su-30MKI has 2.5 (which is basically 2d vectoring at oblique angles).
Also, for a light fighter like lca, it would do more harm than good because tv nozzles add lot of weight. US has once experimented with tv on F-16 (called F-16 Vista). It was found out that whatever advantage tv provided was cancelled by the added weight ( nearly 700-750 kg including that of ballast to balance cg). So thrust vectoring may not be a good idea on lca. Also, as Shiv Sir mentioned, India does not have the tech.
2>Strengths of Tejas:(I am no guru. There may be more, but these are just what I can summarize.)
a> High composite use (45% by weight and 90-95% by surface area). Probably the highest among all fighters. Reduces weight and radar cross section.
b> quadruplex digital fly by wire.
c> NVG capable full glass cockpit.
d> Helmet mounted display (its a huge advantage).
e> Self protection electronic warfare suite called "Mayawi" which will also be used in Israel's F-35s.
f> According to test pilots, lca handles very well. So good agility.
g> Multirole. Nice balance b/n air and ground attack capabilities.
h>Good upgrade potential. Eg: It has large nose for its size which gives it option for larger radars in future.
i> Most important point:Indigenous.

These things have been discussed in much detail in the past. I would suggest that you look through lca thread (including the older ones in archives). Take you time (believe me, it would take time), but the knowledge you would gain would be worth it. There is hardly any aspect of lca which has not been discussed in those threads. I suggest this merely because of one reason. The mods do not look too well upon discussions being repeated. So after sometime, they are bound to suggest the same.

Also, being a stealth plane, is the F-35 going to be playing a similar role to the F-22? I understand it has a superior radar and avionics.

Again, this has nothing to do with Indian Military. If mods do not object, then it is fine. Otherwise, you can leave your email add and someone with adequate info on that subject can mail you. Of course, if mods think it is all right to discuss it, then that is another matter.

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 31 Dec 2009 10:13

Gaur wrote:
Carl_T wrote: Thank you for the info, very informative. What are the particular strengths of the Tejas that separate it from other multirole craft? Is it going to have 3d thrust vectoring? I would think that is ideal for a dogfighter, which I imagine will be the role it would play.
In short:
1>3D thrust vectoring: There is no current fighter "in service" which has 3D tv.
Only F-22 has 2D tv and Su-30MKI has 2.5 (which is basically 2d vectoring at oblique angles).
Also, for a light fighter like lca, it would do more harm than good because tv nozzles add lot of weight. US has once experimented with tv on F-16 (called F-16 Vista). It was found out that whatever advantage tv provided was cancelled by the added weight ( nearly 700-750 kg including that of ballast to balance cg). So thrust vectoring may not be a good idea on lca. Also, as Shiv Sir mentioned, India does not have the tech.
2>Strengths of Tejas:(I am no guru. There may be more, but these are just what I can summarize.)
a> High composite use (45% by weight and 90-95% by surface area). Probably the highest among all fighters. Reduces weight and radar cross section.
b> quadruplex digital fly by wire.
c> NVG capable full glass cockpit.
d> Helmet mounted display (its a huge advantage).
e> Self protection electronic warfare suite called "Mayawi" which will also be used in Israel's F-35s.
f> According to test pilots, lca handles very well. So good agility.
g> Multirole. Nice balance b/n air and ground attack capabilities.
h>Good upgrade potential. Eg: It has large nose for its size which gives it option for larger radars in future.
i> Most important point:Indigenous.

These things have been discussed in much detail in the past. I would suggest that you look through lca thread (including the older ones in archives). Take you time (believe me, it would take time), but the knowledge you would gain would be worth it. There is hardly any aspect of lca which has not been discussed in those threads. I suggest this merely because of one reason. The mods do not look too well upon discussions being repeated. So after sometime, they are bound to suggest the same.
Also, being a stealth plane, is the F-35 going to be playing a similar role to the F-22? I understand it has a superior radar and avionics.
Again, this has nothing to do with Indian Military. If mods do not object, then it is fine. Otherwise, you can leave your email add and someone with adequate info on that subject can mail you. Of course, if mods think it is all right to discuss it, then that is another matter.

Great, thank you for the info, I will be sure to search the threads.