LCA News and Discussions

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 01 Oct 2011 10:10

IMHO,

LCA is a short range light weight fighter which can have an ideal air combat range of approx 275 - 300 Kms. It can have a A2G range of 600 kms. The figures are in ideal conditions in which there is no resistance and can land without engine flame out. It falls below the medium range aircraft's in terms of range.

With AWACS, guidance, ORP to high speed dash with radar switched off and optimum altitude to target within 300 kms is possible. The max it can go could be 275 KMS and engage a target for 10 minutes withing 300 kms with BVR. In case of WVR, the same can be achieved in 250 kms range for at least 10 - 15 minutes and back.

If, its already on CAP, then the depending on even half fuel load, it will be good for 75 to 150 kms (BVR counting).

That's my estimate of lower and outer envelops.

Ravi Karumanchiri · Post by **Ravi Karumanchiri** » 01 Oct 2011 10:21

Cosmo_R,

Check this out....

MBDA Apache Anti-Runway Missile
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_%28missile%29
http://www.armedforces.co.uk/Europeande ... mis3a3.htm

NB: Other free-fall anti-runway systems use tandem charges to penetrate the runway's concrete, and then explode underneath it, to cause a large crater and disturb an even larger area of hardtop, which would require a longer time to repair. Some systems even have anti-personnel mines dispersed along with the anti-runway munitions, and these are large enough to damage bulldozers and the like, brought in to patch the bombed runway. Other systems employ timed charges that can be set to go off several hours after the attack. IN SUM: There are systems that will result in a single unit decomissionning an airfield for at least several hours, although granted, the MBDA Apache is sub-sonic, turbojet propelled.

Put the Apache's warload on a Brahmos, and that'd do the trick, right quick.

Drishyaman · Post by **Drishyaman** » 01 Oct 2011 12:30

In Tejas MK II, as the fuselage is getting lengthened by 1 m. Considering available internal radius as 0.5 m, the internal volume gain would be 0.8 m3 (appox), if that is utilized for additional fuel there would be an increase in range. And if the rear landing gear is moved to the wing root, there would be a further gain in internal volume. But, then again with the higher thrust engine and additional weight gain there would be a trade off.
Wouldn’t there be a 20 – 25 % gain in range for Tejas MK II, in fully loaded configuration ?
Even a 400 Km range should be enough for Tejas MK II, to kick the green musharaf of the pig.

We won’t need the services of “Nishabd Rambha” (Silent Sukhoi).

Point to Point Distance (If Tejas fuels up from Bhuj/Bikaner/Jalandar) :

Bhuj to Karachi – 325 Km
Bhuj to Hyderabad – 270 Km
Bikaner to Multan – 300 Km
Vikramaditya to Karachi – 300 Km
Jalandar to Lahore – 125 Km
Jalandar to Islamabad – 350 Km

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 01 Oct 2011 14:26

chackojoseph wrote:IMHO,

air combat range of approx 275 - 300 Kms.

Chacko you have used the expression "Combat Range" twice. In most references that I have been reading (eg like Observers books from 1962 onwards

) the words used are either "range","ferry range" or "combat radius".

Range and Ferry range are one way trips. Combat radius is maximum distance reachable with fuel left for return journey. (two way trip) What do you mean by the expression "combat range"? Are you referring to combat radius?

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 01 Oct 2011 14:33

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Range_%28aircraft%29

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 01 Oct 2011 14:38

shiv wrote:
chackojoseph wrote:IMHO,

air combat range of approx 275 - 300 Kms.
Chacko you have used the expression "Combat Range" twice. In most references that I have been reading (eg like Observers books from 1962 onwards ) the words used are either "range","ferry range" or "combat radius".

Range and Ferry range are one way trips. Combat radius is maximum distance reachable with fuel left for return journey. (two way trip) What do you mean by the expression "combat range"? Are you referring to combat radius?

Yes Combat radius. Go and come back.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 01 Oct 2011 19:18

The confusion in the definition is the word "combat". Normally combats are never a predicted line of path and return. It varies based on the combat flight path itself.

On the NP1, I think they moved the cockpit further in the front, and thus reducing the cross-section for t/r panels. Wonder how many can be housed on NP?

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 01 Oct 2011 19:26

Ravi Karumanchiri wrote:Cosmo_R,

Check this out....

MBDA Apache Anti-Runway Missile
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_%28missile%29
http://www.armedforces.co.uk/Europeande ... mis3a3.htm

NB: Other free-fall anti-runway systems use tandem charges to penetrate the runway's concrete, and then explode underneath it, to cause a large crater and disturb an even larger area of hardtop, which would require a longer time to repair. Some systems even have anti-personnel mines dispersed along with the anti-runway munitions, and these are large enough to damage bulldozers and the like, brought in to patch the bombed runway. Other systems employ timed charges that can be set to go off several hours after the attack. IN SUM: There are systems that will result in a single unit decomissionning an airfield for at least several hours, although granted, the MBDA Apache is sub-sonic, turbojet propelled.

Put the Apache's warload on a Brahmos, and that'd do the trick, right quick.

IIRC, A Brahmos costs ~$2.5-3MM and might do the trick but if you can do the same with Paveway guided anti-runway dumb bomb for $100-200K, it's a lot cheaper.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 01 Oct 2011 19:49

SaiK wrote:The confusion in the definition is the word "combat". Normally combats are never a predicted line of path and return. It varies based on the combat flight path itself.

That is why the expression used is "radius" - where the aircraft can be put to its typical use for combat within a certain radius of its base with fuel for the mission and return to base. It is always less than half the range.

neerajb · Post by **neerajb** » 01 Oct 2011 19:54

Tejas does have a wet centerline hardpoint and this has been discussed on BR before.

Cheers....

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 01 Oct 2011 20:20

SaiK wrote:The confusion in the definition is the word "combat". Normally combats are never a predicted line of path and return. It varies based on the combat flight path itself.

SaiK Ji,

IMHO, the unpredictability of combat is also within the predictable parameters of the aircraft characteristics.

Ravi Karumanchiri · Post by **Ravi Karumanchiri** » 01 Oct 2011 21:39

Cosmo_R,

You're right about the costs, of course (Brahmos being more expensive than Paveways), but going cheap is not a valid war aim, unless you intend to fight a war of attrition (inadvisable against a nuclear-armed rival with literally nothing to lose). Moreover, delivering the Paveways from a stand-off distance, would require a high-altitude sortie -- not exactly a stealthy thing to do.

If things ever come to a 'full boil' with Pakistan, priority number one in the first hour will be the destruction of the TSP's nuclear weapons. Immovable components of the TSP's nuclear strike capability, such as runways (and silos and a/c bunkers, etc.), these are best handled by very fast cruise missiles like the Brahmos and Shaurya. For the movable components, like mobile launchers, battleships, etc.; this is what you task your aircraft with destroying.

Therefore, all talk of 'moving mud' is not really applicable to the first hour of a full-on hot war with Pakistan (when combat radius and speed are crucial factors). I believe the initial IAF sorties will likely not carry many LGBs weighing more than 500 kg, with most weighing 250 kg or less. If there is some ground-penetration requirement, I wouldn't be surprised if this is also handled with Brahmos or Shaurya, because their very high speed and attendant high kinematic energies will help, much more than a glide bomb could.

For these reasons (among others), I believe that the initial sorties by Tejas squadrons will have a very different load-out than those proposed by most posters in this particular thread. I think the LCAs will have more 'fire and forget', air-to-ground weapons (for mobile launchers and speeding trucks), as well as fast missiles (for downing Baburs and F-16s, etc.). Heavy bombs like the Paveway will not feature under Tejas wings until hour 4 or 5, at the very earliest.

Furthermore, sticking to my earlier point, the first stikes will be delivered by ground-launched Shauryas and Brahmos, with Brahmos-equiped a/c (SU-30s and eventually Raffys) being sent against naval targets.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 02 Oct 2011 05:59

awesome pic!

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 02 Oct 2011 06:08

in my opinion India would not attack Pak's nuclear storage sites or missile launchers but observe them carefully , and ask the US to convey a message that we will keep it conventional....if we start attacking and taking out their sites....the pakis will be more tempted to launch and take us down with them. or maybe we will attack their missile launchers but not the weapon storage bunkers.

I think it would be best policy to just chase the PAF away to the west and focus on destroying their economic and industrial infra back down to what it was in 1947. take the opportunity to rip the PRC's infra sites in POK too.

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 02 Oct 2011 07:16

Singhaji you got to be kidding, what industrial infra do we destroy football/cricket bat manufacturing units ? May be those shiny motorways/clifton area in karachi can be destroyed, but when we hit we should hit their sartaj i.e., the chashma plants. Anyways there is no expectation of conventional quid pro quo from the pakis, pakis being pakis will always want to up the ante and will try to catalyse a nuke exchange on the slightest provocation as they dont have much to lose in any case.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 02 Oct 2011 07:35

May be their Poppy fields and Fauji Foundation assets

Anything else we destroy will be pointless. OT

symontk · Post by **symontk** » 02 Oct 2011 07:44

I think its the standard circle calculation

Combat radius = 300KM
Perimeter (Ferry range) = 2*3.14*300 = 1884KM

Am I correct?

shiv wrote:
chackojoseph wrote:
IMHO,

air combat range of approx 275 - 300 Kms.

Chacko you have used the expression "Combat Range" twice. In most references that I have been reading (eg like Observers books from 1962 onwards ) the words used are either "range","ferry range" or "combat radius".

Range and Ferry range are one way trips. Combat radius is maximum distance reachable with fuel left for return journey. (two way trip) What do you mean by the expression "combat range"? Are you referring to combat radius?

Yes Combat radius. Go and come back.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 02 Oct 2011 08:04

I was thinking in terms of
- armaments plants (pac kamra, hit taxila, ofb wah...each are big targets, needing full squadron worth of visits and repeats)
- power plants
- coal mines
- electric distribution grid
- seaport infra
- railways - make the PR go away for a few years
- major bridges
- POL facilities and refineries
- metal and machine tool industry

idea is hit the stuff that will take years to repair and no quick fixes exist where throwing money (from china) will repair it quickly. all the above will have years of impact of economy and drive down the per-capita income further. more the number of angry and faithfools on the street, better the pressure cooker boils.

avoid wasting resources on hitting runways and hangers. these can be fully repaired in weeks. instead seek to locate and destroy a/c on the ground via precision and time sensitive attacks and shoot them from the air...even if it means leaving runways intact as a bait.

make the PN as history ofcourse. and destroy as much of their coastal shipping as possible.

similar target set is the best against China imo rather than purely military targets. we dont have 2500 F-15E to be doing mil + infra at once, so best to damage the infra in the rear and hit the military logistics in the middle and front.

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 02 Oct 2011 08:06

Singha wrote:....

make the PN as history ofcourse.

With special treatment for PNS barber

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 02 Oct 2011 08:13

symontk wrote:I think its the standard circle calculation

Combat radius = 300KM
Perimeter (Ferry range) = 2*3.14*300 = 1884KM

Am I correct?

See, its most likely the combat radius is what you have said. All my range figures given above can be extended by 50 -100 kms (which is a lot). Why I have estimated a conservative figure is because of two reasons.

1) Majority of the cases, it will not make sense to send Tejas beyond 200 kms because of its low payload. A MMRCA will be able to carry lot more firepower and fuel to operate beyond that effectively instead of a stretched LCA role.
2) It will be foolish to loose the 45 Million dollar piece for wanting of fuel in today's context. Air Force would like her to land with sufficient fuel than crash land starving of fuel in case she has to be diverted. combine that with Point 1) above. It will be irrational to send her to harms way.

As I said few lines back, Tejas may have official figures more than 50 - 100 kms than what I have quoted.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 02 Oct 2011 08:19

GD, It will be conventional from India side. Thats why US supplied all those AAMRAMs to Fizzle ya.

You need to get the airbase runways, radar sites, SAM sites to ensure less opposition. So that has to be by Brahmos. PII etc. then come the airstrikes. Wipe out every thing.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 02 Oct 2011 09:39

symontk wrote:I think its the standard circle calculation

Combat radius = 300KM
Perimeter (Ferry range) = 2*3.14*300 = 1884KM

Am I correct?

I don't think so:

The "radius" is just an indicator of how far away a target can be given the amount of fuel and typical mission that the aircraft is meant for. No exact mathematical accuracy.

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 02 Oct 2011 09:57

It probably means the range the aircraft can go and come back and still have reserve fuel. It doesnt take into account the loitering time.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 02 Oct 2011 11:54

my target set was based on assumption of a 3 weeks war in which we do not take much territory let alone attempting to halve pakistan, perhaps it would be in response to a kargil type incident in which the air war goes 100% IB but ground war remains limited.
hence pakis would be very much intact and get their hide saved by the sino-US combine.

in this scenario I felt better to target their economy than shoot a few F7s (which can be replaced)

Nikhil T · Post by **Nikhil T** » 03 Oct 2011 13:31

Just saw on TV - LCA FOC delayed by a year. Sigh.

sum · Post by **sum** » 03 Oct 2011 13:38

^^ Honestly, was never in doubt given the speed at which LSPs were rolling out in past few months...atleast good that realistic dates are given instead of the usual end of this month, next month etc..

nash · Post by **nash** » 03 Oct 2011 13:53

what is the previous date and what is the actual date now ?

steve · Post by **steve** » 03 Oct 2011 13:57

http://www.india-defence.com/reports-5113

IAF Chief: 214 FGFAs, HAL Tejas Clearance Delayed, MRCA Deliveries by 2014 and more..

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 03 Oct 2011 14:01

^^^

Be great full to whichever gods you worship that the product has at least reached IOC. Even if the FOC is delayed, it is not a great loss ATM.

The major problem will come when the Mk2 starts to suffer from delays. BTW, does any one has any chai wala sources on what is precise configuration of the Mk2. We have a lot of speculation of what is expected to be the Mk2. But nothing concrete as to what is required for the Mk2.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 03 Oct 2011 14:44

FOC target was Dec2011. so now Dec2012...considering no radar and derby AAM tests are even being tried as yet, its not going to happen by Dec2011 for sure.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 03 Oct 2011 14:45

Nikhil T wrote:Just saw on TV - LCA FOC delayed by a year. Sigh.

So the FOC will be by 2013 i suppose ?

nash · Post by **nash** » 03 Oct 2011 15:18

FOC target was Dec2011. so now Dec2012...considering no radar and derby AAM tests are even being tried as yet, its not going to happen by Dec2011 for sure.

So we can safely assume that atleast march 2013 we have FOC of LCA.... we should look at brighter side may be we can get ASTRA ready for LCA after Testing on MKI...

abhishek-nayak · Post by **abhishek-nayak** » 03 Oct 2011 17:37

What?? FOC in 2013? the F22 can travel at Mach 1.82 without using the afterburners.The Americans are at least half a century ahead of us in aerospace technology . just wondering what is the viability of investing in a project whose technology is close to being obsolete?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 03 Oct 2011 18:03

abhishek-nayak wrote:What?? FOC in 2013? the F22 can travel at Mach 1.82 without using the afterburners.The Americans are at least half a century ahead of us in aerospace technology . just wondering what is the viability of investing in a project whose technology is close to being obsolete?

There is no option other than to plod on. That tech comes from experience. No one will give it to us. "Investing in technology" is actually a meaningless term unless one is wiling to go the whole course taking the failures and delays with the successes.

I am jealous that my neighbors son got into IIT. I don;t even have a son or even a woman to make a son for me. I have to get woman, make son, educate him and hope I can make him get into IIT so I can thumb my nose at others who go ooh and aah at my neighbor's son.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 03 Oct 2011 18:11

^^^ goatnap your neighbour's son and paint him shiv-colour (green) and then wait for the ooh-aahs

Vashishtha · Post by **Vashishtha** » 03 Oct 2011 18:50

^^LMAO

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 03 Oct 2011 19:10

shiv ji, we all agree that.. but, one must also pay attention to the quality of experience and what type of experience - imported and imparted technology will only give that much experience.

imho, that is the main reason, many public heart burns and after burns happens. We all would like to know if real expertise gained with real inputs from both instiution and gov (funding), and well managed by private-public enterprise to future.

Private participation in project management, consulting and all those extras should be welcomed. Gov and defence still could own the niche and secured technology aspects. Focus area should be gaining expertise, within reasonable set deadlines.

Possibility: 51-100%
Capability: 100%
Urge to do so: 0-49%

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 03 Oct 2011 19:52

So any more details of the LCA trials in Pokhran?

Nikhil T · Post by **Nikhil T** » 03 Oct 2011 21:25

sum wrote:^^ Honestly, was never in doubt given the speed at which LSPs were rolling out in past few months...atleast good that realistic dates are given instead of the usual end of this month, next month etc..

I'd be really hesitant on qualifying these dates as "realistic". We've been on this road before, and as you said its only in the last few months that it was getting clear that FOC would be impossible before the end of 2011. We still don't know what the exact problem is, that has caused this delay in FOC testing and also in LSP production.

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 03 Oct 2011 22:27

If it has been delayed beyond Dec2012 then there is cause for worry. Even in the IOC ceremony wasnt Dec2012 mentioned as the FOC date?