Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

[Gyan]

If LCA is able to carry 4.25 tons then

2 x 2000 pounder PGMs = 2200kg
2 x 800 EFT = 1600kg
2x CCM = 200kg
Jammer + LDP = 300kg


Will become possible.

Balakot, here we come again.

[nachiket]

The Litening is not used just for lasing targets. It has a FLIR camera and HDTV color camera that generate high resolution images that help pilots spot and ID targets. Great for target detection and tracking of stationary targets. Is also very useful for Battle Damage Assessment, after the strike is completed.

Thanks. Makes sense.

[nachiket]

If LCA is able to carry 4.25 tons then

2 x 2000 pounder PGMs = 2200kg
2 x 800 EFT = 1600kg
2x CCM = 200kg
Jammer + LDP = 300kg


Will become possible.

Balakot, here we come again.

Balakot attack was carried out using SPICE 2000 which is not integrated yet on the Tejas, but once it is the loadout should be immediately possible. SPICE 2000 weighs ~900 kg so carrying 2 of these would be equivalent to the 4x450kg bombs shown in the second pic above. Rest of the loadout is the same. Only the jammer would be missing (till the dual-rack pylon is available).

[suryag]

Thanks Nachiket Sir, Clarified butter and Sugar in your mouth for that config

[Indranil]

Those are some impressive loadouts. Should shut down naysayers questioning the payloads of the Tejas.

Sir if possible can you also specify what is possible with no drop tanks but a pure air superiority role with AAR in place, would be interesting to see the missile loadout options, makes very intersting sense when in a potential "operation shitty retort" scenario.

I'm not IR, but since the centerline station cannot carry AAM's there is no reason to omit the 725l centerline tank in a pure air-to-air config. So the best possible config would be 725l centerline tank + 4 Derbys/Astras + 2 R-73s/ASRAAMs. When the dual rack outer pylon is developed and integrated, an SPJ pod will be added to that loadout.

Frankly, it is difficult to say. There are many kinds of A2A roles. Even within each role there would be different tactics on different occasions. The loadout may be different for different aircraft based on the tactics. And that's why flexibility is important.

If LCA is on patrol, then I agree with HVT sir: it will most likely be 2*1200 ltr + 2* BVR + 2*CCM. If we have a fewer LCAs in the air, then you might see 6 missiles + 725 ltr centerline tank. I think it would most likely be the same if LCA is providing cover to strike packages, I expect LCAs to be carrying 2*1200 ltr + 2* BVR + 2*CCM. If it is scrambling, it will most likely go up with 2*BVR + 2*CCM with or without centerline supersonic tank based on expected time to interception.

As I have said before, I can't see how a light aircraft like LCA will ever need more than 6 missiles. Frankly, it will rarely use up even 4.That's the result of DACTs done by TACDE even with our medium weights.

I will tell you one of my pet peeves. LCAs current DTs are state of the art in terms of construction, but quite unoptimized aerodynamically. A much larger centerline subsonic tank with an oval cross section can be designed. Hopefully atleast the 1360 ltr tanks being developed for MWF will be back ported back to Mk1 and Mk1As. These things look trivial. But it can greatly improve hangtime.

[Prasad]

For a Balakot type mission, would each aircraft need an SPJ or could it be "shared" between the aircraft?

[Aditya_V]

Did Mig-27 have limited armour plating for its role in CAS?

Very much, cocKpit was safe from 50 cal bullets

[srai]

Did Mig-27 have limited armour plating for its role in CAS?

Very much, cocKpit was safe from 50 cal bullets

It had some armor like bolt on armor plates outside of cockpit sides and titanium plating under the engine ... but nothing close to Su-25 level of design survivability.

Doubtful how useful those armor additions were in real combat. Maybe some effectiveness against air defense gun flak.

[Aditya_V]

Nowhere near as survivable as Su-25 but the armour was good enough 12.7 Machine guns etc when low level passes are done using the GSH-30 Gatling gun.
LCA with Helina/ SAAW type weapons will be more suited to today's enviorment.

[Saichand K]

Does Tejas have any sort of skin or plating which protects it from gun flake during CAS missions ?

[nachiket]

Frankly, it is difficult to say. There are many kinds of A2A roles. Even within each role there would be different tactics on different occasions. The loadout may be different for different aircraft based on the tactics. And that's why flexibility is important.

If LCA is on patrol, then I agree with HVT sir: it will most likely be 2*1200 ltr + 2* BVR + 2*CCM. If we have a fewer LCAs in the air, then you might see 6 missiles + 725 ltr centerline tank. I think it would most likely be the same if LCA is providing cover to strike packages, I expect LCAs to be carrying 2*1200 ltr + 2* BVR + 2*CCM. If it is scrambling, it will most likely go up with 2*BVR + 2*CCM with or without centerline supersonic tank based on expected time to interception.

As I have said before, I can't see how a light aircraft like LCA will ever need more than 6 missiles. Frankly, it will rarely use up even 4.That's the result of DACTs done by TACDE even with our medium weights.

4 AAM's each for a 2-ship CAP flight may not be enough as the Feb 27 experience has shown. Or I should say, having 2 BVRAAMs each will not be enough. Yes we will rarely use so many, but not having them available can put you in jeopardy. We ended up with a 4 vs 24 situation at the beginning of combat on Feb 27. The M2k's and Su-30's would have had their options limited had they been carrying just 2 BVRAAMs each and the pakis had pressed the attack instead of turning tail. The fact that between them the 2 M2k's would probably have 12 AAMs and the Su-30's up to 20 could have played a role in paki decision making, who knows.

4+2 loadout should be the minimum for a CAP mission unless we are on the offensive and have large number of aircraft in the air over a wide front (like Feb 26). 4 are enough for QRA though, basically performing the role WingCo Abhinandan's flight did that day.

I will tell you one of my pet peeves. LCAs current DTs are state of the art in terms of construction, but quite unoptimized aerodynamically. A much larger centerline subsonic tank with an oval cross section can be designed. Hopefully atleast the 1360 ltr tanks being developed for MWF will be back ported back to Mk1 and Mk1As. These things look trivial. But it can greatly improve hangtime.

Is this a very resource and time intensive task? Maybe there is so much to be done for Mk1A and MWF that they have no resources to spare. Disappointing though because it means we cannot fully exploit the Mk1 and Mk1A's capabilities for quite a while more.

Not integrating the EL-8222 SPJ pod on the Mk1 is my pet peeve, although as I understand we have IAF to blame for that rather than the ADA.

[Indranil]

I don't think that the Feb 27 experience is relevant. The F-16s fired the BVRs without the intention to engage. Also in a 24 to 4 ratio, how would having 2 BVRAAMs against say 4 help? I would rather have more CCMs. Frankly, if the 4s engage it is very unlikely, that they will come back. Their goal would be to take down as many as possible along with them.

That number of missiles per sortie is never ending thing. Flexibility comes at a price: operationally and financially. BVR missiles will add to drag in close combat. So if you havn't fired them either you pay the rag penalty or lose them. And even when you do the pylons will still add to drag. And the sticker price of BVRAAMs is not cheap either. 4 BVRAAMs is more than half the price of an LCA Mk1.

DTs are more complex than they look. Especially qualification. But it is not rocket science. I don't have friends in that lab, so I will not comment. But for how long have we been waiting for the supersonic tanks?!!! They are actually working on consolidating the designs now. They already have 3 tanks which are qualified and cleared (1200 ltr, 800 ltr and 725 ltrs) and 1 (450 ltrs SS) in qualification and 2 (720 ltr SS and 1360 ltr) more in the pipeline. Let's see.

[sankum]

There was result of a study in Eurofighter website where the ideal payload was 6 BVR AAM and 2 CCM.

IN tender for 57 Fighter it is 4 BVR + 2 CCM.

Tejas mk1 is 2 BVR+ 2 CCM.

Tejas mk2 it is 4 BVR + 4 CCM

AMCA is 4 internal BVR.

Rafale 8 AAM.( 4 Meteor + 4 Mica)

In India case Tejas mk2 load may be the best.

[Kartik]

I believe that ADA and possibly the IAF too do plan on a dual rack pylon for BVRAAMs. See the image below of a MWF (image courtesy Tarmak) from ADA.



Even the model of MWF displayed at AI-2019 and DefExpo2020 had the dual rack pylon for BVRAAMs. It is of course representational but it clearly indicates the level of flexibility and different stores configurations that could be required of the MWF. Even though the MWF has adequate number of hardpoints so that it can carry 4 BVRAAMS, 2 CCMs and even 3 drop tanks if required for longer loiter time.

So, I don't buy the arguments about it not being needed for the Tejas Mk1 but somehow needed for the MWF.

As the IAF explores expanded operations for the Tejas, certain missions will be seen where 2 BVRAAMS and 2 CCMs will not be adequate if a surge force of 4 to 6 F-16s face up against 2 Tejas Mk1 on CAP.

I'm sure that TACDE will try out more situations that simulate the large package force that faced off against 2 Su-30MKI and 2 Mirage-2000Is. Put 2 Tejas Mk1s in place of the Su-30 or Mirage and you'll see the threat it would face then.

[nachiket]

I don't think that the Feb 27 experience is relevant. The F-16s fired the BVRs without the intention to engage. Also in a 24 to 4 ratio, how would having 2 BVRAAMs against say 4 help? I would rather have more CCMs. Frankly, if the 4s engage it is very unlikely, that they will come back. Their goal would be to take down as many as possible along with them.

I don't follow that logic. If you are heavily outnumbered, the last thing you would want to do is get into a dogfight. There is little chance of making it out alive from that even if you take down one or two bandits. So I'm not sure how more CCM's will help. Your best chance will be to engage them at BVR range and try to make them go defensive. Your initial BVR shots might be posturing shots with low probability of kill and you will need more missiles available when you re-engage after going defensive yourself (assuming the adversary also launches at you). The plan has to be to keep them busy till reinforcements arrive to even the odds. This won't work if you merge with the bandits. You can't survive for too long in a merge with superior numbers of enemy fighters, doesn't matter how many CCM's you have. Also own aircraft coming in to help cannot engage with BVR missiles for fear of friendly fire, until you get out of there (or more likely get shot down).

That number of missiles per sortie is never ending thing. Flexibility comes at a price: operationally and financially. BVR missiles will add to drag in close combat. So if you haven't fired them either you pay the rag penalty or lose them. And even when you do the pylons will still add to drag. And the sticker price of BVRAAMs is not cheap either. 4 BVRAAMs is more than half the price of an LCA Mk1.

You will never get into close combat if your opponent keeps peppering you with BVR missiles and keeps you defensive with your RWR blaring while you have only 2 so have to use them judiciously.

[Kartik]

I don't think that the Feb 27 experience is relevant. The F-16s fired the BVRs without the intention to engage. Also in a 24 to 4 ratio, how would having 2 BVRAAMs against say 4 help? I would rather have more CCMs. Frankly, if the 4s engage it is very unlikely, that they will come back. Their goal would be to take down as many as possible along with them.

The F-16s fired their AMRAAMs from long range primarily to put the Su-30s on the defensive while they were in a more advantageous position, being at a higher altitude. And had it not been for the Su-30s going cold, one can never say what the result of those AMRAAM shots would've been. Salvo firing of BVRAAMs is also another tactic to increase the probability of kill against a single target. With just 2 BVRAAMs it leaves the fighter unable to do anything more at BVR ranges and the CCMs are held in case they are needed for self-defence at closer ranges. The last thing the pilot would want to do is to expend 2 BVRAAMs and then try to get closer to enemy fighters with the aim to firing CCMs at them. Stand-off is the best way to stay alive and being able to foil the enemy's mission by being able to fire at ranges that may not even result in a downing is a victory of sorts. Trade blows at long ranges and live to fight another day.

That number of missiles per sortie is never ending thing. Flexibility comes at a price: operationally and financially. BVR missiles will add to drag in close combat. So if you havn't fired them either you pay the rag penalty or lose them. And even when you do the pylons will still add to drag. And the sticker price of BVRAAMs is not cheap either. 4 BVRAAMs is more than half the price of an LCA Mk1.

Once again- they don't need to be carried on each CAP sortie. On most training missions, live missiles are not carried. Training rounds or dummy rounds will suffice for those missions, which constitute the bulk of all sorties flown by pilots. But if you're putting Mirage-2000s with 4 BVRAAMs and 2 CCMS as escorts for strikers, the same must be possible with the Tejas Mk1 and Mk1A too. Especially when they are capable of carrying that many and are not payload restricted as such.

When tensions are high, and we have experienced a scenario where the PAF is putting 1/3rd of its available fighters in the air, it makes sense to carry more missiles just to be on the safe side. The cost argument is baffling when one considers the risk of a pilot being downed or a fighter being exposed because it has no more BVRAAMs to keep enemy fighters at bay. if 5 AMRAAMs fired didn't find a single Su-30, what makes anyone so confident with 2?

[Karan M]

The AMRAAMs if they were guided in by an AEW&CS were even more dangerous than we would otherwise perceive. Its just completely flawed to think that carrying extra BVR is not useful. Ideally everyone wants the longest ranged stick and the radar to support it.

Way back in the 1960s and 1970s, when Northrop Grumman went around asking USN fighter pilots what they wanted, a key answer was "give me a 100 mile missile and the radar to fire it". That led to the AIM-54 Phoenix and AN/AWG-9.

[sankum]

For the post Balakot scenario of 4 fighters vs 24 enemy fighters should have been taken care by S400 and Barak8 ideally and not by defensive fighters flying at lower altitude.

Not a single BVR could be fired.

What is the statistical probability of such a scenario in all out war and a top cover by Su 30 with 12 AAM will be required only in initial stages of war.
If you are technological superior than you lose one fighter for 3 enemy fighter. Therefore a inventory of 6 BVR and 6 CCM per fighter is more than enough for any Airforce. 4 BVR plus 2 CCM is enough for most missions.

[Karan M]

Very kind of S400/MRSAM to be available where we need them

[sankum]

In future they will be. The operational flexibility for fighters is there.

[nachiket]

For the post Balakot scenario of 4 fighters vs 24 enemy fighters should have been taken care by S400 and Barak8 ideally and not by defensive fighters flying at lower altitude.

Not a single BVR could be fired.

What is the statistically probability of such a scenario in all out war and a top cover by Su 30 with 12 AAM will be required only in initial stages of war.
If you are technological superior than you lose one fighter for 3 enemy fighter. Therefore a inventory of 6 BVR and 6 CCM per fighter is more than enough for any Airforce. 4 BVR plus 2 CCM is enough for most missions.

SAM systems have limitations in mountainous terrain. And they are not mobile (not as much as aircraft). As for S-400 we are getting a grand total of 5 systems to protect important cities and installations.

On Feb 27, even if a SAM system had been available, the pakis never crossed the LoC. It is a different level of escalation if you start shooting down aircraft across the border with SAMs. BVR's were not initial fired for the same reason. It is easier to change RoE's for aircraft flying close to the border to allow them to fire BVR's across than to let all SAM systems on the border engage bogeys on the other side during peacetime.

[sankum]

I am talking of fighters flying at 40000 feet altitude used to launch BVR which would have been taken care by the SAM system. For the rest sufficient number of Migs were Airborne .

[nachiket]

I am talking of fighters flying at 40000 feet altitude used to launch BVR which would have been taken care by the SAM system. For the rest sufficient number of Migs were Airborne .

The ones at 40k feet were still on the other side of the LoC and fired their AMRAAMs from that side. You'd need SAMs all along the border which is very difficult there due to the terrain. Even high flying fighters can get masked by high mountains if the SAM radars are in the valleys.

And no sufficient Migs were not airborne. There were actually zero "Migs" airborne in that region. All we had were 2 Su-30's and 2 M2k's. WingCo Abhinandan and his wingman were on QRA and launched after the attack was detected and paki intentions became more clear. There were other aircraft in the air but they were relatively farther away and were vectored in but would take more time to arrive.

[srai]

IAF Operational deployment tactics on Feb 27:

1. Continuous air superiority coverage by 2 x Su-30MKI at various sectors from rear bases

1.1 at least three (or more) sectors covered by these HCA

2. Additional air superiority provided by MiG-29 and
Mirage-2000 at some sectors from rear bases

2.1 at least one sector covered by these MCA (one pair Mirage-2000I)

2.2 QRA but from bases bit further back (at least one pair of MiG-29 scrambled)

3. Supplemented by QRA 2 x MiG-21 each from forward bases at various sectors

3.1 at least three airbases were scrambled

3.2 second pair available for QRA likely per base


Air superiority aircraft would be loaded up with 6-to-10 AAMs (2-4 CCM + 4-8 BVR) while QRA scrambled aircraft would be loaded more lightly with 4-to-6 AAMs (2 CCM + 2-4 BVR). Air superiority fighters keep enemy engaged at longer distances while the QRA aircraft close in for a kill at closer ranges. QRA aircraft need to be protected during ingress and egress.

[Indranil]

Knowledgeable guys are arguing, so I am happy to engage.

Typical sorties (not ferry flights) of light fighters typically last about an hour. How long do you guys imagine a light fighter will stay engaged in this 1 hour period? In that engagement duration, can you paint me a scenario where a light fighter will use up 8 AAMs (4 BVRAAMs + 4 CCMs)? Because if you can all the 5th gen heavies are woefully under-armed.

[Gyan]

https://idrw.org/astra-mark-2-will-feat ... hal-sinha/


Astra-2 will have both rail & ejector launch capabilities.

[Gyan]

So the possible configuration of LCA MKI in A to A role can be:-

3 BVR, 2 CCM, 1 Jammer, 2 DT (1200, later 1360). I am assuming that we are Placing one BVR at fuselage hardpoint with ejector launch ability.

500-600 + 200 + 200 + 2720 = 3720 kg only. In fact adequate scope to add additional jammer pod ( for bipod external jammer), towed decoys, even DIRCM, more missiles etc in future with multi point pylons.

A possible configuration of LCA MKI in A to G role:-

2 Spice 2000, 2 CCM, 1 LDP & 1 Jammer, 2 DT (800)

1800-2200 + 200 + 200 + 200 + 1600 = 4000-4400kg


It would be interesting to see how far can we push the MTOW of LCA. From Indranil posts, it seems that we are already in Range of 13800kg MTOW and trying for 14200kg MTOW

[Gyan]

Knowledgeable guys are arguing, so I am happy to engage.

Typical sorties (not ferry flights) of light fighters typically last about an hour. How long do you guys imagine a light fighter will stay engaged in this 1 hour period? In that engagement duration, can you paint me a scenario where a light fighter will use up 8 AAMs (4 BVRAAMs + 4 CCMs)? Because if you can all the 5th gen heavies are woefully under-armed.

While your assertion that 4 missiles are adequate seems right but the combat profile is changing. Feb 27, shows that in future, two opposing flight packages might approach each other firing missiles from long distances. AWACS will give advance warning to both sides about location of opposing forces and they will start firing missiles at each other from Max Range itself. This type of air combat fight has been practiced by IAF in various international exercises also.

For Eg. Two combat packages approach each other and first missile is fired by Mig-21 loaded with 4 AAMs, from a distance of 100km. Other 3 missiles are fired roughly 10secs apart. Total 40 secs. Now Both packages are still roughly 75km apart and The first missile is still 30-50km away from target But there are no more missiles to fire.

Therefore Mig-21, can fire 4 missiles 30 seconds apart. So that After firing 2 BVR missiles, it will be range to fire WVR missile after 60 seconds. But during that time opposing F-16 or Mirage 2000 can fire 6 BVR AAMs & break off.

[Indranil]

Why would I fire from 100 kms away even if I could? That's 5 million down the drain.

[shaun]

ELM-2052 AESA radar and EL-L/8222 electronic warfare equipped Hawk.

[tsarkar]

Knowledgeable guys are arguing, so I am happy to engage.

Typical sorties (not ferry flights) of light fighters typically last about an hour. How long do you guys imagine a light fighter will stay engaged in this 1 hour period? In that engagement duration, can you paint me a scenario where a light fighter will use up 8 AAMs (4 BVRAAMs + 4 CCMs)? Because if you can all the 5th gen heavies are woefully under-armed.

While your assertion that 4 missiles are adequate seems right but the combat profile is changing. Feb 27, shows that in future, two opposing flight packages might approach each other firing missiles from long distances. AWACS will give advance warning to both sides about location of opposing forces and they will start firing missiles at each other from Max Range itself. This type of air combat fight has been practiced by IAF in various international exercises also.

For Eg. Two combat packages approach each other and first missile is fired by Mig-21 loaded with 4 AAMs, from a distance of 100km. Other 3 missiles are fired roughly 10secs apart. Total 40 secs. Now Both packages are still roughly 75km apart and The first missile is still 30-50km away from target But there are no more missiles to fire.

Therefore Mig-21, can fire 4 missiles 30 seconds apart. So that After firing 2 BVR missiles, it will be range to fire WVR missile after 60 seconds. But during that time opposing F-16 or Mirage 2000 can fire 6 BVR AAMs & break off.

This scenario and the overall discussion completely ignores a very vital technical point - Probability of Kill

Those who might have observed Tigers, Lions, Cheetahs and Leopards hunting would have seen them patiently stalking and starting to chase and kill only when they're certain of a high degree of Probability of Kill.

Otherwise its a wastage of energy that weakens the predator and makes it less effective in future hunts.

Similarly in air to air or anti ship or anti submarine combat weapons are launched only when there is a high certainty of Probability of Kill and one has an accurate tracking solution.

In a modern dogfight with aircraft continuously maneuvering going hot and going cold with jamming in play, even despite AWACS support, its difficult to get a firing solution with high PK.

The fact that Abhinandan's missiles were recovered intact by Pakistanis is actually a very good testimony of his fire discipline.

The fact that a Tejas carries 6 missiles is ample for a hour long sortie given the time the fighter will spend stalking its prey, getting into an advantageous position and firing ONLY when it is certain of a high PK.

Spray and Pray tactic by Pakistanis firing AMRAAMS and hoping to hit a target is a sign of desperation unlike the sign of discipline shown by Abhinandan.

The Israelis exploited this Arab mentality numerous times by flying drones or electronic targets and making Arab fighters lose their missiles and fuel and then targeting the weakened Arab fighters

I consider the Pakistani AMRAAM barrage similar stupidity as their wedding AK-47 fire.

https://www.yenisafak.com/en/video-gall ... ng-2174867

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldn ... dding.html

The groom unleashed a series of rapid aerial shots with an AK-47 rifle to celebrate his nuptials, but quickly lost control of the weapon and accidentally shot his guests, the Anatolia news agency said.

His father and two of his aunts died in hospital.

I dont have the link where one Pakistani F-16 shot down another in Afghanistan but similar stupidity.

[tsarkar]

Why is the LDP necessary in the second config? Those are dumb bombs right? Shouldn't the radar's a-to-g mode be enough for a CCIP/CCRP drop?

The Litening pod includes a laser rangefinder whose data is used by the weapons computer to calculate continuously computed release point and impact point. The laser rangefinder is more accurate with better resolution than radar A2G modes, especially for fast moving targets like tanks.

Which is why dedicated strike aircraft like Jaguar and MiG-27 had a laser range finder in the nose rather than a radar.

The laser range finder improves accuracy of dumb bombs.





In Tejas, the laser range finder is in the pod.

[Gyan]

Why would I fire from 100 kms away even if I could? That's 5 million down the drain.

Pls, BVR missiles are not USD 5 million dollar each. MICA were purchased at uber expensive USD 2.5 million each while Astra are around USD 1 million. R77 around 1.25 & WVR missiles are 0.25 to 0.75 depending on make.

[nachiket]

Knowledgeable guys are arguing, so I am happy to engage.

Typical sorties (not ferry flights) of light fighters typically last about an hour. How long do you guys imagine a light fighter will stay engaged in this 1 hour period? In that engagement duration, can you paint me a scenario where a light fighter will use up 8 AAMs (4 BVRAAMs + 4 CCMs)? Because if you can all the 5th gen heavies are woefully under-armed.

I don't see the use of 4 CCM's either. You rarely see even heavier aircraft carrying 4 (except in the 12-AAM max loadout on the Su-30 which will also get reduced to 2 CCM's when the wingtips carry the jamming pods instead of R-73's). All the heavy a-to-a loadouts on US aircraft with dual rack pylons etc. are used for carrying more AMRAAMs not Sidewinders.

But 4 BVRAAMs, most definitely. Not in a QRA scenario like what the 2 Mig-21's were tasked with on Feb 27, but a CAP flight for sure needs more. You can easily find yourself outnumbered and needing to hold off the enemy till reinforcements arrive. Even in a 2:1 engagement, you get 2 TWS shots at hostiles before you are empty. No possibility of re-engaging after going defensive even once because you have nothing left to fight with. If your opponent has more available he has a huge advantage. With the proliferation of sophisticated RWRs and ECM systems (like the AIDEWS on paki F-16's) along with new stuff like towed decoys etc. the ability to defend against BVR missiles has improved. You will need to carry as many as is realistically possible. In the case of the LCA (or the M2k and Mig-29) that will be 4 missiles.

[Karan M]

In future they will be. The operational flexibility for fighters is there.

Sure, 5 squadrons of S-400 and 9 squadrons of MRSAM will be everywhere where we need them to be. You do realize that SAMs are basically defensive systems and subject to line of sight and terrain restrictions as well?

[brar_w]

Why would I fire from 100 kms away even if I could? That's 5 million down the drain.

Pls, BVR missiles are not USD 5 million dollar each. MICA were purchased at uber expensive USD 2.5 million each while Astra are around USD 1 million. R77 around 1.25 & WVR missiles are 0.25 to 0.75 depending on make.

It is remarkable how the cost of BVRAAM's has constantly gone down (this trend hasn't really been seen in CCMs). Expect this trend to continue when clean sheet designs are fielded. AIM-120D has a 1.27 Million fly-away cost which is expected to come down to $1.13 million by 2023 despite it getting a completely new signal processor by then. ASTRA will allow the MOD to realize similar cost-savings that it can't fully realize when importing. Automation and solid state devices have meant that production CAPEX investments have increased but variable cost per round has been significantly reduced as long as high production rates are achieved and maintained.

[nachiket]

Why is the LDP necessary in the second config? Those are dumb bombs right? Shouldn't the radar's a-to-g mode be enough for a CCIP/CCRP drop?

The Litening pod includes a laser rangefinder whose data is used by the weapons computer to calculate continuously computed release point and impact point. The laser rangefinder is more accurate with better resolution than radar A2G modes, especially for fast moving targets like tanks.

Yes, the more accurate ranging along with easier sighting and BDA etc. which Kartik mentioned will make the pod essential in ground attack missions even while not using LGB's. Thanks. Clears some doubts in my mind.

[Indranil]

Knowledgeable guys are arguing, so I am happy to engage.

Typical sorties (not ferry flights) of light fighters typically last about an hour. How long do you guys imagine a light fighter will stay engaged in this 1 hour period? In that engagement duration, can you paint me a scenario where a light fighter will use up 8 AAMs (4 BVRAAMs + 4 CCMs)? Because if you can all the 5th gen heavies are woefully under-armed.

I don't see the use of 4 CCM's either. You rarely see even heavier aircraft carrying 4 (except in the 12-AAM max loadout on the Su-30 which will also get reduced to 2 CCM's when the wingtips carry the jamming pods instead of R-73's). All the heavy a-to-a loadouts on US aircraft with dual rack pylons etc. are used for carrying more AMRAAMs not Sidewinders.

But 4 BVRAAMs, most definitely. Not in a QRA scenario like what the 2 Mig-21's were tasked with on Feb 27, but a CAP flight for sure needs more. You can easily find yourself outnumbered and needing to hold off the enemy till reinforcements arrive. Even in a 2:1 engagement, you get 2 TWS shots at hostiles before you are empty. No possibility of re-engaging after going defensive even once because you have nothing left to fight with. If your opponent has more available he has a huge advantage. With the proliferation of sophisticated RWRs and ECM systems (like the AIDEWS on paki F-16's) along with new stuff like towed decoys etc. the ability to defend against BVR missiles has improved. You will need to carry as many as is realistically possible. In the case of the LCA (or the M2k and Mig-29) that will be 4 missiles.

okay. Let's firm up that scenario. I am doing patrol. We are tracking a flight on the other side. We know that we are outnumbered 2:1. They also know that we are there (our borders are such). We have about 40-45 minutes of flight time left. Please answer a few questions:

1. How many of us are on patrol? Let us keep a homogeneous mix of Tejas only aircrafts
2. How are the aircrafts spaced?
3. How are the opponents spaced? What is their mix of aircrafts?
4. The opponents suddenly change coarse toward our border and are classified as hostile. What is the separation at this point? Are they flying towards us in one formation. Or have they split up.

Once, we know these. We can game it out more effectively. You can chose your answers based on a scenario where you think I will need 4 BVRs and 2 CCMs.

[Indranil]

Pls, BVR missiles are not USD 5 million dollar each. MICA were purchased at uber expensive USD 2.5 million each while Astra are around USD 1 million. R77 around 1.25 & WVR missiles are 0.25 to 0.75 depending on make.

It is remarkable how the cost of BVRAAM's has constantly gone down (this trend hasn't really been seen in CCMs). Expect this trend to continue when clean sheet designs are fielded. AIM-120D has a 1.27 Million fly-away cost which is expected to come down to $1.13 million by 2023 despite it getting a completely new signal processor by then. ASTRA will allow the MOD to realize similar cost-savings that it can't fully realize when importing. Automation and solid state devices have meant that production CAPEX investments have increased but variable cost per round has been significantly reduced as long as high production rates are achieved and maintained.

Thanks for the correction. By the way, Mica doesn't have a range of 100 kms even in the rosiest of scenarios. The farthest that you can take a meaningful shot using a Mica is between 40-60 kms. Against a decent opposing aircraft,you will end up expending that missile, but can get yourself in a favourable position. From that point on, how many more BVRs are you going to fire.

AIM120Ds are not pat of our part of Tejas's arsenal. It is not in any roadmap that I have seen.

I mean what is the big deal in designing a dual pylon for the midboard weapon station of Tejas Mk1/Mk1A. I have not heard of anybody asking for that requirement.

[Kartik]

I mean what is the big deal in designing a dual pylon for the midboard weapon station of Tejas Mk1/Mk1A. I have not heard of anybody asking for that requirement.

Then why is ADA showing it in MWF weapon loadout images and in their models of MWF?