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

[sankum]

MWF with 4 BVR+ 4 CCM with 3 EFT for heavily loaded CAP or strike with PGM.

For QR interception 6 sq Tejas mk1/a with 2 BVR + 2 CCM is the operational requirement of IAF

They have simulated the war with different tactics and arrived at the optimum configuration of required AAM payload of different fighters on different missions assigned.

[sankum]

Even Rafale in deep penetration strike role will carry 2 Meteor+ 2 CCM + 6 standoff PGM along with 3 EFT+ CFT.

AMCA will carry only 4 internal BVR .

You empty the missile load you exit the Battle ,land ,reload, refuel and join the Battle again .

[Indranil]

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?

Two reasons:
1. MWF hangtime is going to be very high. At 3.3-3.4 tons of internal fuel, you are looking 6% more internal fuel than Mirage 2000 with a significantly more efficient engine. Expect the hangtime of MWF to be 70% higher than an LCA Mk1/Mk1A.
2. You will see those dual pylons used only when they are self escort strike missions.

[Kartik]

MWF with 4 BVR+ 4 CCM with 3 EFT for heavily loaded CAP or strike with PGM.

For QR interception 6 sq Tejas mk1/a with 2 BVR + 2 CCM is the operational requirement of IAF

They have simulated the war with different tactics and arrived at the optimum configuration of required AAM payload of different fighters on different missions assigned.

And you know the operational requirement of the IAF based on? A like to like comparison with the MiG-21 Bison?

You don't know what they've simulated as yet and what the missions assigned to the Tejas are since neither have been revealed.

[sankum]

I don't know. IAF knows the best. I take what HVT Sir said as the operational requirement.

[nachiket]

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.

Ok this will be a long one so apologies in advance. We will consider Northern Kashmir as the general area since we are the weakest there in terms of airbases available. Somewhat similar to the Feb 27 situation but we will make significant changes to the scenario and certain assumptions which I have outlined below. Others are encouraged to change it and fix the mistakes I am bound to make.

On the IAF side, we know that on Feb 27 we had 2 Su-30's and 2 Mirage-2000's on patrol in 2 separate flights. We will change both these flights to Tejas Mk1's. I am bad with Maps and distances so apologies for errors here but let's consider one flight to be a little south of Kargil while the other one slightly north of Baramula. Both flights are 30km from the LoC. Plus we have 2 Tejas on QRA at Srinagar with a scramble time of 5 mins from the alert being sounded and 2 more at Udhampur. There are other aircraft (also Tejas) in the air over north and central Punjab and RJ but they are tasked with monitoring PAF aircraft performing aggressive maneuvers across the LoC from them (similar to what happened on Feb 27).

Each Tejas is carrying two 1200 liter drop tanks, 2 Astras and 2 R-73's.

On the PAF side, instead of the 24 aircraft of various types they used on Feb 27, let us concentrate on 2 flights of 4 F-16 blk 50's tasked with OCA only. The idea is to head towards the LoC and cross it if necessary to carry out a fighter sweep and clear the path of the strike packages which are loitering a short distance behind them and which we will not bother with for our current purposes. Their locations are approximately due north of the 2 Tejas CAP flights and flying straight towards them about 100km from the LoC.

Each F-16 is equipped with CFT's and a centerline drop tank (giving them decent endurance) along with 6 AMRAAMs and 2 Sidewinders.

In order to simplify the scenario a bit, we will make some assumptions, otherwise there are just too many variables to contend with.
1. Both own and hostile aircraft are approximately at the same altitude. Let's say 35k feet.
2. Detection ranges for the Tejas and F-16's for each other are the same - 130km.
3. Engagement ranges for the Astra and AMRAAM-120C5 are the same with launch authority for a hot target at 100km.
4. There are no RoE restrictions on both sides regarding launching BVR missiles across the border.
5. Effect of jamming is not considered. Either all 8 F-16's have their SPJ's unserviceable or all Tejas are Mk1.A variants carrying ELL-8222 jamming pods and they have similar performance as the F-16's SPJ evening things out.
6. Most importantly, the PAF does not care about starting all-out war and is determined to press the attack as long as the aerial situation is in their favor and do not mind crossing the LoC.

The F-16's are considered a possible threat at about 100km from the LoC, and both Tejas flights are asked to engage. Remember the same thing is going on at multiple locations all along the LoC and IB from Kashmir to RJ. So we don't know yet whether they will actually do anything or if this is just another feint. So the QRA Tejas at Srinagar are not launched as yet.

Now both the Tejas flights turn in towards their respective hostiles and head towards them on military power (no burning or dropping tanks yet, they don't know if this is a feint and might need to conserve fuel for a later engagement). The F-16's and Tejas detect each other on radar immediately, are weapons free and will get launch authority on their BVRAAMs at 100km separation. Neither side launches at this stage. However neither side knows whether the enemy has launched or not since the RWR will not give an indication when the missiles are launched in TWS mode. So there will be guesswork involved about the opponent's tactics and intentions at this point, more so on our side.

The F-16's decide to launch at 80km. Each F-16 launches 1 AMRAAM each in TWS mode so each Tejas has 2 AMRAAMs launched at it. An alternative would be to lock the target in STT mode and purposely given them the indication from their RWR's, the intention being to force the Tejas pilots to either go defensive immediately, or launch their own missiles at long range where the pk is low. For the Tejas pilots, whether they get an indication or not, they have to assume the F-16's may have launched on them. Since they are outnumbered 2:1 they will be forced to launch both their Astras on 2 different targets in order to engage all 4. Otherwise the 2 which are not engaged have no reason to go defensive and can just burn towards them at high speed and engage them while they are busy evading the AMRAAMs.

Now how do the Tejas pilots deal with this situation? Honestly I don't know. I'm not a fighter pilot nor do I know any. Even if I did, they wouldn't reveal their BVR tactics. So someone else will need to help out here.

What is clear is that the Tejas pilots get one shot on each of the F-16's. No more. Whenever they do decide to evade they will most likely still end up at a significant distance away from their targets since they would probably be moving opposite to the direction the missile is coming from while evading it, while the hostiles might be doing the same to evade the Astras fired on them. They are not going to end up in visual range after the first exchange. So the CCM's are useless at this point. Only thing they can do after that is flee towards Srinagar and let the 4 QRA aircraft which should have already launched by now deal with the hostiles.

Now the F-16's after doing this, still have 5 AMRAAMs each. So after engaging one flight of hostiles and forcing them to disengage, they still have more missiles available than the next 4 Tejas (QRA flights) coming in. In the meantime before the QRA flights reach there, the strike package can head towards the LoC. Even after the QRA flights arrive on station the F-16's still have enough missiles to keep them busy while the strike package does its work.

The intention of the F-16's is to not necessarily shoot down the LCA's but to keep them busy defending against AMRAAMs long enough that they are unable to engage the strike element. Our plan will be to keep the F-16's busy long enough till more reinforcements (QRA fighters as well as other aircraft vectored in from farther away) can reach the area and make the situation untenable for the strikers to proceed with their plan. We have to do this with 2 BVRAAMs each while the adversaries have 6 each. You tell me whether this can be accomplished and how. More importantly would any pilot say no to having 2 extra BVRAAMs available in this situation.

I am sure I must have made a lot of errors in this scenario but I am willing to learn.

[srai]

^^^

Main thing to point out is the air superiority roles will be primarily done by Su-30MKI and MCA (MiG-29/Mirage-2000/Rafale). LCA Mk1/1A, similar to MiG-21 Bison in current role, will perform QRA from forward bases.

And if the LCA were to do CAP as you portrayed in your scenario and the situation across the border develops, rear airbase assets with HCA/MCA would be launched much earlier. AWACS and other force multipliers would detect large scale movements on PAF airbases as soon as it starts occurring.

LCAs also have an advantage in that they can be hot pressure refueled. So they can generate significantly more sorties in a short span of time.

When it comes to defense of homeland, the IAF pilots are highly trained and motivated bunch as shown on Feb 27. They will press on with CCM if the situation dictates it. They won’t just fire their BVR and go home.

As far as air strikes close to the border goes (i.e. within 30km), both sides can’t really stop it. Very short reaction times for defense to counteract, especially with long-ranged glide/PGM in possession. On the other hand, Deep strikes are a lot harder to accomplish (and survive it).

[Gyan]

This situations described above, can be better discussed if we consider:-

1. Astra in mass production is intended to cost around USD 0.75 million to 0.5 million

2. Astra will have a range of 100+km in certain ideal scenarios. Astra 2 will be longer ranged.

3. LCA in interceptor role may be carrying 4 BVR + 2 WVR missiles, as drop tanks may not be essential

4. Feb 27, type of Engagement will now be a norm. Dhanoa Our Chief has already indicated that we should have shot down 4-5 Paki aircraft (and it was a missed opportunity).

5. Therefore trigger will be pulled much earlier, even with low probability of hit.

6. Traditional idea of conserving missiles for prolonged conflict, may not apply.

7. In future missiles may be fired with assistance of data links without radars of fighters being used. Forcing each side to fire as soon as possible

[srai]

...

What is clear is that the Tejas pilots get one shot on each of the F-16's. No more. Whenever they do decide to evade they will most likely still end up at a significant distance away from their targets since they would probably be moving opposite to the direction the missile is coming from while evading it, while the hostiles might be doing the same to evade the Astras fired on them. They are not going to end up in visual range after the first exchange. So the CCM's are useless at this point. Only thing they can do after that is flee towards Srinagar and let the 4 QRA aircraft which should have already launched by now deal with the hostiles.

...

Game of pokers! How would the PAF know how many missiles the LCA pair are carrying? LCAs could also hold on to their BVR until they have better PK. As shown by the Su-30MKI on Feb 27, evading and breaking lock doesn’t necessarily mean flying away. Su-30MKI got as close as 30km that day.

If the F-16s are firing at max ranges with low PK, the LCAs just need to stick around really. LCAs could keep dogging the low PK Missile shots making the F-16s waste their precious imported BVRs. It would be up to the PAF at that point to get in closer if they want to protect their strike assets, which by the way in your scenario would be quite far behind. Enough time for reinforcement to get there and challenge the strike package. They won’t get too far in.

[SidSoma]

if a situation similar to 27th Feb,where red force to blue force numbers is like 12:1 or 6:1 is allowed to occur again, it would be a strategic/operational blunder. IAF would be hard at the game board to ensure such a handicap does not happen again. It is definitely not a given that even an MKI in a complete AtoA load out with all its missiles will be able to ward off an enemy who is ready for attrition. On 27th Feb it is abundently clear that the Pakis were not ready for attrition and hence they ran away at every sign of trouble. If not for the mountains of Srinagar, it would have been difficult to shoot down the F-16 and kudos to Abhi for using it.

HVT sir has been clear that 2 BVR + 2CCM load out is what the IAF envisage. Surely it is based on the fact that LCA is not expected to take on more than one or two adversaries at a time. Trying to use it as an air dominance/superiority fighter just is not logical. There is a reason CAP was being flown by Rambha and 2000s and not by 21s. I think deployment strategies during high alert periods and alarms when seeing swarms being formed will be formulated to ensure that numbers are more or less equalised. It does not make sense to ask LCA to carry larger numbers of BVR to take on large force single handedly or against numerical odds

[nachiket]

Guys please read Indranil's post. He specifically asked for a scenario where all aircraft involved are Tejas, they are being used for a patrol mission (not QRA), are outnumbered 2:1, etc. I used that as a baseline for coming up with the scenario.

If the contention is that Tejas will be used the same way we used the Bisons - as QRA and point defence aircraft only, then I agree that the 2 BVR + 2 CCM loadout makes sense. My disagreement with Indranil is about the necessity for additional BVRAAMs while performing a CAP mission similar to what the Su-30's and M2k's were performing on Feb 27 or the advantage of carrying large number of BVRAAMs in general.

Now if you say that the LCA will never be used in that role, then I would suggest that we are not utilizing that asset to its full potential. There is no reason why a Mig-29 can be used for CAP while an LCA cannot. Their max air-to-air loadouts are exactly the same! And aerial refueling means that the time on station can be increased for the LCA too, not that it will be too far off from that of the Mig-29 when both are carrying centerline tanks. But we are insisting for some reason that the LCA be restricted to 4 AAMs only (because they are not needed) while the Mig-29 can carry six.

[srai]

LCA Mk.1/1A can carry 6 AAM with a centerline tank. 2 x CCM and 4 x BVR all underwing stations. They are qualified to carry BVR at inner wing and mid wing stations as shown below:

[Gyan]

I think what we are saying is that in a short & quick conflict, the importance of PK will be relatively lower. Hence instead of 2 BVR + 2 CCM, which would have been adequate in normal scenarios, now we need 4 BVR + 2 CCM for LCA.

While heavy duty work has to be done by other medium & heavy fighters, still we need to equip LCA as best as possible.

Equipping LCA with 6 Missiles in Interceptor role is not difficult as there will be no DTs

But in CAP situation there are 2 possible configurations:-

6 missiles + 1 DT on centerline
6 missiles using Dual point pylon on mid wing hard point + 3 DTs.

For the latter configuration, LCA seems to have the payload capacity, the only missing link is dual point pylon.

For the former, we should try to develop a bigger oval cross section DT for centerline, otherwise on station time may be too low

[Gyan]

The main reasons for making careful use of BVR missiles are as follows but lot of reasons don't hold true anymore:-

1. Costly, but cost of indigenous missiles is 1/5th

2. There are other heavy aircraft, why burden LCA. If 6 missiles are required by other heavies then we have to examine to what extent LCA can fulfill this role, also.

3. Limited flying hours of missiles. Flight hours of missiles is increasingly. From 50-60 they have gone upto 400-600 hours.

4. Further missiles are only flown in wartime & at high tension time and not in routine peacetime.

5. After flight hours are over, missiles are not thrown away, they are refurbished at a small cost.

[srai]

Guys, with regards to dual pylons on LCA Mk.1 it will happen in the next few years. It was just that it wasn’t a requirement for FOC.

With Mk1A, a dual rack on the outermost pylon is already underway.



If they can do that for the outermost wing station, it’s not too far off to see that they can do it for other wing stations as well. It is just that design and qualification are time consuming exercise. Then also, a matter of aligning with customer priorities as well.

Have patience, eventually BRF jingos dreams will come true

[srai]

^^^
And if every wing station carries a dual rack, that’s 12 AAMs for you ... plus the centerline still available for 725liter tank!

[Gyan]

I think 12 AAMs is definitely going overboard. If we can put in 6 AAMs it's more than adequate for LCA or even other medium fighter aircrafts. So ideal configuration for CAPs for LCA would be:-

1. 4 BVR + 2 CCM
2. Jammers
3. 3 DTs 1200+1200+800

[srai]

Derby BVR plus LGB loadout (hadn’t noticed this config before). LGB on the innermost pylon. Typically, it was seen on the mid station. The other side has a 800/1200ltr drop tank looks like.

[Gyan]

It seems that Contract for 83 LCA MKIA is not going to be signed anytime soon. Atleast few months away.

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/12511 ... 21888?s=19

[Saichand K]

Will Tejas Mk1A have LEVECONS ?

[sankum]

Harsh Vardhan Thakur
@hvtiaf

1. Hawk's skin is paper-thin to keep weight low. Highly optimised for training role. Can't take gun fire, ricochet, shrapnel etc.

2. #Tejas is a flying tank. Totally different league.

3. Instantaneous & Sustained Turn Rates are not influenced by Max structural-G limits.

2:36 PM · Apr 17, 2020·Twitter

[ashishvikas]

Will Tejas Mk1A have LEVECONS ?

No.

[nachiket]

LCA Mk.1/1A can carry 6 AAM with a centerline tank. 2 x CCM and 4 x BVR all underwing stations. They are qualified to carry BVR at inner wing and mid wing stations as shown below:

I know that saar. I meant the same thing when I said that the max loadouts for the LCA and Mig-29 are the same for air-to-air.

[JayS]

Harsh Vardhan Thakur
@hvtiaf

1. Hawk's skin is paper-thin to keep weight low. Highly optimised for training role. Can't take gun fire, ricochet, shrapnel etc.

2. #Tejas is a flying tank. Totally different league.

3. Instantaneous & Sustained Turn Rates are not influenced by Max structural-G limits.

2:36 PM · Apr 17, 2020·Twitter

Interesting comment, the third one. The corner point at which defines your ITR, is limited by the Structural limit.

[la.khan]

^^^
And if every wing station carries a dual rack, that’s 12 AAMs for you ... plus the centerline still available for 725liter tank!

When comparing regular/normal hard point vs. dual rack, the one scenario where dual rack gets the IAF an advantage is when facing an adversary with numerical superiority in the air (for ex. Hans). We will need as many Tejas up in the air with as many missiles (BVRs and/or CCMs) Tejas wings can handle.

So, maybe, ADA/DRDO/HAL can qualify Tejas for both regular/normal hard point and dual rack. Manufacture dozens of dual rack units and hand them over to the IAF. In case of air action, let the IAF base commander(s) decide whether to send up Tejas with regular/normal hard point vs. dual rack.

A related question: why limit to dual rack? Why not triple rack? Can Tejas wings handle the load of that many missiles?

[sankum]

There will have to be space to carry as many dual racks as possible . See the MWF diagram when large PGM with large wings is carried on inner wing hardpoint the middile wing hard point carries only single BVR. Dual rack BVR is carried only with EFT on inner wing hardpoint .
Similarly with dual rack CCM on outer wing hardpoint of Tejas mk1a is it possible to carry dual rack BVR on midwing hardpoint on the same wing?
Rafale when carring triple rack PGM on mid wing point do not carry Mica missile on outer wing hardpoint.
A simple Google search will show how heavy triple rack is . 1000 lb payload capacity for PGM weighs 120kg. Hence the logic that they are heavy and dragy with performance penality holds ground.

[sankum]

You do not have AAM in unlimited number.

Only 450 Mica were bought for 50 upgraded Mirage 2000 i.e, 9 AAM/ fighter.

For Jaguar upgrade of 4 sq ( around 72 fighters) only 384nos ASRAAM were bought i.e, 5 CCM /fighter.

AAM are costly and used for 20 to 30 years with relifing.
For any Airforce inventory of 6 BVR and 6 CCM per fighter is enough.

[JayS]

We ended up with a 4 vs 24 situation

Designing for 4 vs 24 is impractical IMO. LCA is a light fighter after all. We have other fighters too which can take much larger load out and longer CAP missions.

We cannot rely only on CAP for stopping a large scale attack, we need to utilize ORP as well as the AD together with CAP. With 4 vs 24, the aim is going to be deterrence at all cost not shooting down as many as we can. Its not a turkey shooting. The opposition will also be firing shots.

However I am not particularly opposed to a 4x BVR + 2CCM config, just to make it clear. I think if IAF wants it, ADA will make it happen.

[Rakesh]

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/1251106865766821888 ---> LCA Mk-1A cockpit is finalized and getting ready. 3-Smart-MFD glass cockpit. Contract is finalised. It'll get signed in a couple of months, subject to procedural delays only.

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/1251181873272721409 ---> It has a CRT-based refractive HUD with a new DASH-V/D-DASH HMDS. The combination is operationally more lethal than anything across either side of the border.

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/1251182390979911681 ---> There is inadequate time for development of Low-Profile HUD, which is mandatory for installation of a Large Area Display. Once LAD and Low-Profile HUD are ready, they may find place in the remaining Mk-1As.

[nachiket]

We ended up with a 4 vs 24 situation

Designing for 4 vs 24 is impractical IMO. LCA is a light fighter after all.

Yup that is impossible, which is why I changed it to 2:1 in the hypothetical scenario plus allowed for 2 sets of ORP.

However I am not particularly opposed to a 4x BVR + 2CCM config, just to make it clear. I think if IAF wants it, ADA will make it happen.

It is already possible if only the centerline fuel tank is used. Range/endurance will be more limited and can only be increased using air-to-air refueling. My disagreement was with questioning the need for more than 2 BVRAAMs. My argument is that any anti-air mission beyond basic QRA will need at least 4 BVRAAMs looking at the type of threats facing us.

Important to point out that I am not talking about crazy 8-10 AAM loadouts on the LCA with dual rack pylons everywhere which I believe are totally unrealistic and unlikely to be seen even on the MWF let alone the Mk1. Just what is currently the max possible. Even the Mirage-2000 and Mig-29 which have been mentioned by some as the aircraft we will prefer for CAP over the LCA can only carry the same max 4+2 loadout. Difference being these aircraft can carry more fuel along with those missiles, more so on the M2k than the Mig-29.

[Gyan]

For interceptor role, where LCA will take off from forward bases, LCA MKI can easily be armed with 6 AAMs as DTs may not be required.

But for CAP & Escort roles, DTs will also be required. Only one 725-800L drop tank on center line may not be adequate.

A quick fix solution would be to mount atleast one BVR under the fuselage with an ejector pylon. So we have 3 BVRs, 2CCMs, 2 DTs, 1 jammer for CAPs, Escort role.

[srai]

^^^
Here’s another asymmetric load out to achieve the same:

Left wing to right wing
2 x CCM
1 x BVR
1 x BVR
1 x 725ltr tank
1 x 1200ltr tank
1 x BVR
1 x SPJ

[srai]

3 x LGB (one under belly)

[Indranil]

Nachiket,

I am sorry it took me so long to reply to this. I did not want to reply in a hurry.

Positions on the map do not matter. I was just looking for intercept vectors. I can infer them based on your situation. At the beginning of the engagement the planes are on opposing vectors at 35,000 feet altitude in your scenario. And it seems like they are in close formation. We are outnumbered 2:1.

A clarification. Typically, they will not fly in such close formation. They fly a few kms apart to maximize coverage while doing CAP. As networking capability, sensor fusion and radar capability improves this distance is growing. If the Pakis are not flying like this, we will know that there might be some mischief. It is a kind of advance warning.

We won't go into how such a disadvantaged situation is allowed to rise. It arose in the fog of war and it has to be dealt with. When the F-16s have been deemed as hostile, the next step is to ascertain what these guys are up to. Are they on a strike role or are they here for an aerial fight. The LCAs will have to challenge these F-16s, there is no other way. Meanwhile, scramble orders will be given to aircrafts on the ground. Most probably the first to scramble will be other Tejas. Nothing else in IAF scrambles that fast. Back in the air, as the separation between the aircrafts decrease, it can be ascertained what the F-16s are carrying based on the RCS. The other tell tale sign is the response of the F16s to the LCA challenge. If they also start accelerating, then it's not a strike package. The two LCAs will vector to a location (of safetly) where the reinforcements can join them at the earliest, proabably 5 minutes away from where they are now. If the F16s are about a 100 kms behind them, they will be 6-7 minutes behind them. The need for carrying 4 BVRAAMs does not arise in this case.

If it is a strike package, the objective of the LCAs change from aircraft kills to mission kill. The most likely scenario is that 2 F-16s are carrying strike ammunition and two are escorting them. As the engagement closes in, BVRAAMs will be shot. But not at 80 kms, at less than 1 Mach launch speed and 35k launch altitude. If they are, the LCAs don't have to worry much. These missiles won't have much energy by the time they reach the LCAs. More liklely than not they will not fire any Astras. They are going to change their vector by 90 degrees and start climbing. The DTs will be immediately emptied and let go off as soon as that is achieved. The LCAs task now is to shake off the BVRAAMs and soon thereafter identify and engage the F-16s with the strike package. Alternatively, if they see that (some of) the F16s are accelerating beyond supersonic speed and gaining altitude, then they would do so too. But now, both sides are closing in at over 2,400 kms per second. They will be in WVR territory in just over a minute. By the way, getting to 1.4ish mach would take tens of seconds on both sides. But both of them would know that the other side no longer has their DTs and is on AB. There is about 10 minutes of fight left in either of them. Again, I can't see the need for 4 BVRAAMs

In short, the LCA is a very capable aircraft. Taking a shot at it from 80 kms away would require significant energy maneuvers. I don't think that the Pakis with a 2:1 numbers advantage will do that. Same for the F16s. The LCAs will not shoot F16s while flying subsonic from 35,000 and 80 km away. They will both get closer and gain energy before first shots are taken probably at about 60 kms away. But, at this point they are less than a minute away from entering WVR, with about 10 mins of fight left in them.

[Indranil]

A large number of AAMs are required in two cases: where a seriously capable fighter has very long legs to take on a number of aircraft in succession. The performance of the aircraft in A2A fights is not seriously altered by the carriage of large number of missiles and larger pylons. The above two requirements cannot be fulfilled in light aircraft like the LCA Mk1. Therefore, although twin launchers can be easily designed for the inboard and midboard positions, the IAF has not asked for it. With MWF's much longer legs, it is in the realm of possibility. Even there I am not aware that IAF has asked for dual racks for BVRAAMs. ADA is advertising that capability. As discussed earlier, it adds to the flexibity.

[sankum]

https://mobile.twitter.com/hvtiaf/statu ... 2261360641

. We're certainly working actively on 6th Gen operations. These articles were published last year. Optionally manned fighters and unmanned-wingmen are the new paradigm in the nearest future for us.

8 T class unmanned fighter drone with AI with 25kn dry and 40kn wet engine.

4 drone intercepter will be equal to one 5th gen fighter and 16 intercepter drone swarm will take on 4 ship strike formation of 5th gen fighter.

[Kartik]

I truly marvel at HVT's patience. Some of the questions thrown at him are truly extremely poorly researched.

[sankum]

I will hazard a guess estimate of 8 T class drone intercepter powered by HTFE 40 from the illustration and article.

Empty weight: 3200 kg
Internal fuel: 2100kg
Internal weapons : 2*250kg BVR + 2 CCM=700kg
CTOW: 6000kg
External payload: 4"500kg PGM=2000kg
MTOW: 8000kg

[Gyan]

HVT has already said that two UCAV are planned Reaper & Avenger class.

[srai]

Su-30 MKI and LCA Tejas

https://t.co/6qttYalgcp