LCA News and Discussions

[shiv]

The LCA has given Indian engineers and designers valuable hands on experience in composites and FCS and other aspects of fighter design. As long as that is not frittered away as was done with HF 24 - we have got a lot more than what we ever got with an import.

[Indranil]

LCA Mk1 has no BVR capability.

Not today. But very soon it will have it.

[Austin]

The LCA has given Indian engineers and designers valuable hands on experience in composites and FCS and other aspects of fighter design. As long as that is not frittered away as was done with HF 24 - we have got a lot more than what we ever got with an import.

No dispute on that part , I was arguing the fact that you cant compare an aircraft under test to one under service for a long time , once aircraft enter squadron service and you have 1-2-3 years of squadron service then AF will have enough data to compare with existing type and see how it fares , not just the technical part which is 1 vs 1 in BFM , BVR , Tactics etc but other aspect like ground maintenance , uptimes , spares, support etc

[shiv]

The LCA has given Indian engineers and designers valuable hands on experience in composites and FCS and other aspects of fighter design. As long as that is not frittered away as was done with HF 24 - we have got a lot more than what we ever got with an import.

No dispute on that part , I was arguing the fact that you cant compare an aircraft under test to one under service for a long time , once aircraft enter squadron service and you have 1-2-3 years of squadron service then AF will have enough data to compare with existing type and see how it fares , not just the technical part which is 1 vs 1 in BFM , BVR , Tactics etc but other aspect like ground maintenance , uptimes , spares, support etc

My post was more of a continuation of my earlier post about the question of what parameters one might want to take into account before you "score" the utility of either aircraft. Clearly you cannot compare an aircraft in service with one that is not in service yet.

One can go to absurd lengths and point out that the HF-24 was a far more successful interceptor than the F 22.

[SaiK]

Once operational, LCA can be further modified to operational advancements, whereas on the imports, we have to depend on foreign supplies for any modifications. So, LCA++!

One of the most important feedback would be in the area of net-centric warfare.. where each airforce fine tunes their strategies based on operational data. LCA++ again, on the fact, that it can be integrated with any of our AWACs or early warning system.

All comms are anyway India specific, and think about having another non-inter-operable MMRCA, MMRCA-- if it does not include made in India ones. MKI++ is definitely based on LCA++ experience and outcomes. MKI is MKI now because of LCA.

[vic]

Some import loving idiots are arguing that LCA is not available but upgraded Mirage 2000 is available. Unfortunately upgraded Mirage 2000 will be available in 2016 and there is no foreign bird in hand, only money in Swiss Account.

[nrshah]

No dispute on that part , I was arguing the fact that you cant compare an aircraft under test to one under service for a long time , once aircraft enter squadron service and you have 1-2-3 years of squadron service then AF will have enough data to compare with existing type and see how it fares , not just the technical part which is 1 vs 1 in BFM , BVR , Tactics etc but other aspect like ground maintenance , uptimes , spares, support etc

Do we have a tabular sheet comparing LCA Mk1 and M2K side by side with key parameter like rate of climb , turn rates, Alpha , Range ,payload ....that should settle matter for good

Austin
I tend to disagree of requirement of tabular sheet comparing LCA MK1 against MK2. That is not required for multiple reasons.

First being both are of different categories, tabular sheet will be heavily tilted towards MK2 in most of the parameters as they tend to co relate with weight. For eg. if range is parameter, LCA will always have range less than MK2. But so will be position of M2K if same is compared with Su 30. Even comparison is not possible with other aircraft of its weight category in inventory of IAF. Though weight wise LCA might be comparable with Jaguar/Mig 27, they have different role. To me, there is not a single aircraft in IAF which can be compared to LCA even on specs forget what else it brings to this nation.

Secondly, I am amazed that why every time we have to benchmark domestic product against an imported one to justify its relevance. Why not compare with its preceding aircraft like HF 24 or Ajeet (changed by us) and see whether LCA is outperforming them. I am glad we did not compare LCA with Rafale and restricted to M2k. But this was LCA mk1. When Mk2 comes online, who knows we might have that situation as well.

Thirdly, even in comparison, we are heavily biased towards imported which often gets full marks whereas domestic things are knocked off. For eg. Rafale often is quoted to have ranges reaching the likes of Su 30. The same was mentioned in last couple of pages as well. However, we conveniently ignore the fact that it does so only when most of its heavy plyons are carrying fuel. We seldom see such flexibility given to LCA where in range is comparable to Rafale using IFR.

Not specifically against anyone but I am fed up on benchmarking. Bring it on yaar, bring it on.

[Karan M]

The FOC standard MK-1 will have BVR, so it will be superior to the Mirage 2000Hs with RDM radar and Super 530D which are getting upgraded at an extraordinarily slow rate and will take around a decade to upgrade around 50 aircraft.

In terms of systems, the LCA MK-1 is far ahead of the Mirage 2000-H and is equivalent to the Mirage 2000-5. The only difference is that MK-1 may not have an internal RF EW suite which MK-2 has, the same as on the Mirage 2000-5. The Mirage 2000-H carries an external pod, using up a pylon. The LCA has a dedicated pylon for special purposes (EW pod/LDP).

LCA has a full glass cockpit, HMDS & all aspect missile integration (R73E and reportedly Python-5 for FOC). Mirage 2000-H also has the same but its cockpit is a generation behind with only one CRT and a HUD. Radar, MK-1 is streets ahead of the 2000-H which has an older gen Cassegrain radar (RDM), and will compare to the 2000-5 RDY-3 as well. MK-2 AESA will be ahead of 2000-5. In terms of other avionics/support systems - nav-attack/stores management/ECS/mission computing, LCA MK-1 is far ahead of the 2000-H and MK-2 will be equivalent to the 2000-5 and even ahead in some areas (e.g. an advanced stores management system which allows weapons systems from different countries to be fitted onto the aircraft).

In terms of signature, LCA will have an edge. In terms of manoeuverability/agility, both aircraft should be closely matched.

If there are two areas where the Mirage 2000-H scores ahead of the LCA its range/payload, because it carries around 3900Ltrs of fuel. The LCA by virtue of IAF ASRs fitting it into the form factor of the MiG-21 carries around 2500 kg internal fuel and less payload. Despite the Ge404 being a newer generation turbofan engine versus the M53 on the Mirage 2000, the latter will have a larger radius of action than the LCA. However, with a couple of fuel tanks, the LCA performance will be respectable.Both have IFR.

Payload for Mirage 2000C's is quoted at 6T+, versus the LCAs' 3.5T, but one must also consider the pylons available and whether there is actually a need for outsized payloads (e.g. 2000 lb bombs) under most circumstances.

In mission configurations, with 7 pylons + 1 special pylon, and 3.5T payload, LCA MK-1 compares ok with the Mirage 2000-H.

As memory serves, Mirage 2000-H had a total of 4 pylons on the wings and one on the central fuselage. Later pics show a total of 4 on the wings and 3 on the fuselage.

The newly built Mirage 2000-5s (which we don't have) have 9 pylons all in all.

All in all, MK-1 will be a very potent aircraft and streets ahead of the bulk of the MiGs we operated and quite comparable to Mirage 2000 in most areas. The Mirage 2000 is ahead in range/payload because it was never meant to fit into the MiG-21 footprint and airfield logistics.

[RoyG]

The FOC standard MK-1 will have BVR, so it will be superior to the Mirage 2000Hs with RDM radar and Super 530D which are getting upgraded at an extraordinarily slow rate and will take around a decade to upgrade around 50 aircraft.

In terms of systems, the LCA MK-1 is far ahead of the Mirage 2000-H and is equivalent to the Mirage 2000-5. The only difference is that MK-1 may not have an internal RF EW suite which MK-2 has, the same as on the Mirage 2000-5. The Mirage 2000-H carries an external pod, using up a pylon. The LCA has a dedicated pylon for special purposes (EW pod/LDP).

LCA has a full glass cockpit, HMDS & all aspect missile integration (R73E and reportedly Python-5 for FOC). Mirage 2000-H also has the same but its cockpit is a generation behind with only one CRT and a HUD. Radar, MK-1 is streets ahead of the 2000-H which has an older gen Cassegrain radar (RDM), and will compare to the 2000-5 RDY-3 as well. MK-2 AESA will be ahead of 2000-5. In terms of other avionics/support systems - nav-attack/stores management/ECS/mission computing, LCA MK-1 is far ahead of the 2000-H and MK-2 will be equivalent to the 2000-5 and even ahead in some areas (e.g. an advanced stores management system which allows weapons systems from different countries to be fitted onto the aircraft).

In terms of signature, LCA will have an edge. In terms of manoeuverability/agility, both aircraft should be closely matched.

If there are two areas where the Mirage 2000-H scores ahead of the LCA its range/payload, because it carries around 3900Ltrs of fuel. The LCA by virtue of IAF ASRs fitting it into the form factor of the MiG-21 carries around 2500 kg internal fuel and less payload. Despite the Ge404 being a newer generation turbofan engine versus the M53 on the Mirage 2000, the latter will have a larger radius of action than the LCA. However, with a couple of fuel tanks, the LCA performance will be respectable.Both have IFR.

Payload for Mirage 2000C's is quoted at 6T+, versus the LCAs' 3.5T, but one must also consider the pylons available and whether there is actually a need for outsized payloads (e.g. 2000 lb bombs) under most circumstances.

In mission configurations, with 7 pylons + 1 special pylon, and 3.5T payload, LCA MK-1 compares ok with the Mirage 2000-H.

As memory serves, Mirage 2000-H had a total of 4 pylons on the wings and one on the central fuselage. Later pics show a total of 4 on the wings and 3 on the fuselage.

The newly built Mirage 2000-5s (which we don't have) have 9 pylons all in all.

All in all, MK-1 will be a very potent aircraft and streets ahead of the bulk of the MiGs we operated and quite comparable to Mirage 2000 in most areas. The Mirage 2000 is ahead in range/payload because it was never meant to fit into the MiG-21 footprint and airfield logistics.

Thank you for the detailed analysis. I look forward to seeing the LCA series aircraft in mass production and action.

[member_20292]

Karan M ji...why is the Mirage upgrade so expensive, at 50 million per A/c . Is it because of extensive rewiring ?

Do you think it is worth it, and is it some quid pro quo for something else?

Of course...10% commision will be there somewhere...as in all defence deals.

[Austin]

Karan you are right by the virtue of the fact that Tejas has 2000's level avionics and other stuff that you have mentioned would give it a head start over M2K even in Mk1 configuration.

M2K has virtually early-mid 80's level electronics/avionic suite etc barring a few selective upgrade done over it the M2K upg would be the first time that this bird will get a comprehensive upgrade that would make it contemporary.

M2K is a medium class bird so it payload range also has its own impact with virtue of its size ditto for Mig-29 and F-16 ... Tejas closest contemporary would be Gripen which is another light class bird.

Having said that we need to wait for Tejas to enter squadron service and in a year or two we might have a good idea on how the bird is shaping up.

[Karan M]

Karan M ji...why is the Mirage upgrade so expensive, at 50 million per A/c . Is it because of extensive rewiring ?

Do you think it is worth it, and is it some quid pro quo for something else?

Of course...10% commision will be there somewhere...as in all defence deals.

Karan M ji...why is the Mirage upgrade so expensive, at 50 million per A/c . Is it because of extensive rewiring ?

Everything French is expensive. Historically, they are the ones willing to sell us (and Pakistan) state of the art stuff - at best a limited downgrade from what they field themselves (e.g. the 2000-H getting RDM, French Mirage 2000-Cs getting RDI radar) but they are practically unaffordable at times. That has been why the Israelis have been so successful in the Indian market. They too offer state of the art stuff, but their prices are much more reasonable. Its a different case that even those claimed reasonable prices are very high, see the Phalcon for instance, and some of their claims (as those of the French and the rest) are often inflated (see the delays in Barak etc, the teething issues with Israeli gear we inducted but was advertised in trade press as battle proven etc).

As to why French gear is expensive, smaller production runs, high reliance on automation (due to workforce aging/labor issues), and premiums baked into the profit all play a part. Take a look at number of Micas manufactured/ordered versus AMRAAMs for instance. Even the French themselves rely on more cost effective US LGBs.

Do you think it is worth it, and is it some quid pro quo for something else?

There was definitely a political angle to the deal, we had to give M'sieu Chirac something & I do believe that it was tied to Pakistan not getting the upgrade for the JF-17s. Instead, we gave them pretty much the same deal (though for 50 aircraft as versus a larger JF-17 possible run).

But from the IAF POV, its a plus, because in service, the Mirage 2000s are proving to be very robustly built and as such have a susbtantial residual airframe life (see http://www.acig.info/CMS/?option=com_co ... &Itemid=47 - this should also widen the eyes of some of the HAL bashers about what is being done inhouse at HAL). So the IAF upgrades the Mirage 2000s to the latest avionic configuration, which they realised is needed post the Garuda exercises (when the French had better RDI Mirages and we didnt, and even the Bisons had better performance in terms of avionics in some conditions apparently). These upgraded Mirages will be anyday equal to the F-16s Pakistan has in terms of avionics, and superior to the vast majority of Chinese aircraft. The J-20 etc are anyways TDs at this point.

The two big issues with the deal are basically the cost, which also points to how hypocritical a few sections in the IAF are when they carp about the "cost of the LCA" or other indigenous programs, downplay the indigenization content and how they have to guard "tax money" - this is basically an attitude issue which will take a long time to go away. Its easier to browbeat the local chaps than play the same games with a powerful OEM who can literally hold you to ransom by stopping spares or asking for a higher price for any spares, and this has happened in the past with the Mirage 2000-H. Order X because it is going out of production. IAF does so. Note, if the same is informed by an Indian system integrator, the IAF will cry bloody murder. But as I said, its a mindset issue and this kid in a toyshop thing, when it comes to buying systems from abroad, has been noted and criticized by even some IAF folks in recent years, so hope the reality dawns that we shouldn't keep splurging like this, even if ostensibly we can.

And second, the upgrade timing. The upgrade is basically very slow and parceled out over many years. Now, supposedly TOT is part of the deal, which will be used to transfer technologies to HAL & also allow greater leeway in maintaining the new aircraft locally. But to be honest, it is not as if HAL will start making radars and complex mission avionics on its own, leveraging this TOT, which seems fairly overpriced. HAL in recent years has started a focus on R&D and even started its own mission avionics unit, but it messed up the LCA radar program, which has (thankfully) reverted to LRDE. Point is whatever comes in terms of avionics for future programs, is likely to be Indian - sourced from DRDO programs or own ones, by HAL in its new avionics unit which will probably focus on mission computers, displays etc. And with the Mirage 2000, there has been very little talk (as far as I know) of HAL getting TOT for any core airframe systems or propulsion modules (e.g. the engine). So the avionics assembly TOT is probably going to be of limited use at best. Hopefully though, the manufacturing/assembly investments can be leveraged by HAL for its own programs.

The one leeway given to Indian considerations, is that the local HAL Mission Computer will be integrated. It will plug into the mission system and allow the Indian side to add its own upgrades - theoretically. But again, with only a handful of aircraft upgraded every year, the boost to IAF combat power, despite the money spent, will be iterative and gradual.

So why did we go for this deal. In my humble opinion, apart from the political angle of giving the French something-pressurising Pak/chance to make money etc, there were two reasons from the IAF point of view, apart from the facts that the Mirage 2000 is a popular aircraft and did well at Kargil, and will be good when upgraded.

One is there is a significant lobby in the IAF that is pro-Mirage 2000, with that group successfully convincing AHQ of the need to keep these aircraft current, despite the huge costs entailed. The Mirage 2000 has been hyped up as almost a wunder weapon that single handedly won us the Kargil War. Granted it pulled a disproportionate share of duties, but that also had to do with the fact that the MiG fleet at the time had only seen limited upgrades, and the Mirage came with a wider set of capabilities to begin with at induction itself.

Second, why did we go for France & not a cost effective hybrid solution as with the DARIN-2/3 Jaguars or with Israel (as with the LUSH upgrade for Sea Harrier). Again, to keep France happy & also because we continue to be dependent on Dassault and its partners for spares for the overall platform (not just airframe/avionics). We have in essence, hopefully, bought their continued support for the line, by paying through the nose.

If as reports suggest, we opted for the RDY3 radar (a repackaged RC400 lower cost alternative to the RDY2 on the standard Mirage 2000-5), then that adds to the point this is a very expensive deal. It might have been more cost effective to just invest in more MMRCAs, but then again, some in the IAF will point out that deal has a long way to go.

Will the Mirage 2000 be effective though? Yes it will. If we do a systems compare, even with the RDY3, the Mirage 2000's will be very powerful aircraft capable of undertaking a wide variety of strike missions, with self escort capabilities. If the IAF gets Mica-IRs, that too will be a unique capability in A2A, as it is arguably, the only missile of its kind in the world. A completely passive, BVR A2A missile.

In terms of strike, with the new ICMS countermeasures system, the Mirages should be much better against both A2A and A2G threats. The IAF will probably continue to integrate Israeli systems onto the aircraft (munitions, electro-optic pods) and indigenous systems as and when they become available. Must say, the reconfigured Astra looks like a very capable system too.

It will make a good addition to the IAF but wish we had got it cheaper and faster

[vina]

If there are two areas where the Mirage 2000-H scores ahead of the LCA its range/payload, because it carries around 3900Ltrs of fuel. The LCA by virtue of IAF ASRs fitting it into the form factor of the MiG-21 carries around 2500 kg internal fuel and less payload

Ah. Lets get the units consistent. 3900Ltrs of fuel is roughly 3tons of fuel. So fuel fraction wise, the LCA will compare very well indeed with the M2K , if your numbers are right.

In Inglees it means that the LCA will have range and persistence comparable with the M2K on internal fuel. But the M2K has a higher MTOW and can carry more external fuel and ammo as well and that probably will give it higher payload for a given range than the LCA.

[Sancho]

Karan you are right by the virtue of the fact that Tejas has 2000's level avionics and other stuff that you have mentioned would give it a head start over M2K even in Mk1 configuration.

Which shouldn't be surprising, since that comparision compares to similar fighters, but with different technological levels. If you want to compare the LCA MK1, you have to choose fighters with the same techs and capabilities, which means the Mirage 2000-5 /-9, Gripen C/D, F16 B52 and Mig 29SMT. Some of them are obviously in the medium class, but all of them have modern glass cockpits, reduced RCS, MMR and BVR capability, modern WVR missiles with HMS and similar EW sensors and capabilties.

But the main problem as you said as well is, that we still don't have a clue about the final specs and capabilities of the LCA MK1 yet and much is still speculation yet. From the things we do know, the main limitations seems to be range (no IFR capability) and a sufficient number of hardpoints to carry enough missiles. The M2K-5 for example can carry up to 6 x MICA (usually 4 x EM and 2 x IR, but all BVR capable) in A2A missions + 2 x fuel tanks and even in A2G roles, it usually carries 5 x AAMs.
LCA on the other side will carry 2 x BVR and 2 x WVR missiles in CAP or any strike roles. Only in interception roles 6 x AAMs might be possible with a single centerline tank. That makes it dependable on dedicated escort fighters, while the M2K-5 will have credible self defence capabilities even during strike missions, which makes it more useful in deep strikes against high value targets, while the LCA MK1 basically would be used for CAS roles.
The sad point is, that LCA MK2 will remain with only 8 x hardpoints and unless the increase of internal fuel capacity will free some hardpoints, this will remain to be a major limitation for the fighter!

[Singha]

good point that. mil engines have that as a day1 design requirement, while civilian ones are tuned to gentle changes.

I hope its not another plug-n-pray AL55 saga

[shiv]

The powerplants were not responding properly to the rapid throttle-settings demanded by a combat aircraft.

Was it an intake problem? We don't know. The Jag with current engine barely manages to lift off the HAL runway in summer when fully loaded. But it is certified as a combat aircrfat.

[pentaiah]

IIRC the C5A galaxy also can not take off with full load and as well as full fuel tanks and is mid air refueled to full tanks

[jamwal]

Tejas was not designed as a replacement for Mirage 2000. Why are we spending so much time comparing these two ? What is coming next, Tejas Vs Mig 29 ?

[Lalmohan]

the way to look at tejas is that in the process of making a mig21-bis+, sdre's have ended up making a m2k-4.5

[jamwal]

My POV about Tejas was always like a good enough, cost-effective fighter which we could get in numbers rather than a gold plated tip-of-the-spear kind of machine. I guess a lot of people have much higher expectations from the platform.

[Pratyush]

I dont know bout expectations. But I just wish to see 200+ build as planned and see service with the IAF. To be followed by the FGFA by 2025-30.

[vic]

My Lay person estimate is that LCA will have 20% better range with similar (practical) load, because Mirage is more heavy, more engine thrust (67 vs 55), worse sfc 0.9 vs 0.8 etc

[SaiK]

only by experience we can advance, and hence it is vital that LCA is inducted and operational. All 3 legged features can be upgraded to 4 legged features in the phased manner. The more the user feels the system, the better the man-machine interface is. The technology and fighter aerodynamics and science are difficult to master, but that mastery has no value to operational aspects of the system., that only be experienced by human brains and fed back into an operational process. That is how F16s graduated.. and that is how JSF and Raptors should do too. The world over there are high tech fan boys playing mischief into operational readiness., and combining with existing business lines for the seller nation to play spoil sport on user nations. We have to be very careful in giving into international agenda to weaken our forward thinking self-reliance mission.

[Indranil]

From the tender for Hydraulic pump for LCA Tejas MkII, one gets the feeling that they are gunning for 10 G capability for MkII.

Acceleration
• Operational g-level: 10 ’g’ in all 6 directions as per Sl. No. 16 a) of Annexure 1 of
Environmental map of LCA, ADA/QA&SEG/082400/2004/036, Issue NIL, Dtd. 19/07/2004.
• Structural g-level: 1.5 times the ‘g’ value as indicated above as per Sl. No. 16 b) of
Annexure 1 of Environmental map of LCA, ADA/QA&SEG/082400/2004/036, Issue NIL, Dtd. 19/07/2004.
Qualification methodology : Actual Test

[Karan M]

KaranM wrote:
If there are two areas where the Mirage 2000-H scores ahead of the LCA its range/payload, because it carries around 3900Ltrs of fuel. The LCA by virtue of IAF ASRs fitting it into the form factor of the MiG-21 carries around 2500 kg internal fuel and less payload

Ah. Lets get the units consistent. 3900Ltrs of fuel is roughly 3tons of fuel. So fuel fraction wise, the LCA will compare very well indeed with the M2K , if your numbers are right.

In Inglees it means that the LCA will have range and persistence comparable with the M2K on internal fuel. But the M2K has a higher MTOW and can carry more external fuel and ammo as well and that probably will give it higher payload for a given range than the LCA.

Vina, thats a fair point and I'll try to dig up the numbers i should have them someplace.
If the internal fuel is indeed 2458 Kg, then thats around 3000 Ltrs, which is a pretty respectable amount and points to the fact that the usual quoted ROA of 300 km is probably a significant underestimate.

[Karan M]

But the main problem as you said as well is, that we still don't have a clue about the final specs and capabilities of the LCA MK1 yet and much is still speculation yet. From the things we do know, the main limitations seems to be range (no IFR capability) and a sufficient number of hardpoints to carry enough missiles. The M2K-5 for example can carry up to 6 x MICA (usually 4 x EM and 2 x IR, but all BVR capable) in A2A missions + 2 x fuel tanks and even in A2G roles, it usually carries 5 x AAMs.
LCA on the other side will carry 2 x BVR and 2 x WVR missiles in CAP or any strike roles. Only in interception roles 6 x AAMs might be possible with a single centerline tank. That makes it dependable on dedicated escort fighters, while the M2K-5 will have credible self defence capabilities even during strike missions, which makes it more useful in deep strikes against high value targets, while the LCA MK1 basically would be used for CAS roles.
The sad point is, that LCA MK2 will remain with only 8 x hardpoints and unless the increase of internal fuel capacity will free some hardpoints, this will remain to be a major limitation for the fighter!

The problem is you are expect the LCA to be a literal WW2 style zerstorer aka heavy fighter, bogged down with huge payloads, whereas in reality it need not have these.

The IAF does not plan for such profiles since it can leverage a wide number of frontline bases. These were set up for the express purpose of having a range of bases for shorter ranged tactical aircraft, and today's LCA etc can leverage them well.

For instance Su-30 MKIs can be loaded to the gills with fuel, all pylons occupied etc etc. But they are being based out of frontline tactical bases which will allow them to operate more lightly loaded & still strike into Pakistan! By developing rear bases into the Indian hinterland, Indian aircraft can then redeploy to those to avoid retaliatory strike, or use the frontline bases as a staging area. Either ways, the frontline tactical AFB are a plus for the IAF.

Similarly, a LCA Tejas, with 4 A2A, a centerline tank, can still carry 2 LGBs and a LDP. That will be sufficient for strike missions against Pakistan. A squadron of 16-20 LCAs can land around 32 LGBs on target if all are configured for strike, or 20, if half are. That's enough to knock out any PAF AFB, if those hit a few ammo/fuel dumps, ATC tower, a few go into the runway, rest across the flightline/HAS. The devastation will be more than sufficient.

MK-2 will have IFR, but again, how often are we going to leverage this capability against the PAF apart from sustaining escort missions for HVAs like AWACs & the IFR tankers themselves. Deep strike missions against China, will invariably fall to the Su-30 MKI and in the future, the Rafale fleet as well.

The big difference now is that the LCA offers the capability of the MiG-21/23/27 with far more flexibility in terms of onboard sensors and weapons payload options. This self escort stuff is also a bit overblown. Self escort will work with larger fighters which are meant for the deep battle, but the price you pay for these - in terms of operational costs, lifecycle costs, will be significant. At the end of the day though, if the IAF can do it, it will usually send an escort package along with its strike aircraft, even if they are nominally armed for A2A. The only time that won't happen is when you are really pressed to the wall in terms of airframes (2 front scenario) or sneaky strike packages using NOE/low level flying to get to their targets, and you want to avoid large packages.

Anyways, usually a fighter flying strike into heavily defended PAF airspace will be escorted. Even if its Su-30 MKIs, expect a few of the package to be armed focused on A2A. The big difference is that with the earlier IAF, it had to take huge pains to formate strike packages with escort/EW packages and then have them proceed. Each usually drawn from a different squadron type, different base, different aircraft (which means different fuel burn rates, different performance characteristics) and all these had to be then sent on their way. The complexity was a big pain. Now, a single LCA squadron brings all that it needs to the table. It can strike, do A2A, do both, do EW & so forth.

This business of adding more pylons to a light fighter just doesn't add up. At the end of the day for each pylon added, you beef up the structure more, you gain weight, you sacrifice a bit more performance.

Next, the statements about the Mirage 2000-5. There is no confirmation yet, that Indian Mirage 2000's will have 2 additional pylons added or opened up on the fuselage, to take them to new built Mirage 2000-5 standards. So far, Mirage 2000-Hs have been shown with upto 7 pylons fitted for, which is actually 1 less than that on the LCA, since the latter has a special pylon for LDP/EW pods.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... e_2000.jpg
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-JWf-oWhKT50/T ... 0/mira.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... e_2000.jpg

They'll operate much the same way as the LCA, with the same squadron pulling both escort/EW for the strike focused birds, which too will carry A2A munitions, but could be SRAAMs with the rest split amongst fuel and A2G/EW whereas the escort focused aircraft carry BVR missiles as well.

[Karan M]

BTW, OT from the current discussion, but I was searching for this reference to point out how the glass is always "half full" view from some of the usual IAF critics needs to be tempered, when compared to the reality versus the actions taken. The end of the rant from the IAF guy had a rejoinder from the CEMILAC person that his stuff had already been taken into account, and the work was being done. So I went digging for the reference wherein I had first seen the improvements made.

http://www.business-standard.com/articl ... 035_1.html

Brushing aside apprehension of further delay of the kind that has dogged the Tejas programme, Subramanyam insists, “Our design timeline is realistic. The main sub-systems of the Tejas Mark-II will remain unchanged, except for electronics components. So, the Mark-II will not need extensive flight-testing, as most of its sub-systems will have already been test-flown on the Mark-I.”

ADA designers also say “maintainability” of the Tejas has already been established. This key attribute relates to how quickly and easily technicians can service and repair the fighter and, therefore, how quickly it can get out of a hangar and into combat. Of 200 “requests for action” — suggestions from IAF pilots and technicians for design changes that would ease maintenance — most have already been implemented. Just 12-15 remain for implementing in the Mark-II.

Note the latter point. What remains to be done is simplify the equipment that will be available to line IAF maintenance crew, namely simpler testers, BITE etc, since they will not be as technically adept as the designers who currently have a set of far more complex equipment.

Also, there was a lot of bellyaching about LCA MK-1 performance that it didnt meet the numbers originally gathered froma hodge podge of Mirage 2000 and MiG-29 performance. Lets see here..

[quot1e]The Mark-II will outperform the Mark-I by about 15 per cent in the key aspects of take-off run, rate of climb, acceleration, and turn rate. Most of this would come from the higher thrust of the GE-414 engine. Another two-three per cent benefit would come from better aerodynamics…[/quote]

Net, the current shortfall in these aspects with the Ge404 is also clearly marginal, and some is already addressed by the systems on the LCA. For instance, a slightly lower STR is balanced out by the fact that the LCA's respectable ITR (the Delta advantage so to speak), plus the HMDS/R73E/Python-5 combo will still give a first kill possibility. Nose pointing with HMDS/all aspect missiles is now the key edge employed by many platforms.

All in all, the MK-1 as it comes will be a huge change in terms of the current aircraft the IAF employs and will be a useful warfighting machine. I expect MK-2 numbers to also go up. A MK-3, unshackled from the MiG-21 footprint, and larger overall is also a definite possibility.

[SaiK]

From the tender for Hydraulic pump for LCA Tejas MkII, one gets the feeling that they are gunning for 10 G capability for MkII.

Acceleration
• Operational g-level: 10 ’g’ in all 6 directions as per Sl. No. 16 a) of Annexure 1 of
Environmental map of LCA, ADA/QA&SEG/082400/2004/036, Issue NIL, Dtd. 19/07/2004.
• Structural g-level: 1.5 times the ‘g’ value as indicated above as per Sl. No. 16 b) of
Annexure 1 of Environmental map of LCA, ADA/QA&SEG/082400/2004/036, Issue NIL, Dtd. 19/07/2004.
Qualification methodology : Actual Test

Good! sometimes back there were mocking at us to even looking at 9G.

[krishnan]

2G, 3G , now 10G

[Singha]

due to moving inlet cone the M2K enjoys a top speed of Mach2.2 vs the F-solah/Tejas/JSF types capped at Mach1.8
not sure how big an advantage that is given it can be sustained for few mins only. even the tornado ADV is capable of mach2 iirc.

another aspect is the acceleration time from 0.8 Mach patrol speed to Mach1.5 range.....no details are available to compare. it is known the raptor is very good at this, flying clean and with those big engines relative to its fuselage.

[putnanja]

Indigenous content of Tejas craft to go up

[putnanja]

Scrap Rafale, Viva Tejas! - Bharat Karnad

...
...
A viable alternative is available in the Mark-II version of the Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) — its design fits the bill of an MMRCA and it is already undergoing wind tunnel testing. Not only is its 4.5-generation avionics suite common with that of the MK-I, but at its heart lies a ready-to-use AESA (Active Electronically Scanned Array) radar developed in collaboration with Israel that is comparable to that on the Rafale, except that the Thales RBE2 AESA radar for the Rafale is to be fully developed with the monies deposited by India!
With the larger air intake and the slight upward curvature of its wingtip, Mk-II Tejas, experts believe, has a better angle of attack (in excess of 28 degrees) with heavier payload than what Rafale can manage. The larger, three-metre longer, version of the Mk-I LCA, able to carry a bigger weapon load (five tons for Mk-II to Rafale’s stated six tons, which will be lesser because the European ambient conditions it is built for don’t obtain here), and has similar range, about 600 kms, and can be inducted into service in less time than the Rafale will take to roll out of HAL lines. Further, with a cranked-arrow delta wing with canards, the Mk-II will be superior to the Rafale in manoeuvrability. The basic Tejas Mk-I is already entering Limited Series Production (LSP) as prelude to full production. It will not be difficult to speedily establish a separate development and production line for Mk-II. In fact, HAL has shown confidence to reject European offers of help to set up the Tejas production infrastructure.
Picking home-grown products will also permit the rationalisation of IAF’s force structure — ridding it of its inventory of aircraft so diverse it has created a logistics nightmare. The Mk-I Tejas, as planned, can fill the air defence role, and the Mk-II variant can more than adequately meet the medium-range interdiction and strike role of the MMRCA.
...
...

[Austin]

Moving aircraft above Mach 2 requires variable inlet design but beyond that it needs materials that can sustain heat on such high flight speed ...this leads to increase in weight due to use of special materials and some areas which sustains more heat then others you have to use titanium alloys ,This consequently also has cascading effect on other aspect like engines.

Hence most aircraft designer today try to stay below M 2 limit to avoid such complications and overhead.

[Singha]

Karnad is talking of the "old" Mk2 Tejas concept, the new concept is much less changes in size / shape etc.
that concept could be the Mk3 - if IAF funds and supports it, else dead in water for now.

Austin, I am not sure the Mach2-Mach2.2 types like F15/M2k/Tornado use any special materials . things do need such materials from probably Mach2.5 onward as the Foxbat/Foxhound/SR71/Valkyrie shows.

[Austin]

Austin, I am not sure the Mach2-Mach2.2 types like F15/M2k/Tornado use any special materials . things do need such materials from probably Mach2.5 onward as the Foxbat/Foxhound/SR71/Valkyrie shows.

Singha the complixity of designing a variable intake itself adds weight and complexity to the aircraft and then higher the speed you need materials that can withstand heat and stress of it through out its life ....obviously higher the speed more exotic the material like a SR-71 designed around titanium and almost a ramjet engine to sustain such speeds.

So most designer of modern aircraft today have stuck with around M 1.6-1.8 as top speed to avoid the issue as it seems its a good enough solution to most problems faced during combat without overhead.

[Austin]

Though I am admirer of Karnad but this time he got his facts all wrong , even data provided with respect to Rafale and LCA Mk2 is wrong not withstanding the fact that LCA Mk2 is a paper plane till date and has not flown yet.

MMRCA was a program that IAF needed yesterday more like immediately after Kargil war when IAF asked for 126 more Mirages which due to single vendor issue and chances of being labbled as corruption ridden deal the NDA had decided to go for multi-vendor deal , the nuances of DPP , RFI , RFP and what not with the snail pace that Indian Decision process moves ensured we selected the winner after 12 years. Thats already a delay of 12 years plus 4 more when the first MMRCA type gets into service , like 16 years only when IAF urgently asked for 126 M2k .....thats really some urgency shown !

Meanwhile IAF squadron is down and we are operating 30-32 squad at best today.

LCA Mk1 is yet to enter squardron service even in limited number of 40 which will happen only after 2015 after the flight test program ends , meanwhile we already have news that HAL is no way prepared to build LCA in the number and time that IAF wants .... LCA Mk2 is yet to get into engineering stage forget the first flight and eloborate flight test program with all the bells and whistles that it promises , if AVM Rajkumar word is to be believed and he has been proved right over PS Subramanium of ADA then Mk2 will starting entering IAF by 2020.

In the mean while if we dont let MMRCA come in then we would be couple of squadron less , not to mention the immense risk involved in operationalising a new type in service and the time consuming affair it is
.....MMRCA type be it Rafale or Typhoon or F-18 which ever gets finally selected has been flown in host airforce and tested well some even in combat ( low to high intensity ) with training , maintenance and other process in place which itself is time consuming to do and the risk is taken by host AirForce to build those procedure ,maintenance process and document in place.

In simple words MMRCA deal stands on its own feet and saying things like cancel in place of Tejas Mk2 is being irresponsible and naive at best , compromising national security in place of depleting squadron strength , After all its IAF responsibility to ensure security and indulging in theoretical and intellectual exercise like can MMRCA be replace by x or y type is something only a Defence Analyst can do and suits his job.

[pentaiah]

2G, 3G , now 10G

Next Lipton Lao G

Indigenous content of Tejas craft to go up

The need of the hour is IAF LCA needs to go up squadron strength.

Ideally if they can give 16 a/c per year first year and 32 numbers the following year would be god speed

Line of 4 at a time EOQ per line in first run 4 per quarter 16 a year

Line of 4 delivering 8 per qtr

[RKumar]

Though I am admirer of Karnad but this time he got his facts all wrong , even data provided with respect to Rafale and LCA Mk2 is wrong not withstanding the fact that LCA Mk2 is a paper plane till date and has not flown yet.

....

LCA Mk1 is yet to enter squardron service even in limited number of 40 which will happen only after 2015 after the flight test program ends , meanwhile we already have news that HAL is no way prepared to build LCA in the number and time that IAF wants ...

...

Sometime I feel I am not on BRF but on some foreign discussion forum. J-20 is still in prototype, I read it is coming be on alert. When IL-476 was not even flying, I read IAF is saved. When S-400 was not even inducted in Russian forces, I read that is combat proven and forget about MBT/FMBT and what else not.

This problem is everywhere ... armed services, civil servants, politicians, member ... . Call it is my baby crying, IAF is used to already mature products from oversees. Now or later, they have to dirty their hands by working with imperfect product and contribute to make it perfect.

I do hope we do get Rafale but it is not end of world if we don't get it.

[Austin]

Now or later, they have to dirty their hands by working with imperfect product and contribute to make it perfect.

Which is what IAF is doing with Tejas making its hand dirty by supporting and perfecting the product.

I do hope we do get Rafale but it is not end of world if we don't get it.

Most certainly IAF needs MMRCA due to dwindling squadron strenghth it could be Rafale or others in the list.

[Baikul]

Now or later, they have to dirty their hands by working with imperfect product and contribute to make it perfect.

Which is what IAF is doing with Tejas making its hand dirty by supporting and perfecting the product.
......

May be putting words in his mouth but from what I understood from RKumar ji, the other products are foreign maal, whereas Tejas is our own. In short testing domestic products is ok; testing foreign products for which we presumably pay top dollar could be another thing altogether.