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

k prasad · Post by **k prasad** » 18 Aug 2020 03:29

^^ agreed!

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 18 Aug 2020 08:35

I hope the delay in MK1A contract is to get Uttam onboard.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 18 Aug 2020 11:40

ManuJ wrote:The correct IT metaphor would be that typically the brightest minds are set to work on new product development. Working on sustaining projects is not the best thing for one's career. The forces should similarly put their best people on new platforms and this should be seen as a career-enhancing move.

For any corporation, the over riding principle is revenue generation and profitability. Everything else is means to an end.

The promoters, shareholders & investors will shred management to pieces if they show R&D without revenue or profitability.

A revenue generator is given more priority than a researcher. Why do you think sellers are paid more than developers in IT companies?

For the services, the constitutional mandate is fighting the enemy. Everything else is incidental.

I'm speaking from equal experience across both sectors.

ManuJ wrote:Anyone can fly/operate proven platforms with well-defined operating and maintenance manuals.

If driving a municipal bus with defined stops, then yes. If driving a formula 1 car, then no.

Unfortunately warfare is the most intensive sport in the history of mankind requiring skill and proficiency far beyond Olympic sportsmen.

You need the best candidate who needs to continuously hone their skills and proficiency.

The chaps who conquered Quaid Post and made it Bana Post did physical feats far beyond Olympic standards.

And unlike a sportsman, a soldier/sailor/pilot needs to win every round.

A sportsman can shrug his shoulder on losing an Olympic event saying he tried and better luck next time.

A soldier/sailor/pilot on losing at the very least loses his life and at the very most his country loses territory, money paid as indemnity or loot and atrocities on civilians.

I am sure you would know the atrocities committed by Pakistan Army in Bangladesh and in 1947 Mirpur massacre in POK. If India lost territory to Pakistan, then imagine the atrocities on the populace in that territory.

The constitutional mandate of a soldier/sailor/pilot is to prevent that from happening and not R&D.

ManuJ wrote:Anyone can fly/operate proven platforms with well-defined operating and maintenance manuals.

Personally I am appalled at this level of cognitive dissonance regarding the purpose and mission of the services.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 18 Aug 2020 12:00

SidSoma wrote:
tsarkar wrote: Would it have been a wise decision to build aircraft with lossy radomes or no radomes? And send them to combat like that?
Yes, if this is better than what is present at hand, then the answer to your question is a big YES. Under all conditions even with the lossy Radomes, Tejas with its IOC radar is better than the Bison/Kopyo radar. You can check open source on how much loss the older radomes were causing.

You are twisting and misrepresenting my words here.

Vivek K wrote:Really? You think so - the Kopyo was better than the LCAs current radar? The radome problem was resolved and fleetwide replacements would have been made. Holding up orders and production - you think it was wise? It was certain that the Chobham radome would come (just like the MKIs and the 29Ks that were unknown items at the time of orders being placed). It was certain that there weren't enough refuellers (even now that is unchanged) for the IAF to use for the entire fleet. So was it a wise decision in hindsight to hold production off for these two items?

Vivek was suggesting building the LCA with the older pre-Chobham radomes that didn't meet specifications and I countered that.

And no, you are very wrong. Pre-Chobham radomes were extremely lossy and had abysmal performance. I think member Dileep had worked on the pre-Chobham radomes or seen them closely and understood the magnitude of the problem.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 18 Aug 2020 12:10

nachiket wrote:
k prasad wrote: There's quite a lot of OSINT info about this, SidSomaSaar. https://www.radartutorial.eu/20.airborne/ab04.en.html has some decent info... think of pretty much any target that might need to be attacked on the ground - buildings, bunkers, airfields, vehicles, tanks, ships, SAM sites, Ground Radars, etc etc. Some of those can be targetted with LGBs or other munitions with other sensors (such as targetting pods) without the need for a radar, but others like vehicles, ships, or active Radars would be better detected and targetted with a radar. Assuming the LCA is limited to CAP duty till the A2G modes are integrated, the risk from these threats during CAP sorties is not as high as in, say, strike missions.

However, the important functionality within the A2G mode that might be required even in A2A modes is the terrain following radar.

That said, I don't have expertise or knowledge of what the operational needs are, so what I'm saying is all guided conjecture.
Even without all A2G modes available on the radar, the Litening pod will still enable some A2G missions. As for Radar's on the ground, they would be detected by the RWR if they are emitting and best targeted by an ARM, which will not require the use of the aircraft's radar IMO.

The problem is weather and more recently air pollution.

A Litening pod has three sensors. A high resolution TV camera, an Imaging Infra Red Sensor and a laser range finder.

All three are obscured by clouds and SPM. So targeting via Litening Pod TV, IIR or LRF wont work in cloudy/rainy weather.

Radar sees through clouds and SPM.

Having said that, resolution of the TV camera > IIR > Radar ground modes.

Laser Range Finder gives accurate range for CCRP/CCIP deployment of unguided bombs and lasing for laser guided bombs.

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 18 Aug 2020 12:51

Thanks for breaking out the details tsarkar sir.

But the larger point is that, even without A2G mode of Uttam:

1) The Tejas had one of the best range scores in A2G missions in exercises
2) The Litening pod is mighty effective in favorable conditions
3) Barring the Rafale, none of the other fighters have an AESA, let alone an A2G mode

Given all this, an Uttam-equipped-Mk1a with just the A2A mode will be superior to most aircraft in our inventory with the exclusion of the Rafales & the Su-30 MKIs.

Yes, 2052 is there, but in the interests of nurturing our MIC, induction of Uttam with just A2A mode on Tejas Mk1a is quite an acceptable compromise IMO. And the IAF must be persuaded to see the reasoning.

(Needless to say, if DRDO can get Uttam with even A2G ready in time for Mk1a, there is nothing like it)

Sumeet · Post by **Sumeet** » 18 Aug 2020 14:39

A2G modes of UTTAM AESA can be developed over time. IAF if serious about indigenization will sincerely back it.

For time being can we not use ELTA's ELM-2060P SAR/GMTI pod based solution ? At some point in time even for MKI this was used till all A2G modes were properly functional.

Even in current Rafale GMTI mode is missing and will be added in F4 variant. Everywhere the indigenous development is done in piecemeal fashion. 10 years down the road we will be expert in AESA radar technology if IAF is supportive which is definitely a must for AMCA to succeed.

SidSoma · Post by **SidSoma** » 18 Aug 2020 15:20

Prem Kumar wrote:Thanks for breaking out the details tsarkar sir.

But the larger point is that, even without A2G mode of Uttam:

1) The Tejas had one of the best range scores in A2G missions in exercises
2) The Litening pod is mighty effective in favorable conditions
3) Barring the Rafale, none of the other fighters have an AESA, let alone an A2G mode

Given all this, an Uttam-equipped-Mk1a with just the A2A mode will be superior to most aircraft in our inventory with the exclusion of the Rafales & the Su-30 MKIs.

Yes, 2052 is there, but in the interests of nurturing our MIC, induction of Uttam with just A2A mode on Tejas Mk1a is quite an acceptable compromise IMO. And the IAF must be persuaded to see the reasoning.

(Needless to say, if DRDO can get Uttam with even A2G ready in time for Mk1a, there is nothing like it)

May be the Tejas has this outstanding A2G score is due to the A2G capabilities of the current 2032/LRDE combination Radar......

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 18 Aug 2020 15:40

A2G modes, in general, require more time to fine tune & adapt.

RajaRudra · Post by **RajaRudra** » 18 Aug 2020 15:46

https://www.aninews.in/news/national/ge ... 818143044/

New Delhi [India], Aug 18 (ANI): In a significant achievement for the indigenous fighter aircraft programme, the Indian Air Force (IAF) deployed the home-grown (LCA) Tejas on the western front along the Pakistan border in view of the tensions with on the Ladakh front.The LCA Tejas was deployed by the Indian Air Force on the western front close to the Pakistan border to take care of any possible action by the adversary there, government sources told ANI.The first LCA Tejas squadron, 45 Squadron (Flying Daggers) based out of Sulur under the Southern Air Command, was deployed in an operational role there, the sources said.The indigenous Tejas aircraft had been praised by Prime Minister Narendra Modi during his Independence Day speech where he had stated that the deal to buy the LCA Mark1A version was expected to be completed soon.While the first squadron of the planes is of the Initial Operational Clearance version, the second 18 Squadron 'Flying Bullets' is of the Final Operational Clearance version and was operationalized by the IAF chief Air Chief Marshal RKS Bhadauria at the Sulur airbase on May 27.The Indian Air Force and the Defence Ministry are expected to finalise the deal for the 83 Mark1A aircraft by the end of this year. In view of the Chinese aggression on the borders, the IAF had deployed its assets all along the borders with both China and Pakistan.The forward airbases of the force have been equipped to take care of situations along the western and northern fronts and have seen extensive flying operations in the recent past, including both daytime and night operations.

Note : - What a honor i got, reporting this great/super news first in this forum.

Thank you seniors for enriching me from 2006.

mody · Post by **mody** » 18 Aug 2020 16:01

Prem Kumar wrote:Thanks for breaking out the details tsarkar sir.

But the larger point is that, even without A2G mode of Uttam:

1) The Tejas had one of the best range scores in A2G missions in exercises
2) The Litening pod is mighty effective in favorable conditions
3) Barring the Rafale, none of the other fighters have an AESA, let alone an A2G mode

Given all this, an Uttam-equipped-Mk1a with just the A2A mode will be superior to most aircraft in our inventory with the exclusion of the Rafales & the Su-30 MKIs.

Yes, 2052 is there, but in the interests of nurturing our MIC, induction of Uttam with just A2A mode on Tejas Mk1a is quite an acceptable compromise IMO. And the IAF must be persuaded to see the reasoning.

(Needless to say, if DRDO can get Uttam with even A2G ready in time for Mk1a, there is nothing like it)

Exercise was conducted with a current 2032-based hybrid MMR radar and not Uttam. The current Elta-2032-hybrid MMR has A2G mode and is very good.
However, the backend of the radar is from Israel and hence the software for the A2G modes as well.
For the MK1A I guess the 2052 will be procured. However, I hope that the 32 Tejas MK1 get upgraded using the UTTAM AESA radar.
If the MK1A itself can come with the Uttam, then it would truly be lungi dance moment.
The UTTAM AESA will be ready and deployed will trylu be a proud day for all Indians.
Will boost the export prospects of the Tejas MK1A as well.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 18 Aug 2020 16:03

RajaRudra wrote:https://www.aninews.in/news/national/ge ... 818143044/

Finally its doing what it was born to do! This is a very proud 56" moment for India.

Kanson wrote:A2G modes, in general, require more time to fine tune & adapt.

True, separating targets from clutter is painstaking

@ Prem Kumar & @ SidSoma

The Tejas is absolutely world class in A2G due to combination of Litening and Elta 2032 A2G modes for all weather capability

In the descending order of capability, -

1. Mirage 2000I Litening + RDY-2 A2G modes
2. Tejas Mk1 IOC Litening + Elta 2032 A2G modes
3. Jaguar IM Litening + Elta 2032 A2G modes
4. Su-30MKI Litening and Bars A2G modes
5. MiG-29K & UPG Zhuk A2G modes
6. MiG-21 Bison Kopyo A2G modes

In future Rafale RBE-2AA, Elta 2052 and Uttam will bring a whole new range of capabilities in the top of the list.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 18 Aug 2020 16:35

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/ind ... 610650.cms

Amid border tensions with China, indigenous fighter LCA Tejas Deployed on the Western Front- definitely seems like IOC aircraft have BVR capability.

Nihat · Post by **Nihat** » 18 Aug 2020 16:51

This is amazing news, fills my heart with pride.

In the event of hostilities, the Tejas will face off with the f-16 based in Bholari. Hope the astra and derby ER are integrated soon to give it all the teeth out needs to be the new falcon slayer.

sankum · Post by **sankum** » 18 Aug 2020 17:00

Is jammer pod integrated? I hope it is therefore it has been forward deployed.

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 18 Aug 2020 18:57

I dont know in what state the LSPs are but heck if we can buy 30 year old airframes that never flew from Russia why not convert these LSPs into an operational half squadron. We need everything we can afford in such situations.

yensoy · Post by **yensoy** » 18 Aug 2020 19:06

suryag wrote:I dont know in what state the LSPs are but heck if we can buy 30 year old airframes that never flew from Russia why not convert these LSPs into an operational half squadron. We need everything we can afford in such situations.

We don't want one-off quirky machines in the inventory. LSPs can be used only if they are every bit equal to production runs, otherwise between handling, servicing and logistics it all gets too complicated and not worth the trouble for frontline duties. OTOH, would be great trainer (post tandem training of course) and test bed aircraft.

RajaRudra · Post by **RajaRudra** » 18 Aug 2020 19:14

yensoy wrote:
suryag wrote:I dont know in what state the LSPs are but heck if we can buy 30 year old airframes that never flew from Russia why not convert these LSPs into an operational half squadron. We need everything we can afford in such situations.
We don't want one-off quirky machines in the inventory. LSPs can be used only if they are every bit equal to production runs, otherwise between handling, servicing and logistics it all gets too complicated and not worth the trouble for frontline duties. OTOH, would be great trainer (post tandem training of course) and test bed aircraft.

Really doubt, IAF would have deployed LCA without sufficient teeth. The fact that it got deployed is stamp that it is up to the standards expected by IAF.
We can expect some news about LCA needing waiting for spares, in repair, taking more time between each sorties in media. The same will be true for all the platforms, but what to do , cribbing about LCA has special love in the hearts of our media and also worth the sensation(click bait).

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 18 Aug 2020 19:25

yensoy wrote:
suryag wrote:I dont know in what state the LSPs are but heck if we can buy 30 year old airframes that never flew from Russia why not convert these LSPs into an operational half squadron. We need everything we can afford in such situations.
We don't want one-off quirky machines in the inventory. LSPs can be used only if they are every bit equal to production runs, otherwise between handling, servicing and logistics it all gets too complicated and not worth the trouble for frontline duties. OTOH, would be great trainer (post tandem training of course) and test bed aircraft.

Quirky machines? Really? Again - Indians come up with the toughest requirements for their own products but fall flat for imported rust buckets - perhaps they come with Natashas? and the Tejas comes with KotiNarayna?
I don't recall even one of the LSPs as having crashed and these had helped to open up the flight envelope testing all the required points. Where was it stated that the LSPs should be fielded without all the upgrades in the IOC aircraft. If rusting Mig 29s can be brought to operational IAF upgraded standard, can you help us understand why the LSPs cannot come to that standard? It would be a great boost to fleet if the airframes can be pressed into service with upgrades commensurate to IOC aircraft.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 18 Aug 2020 19:27

suryag wrote:I dont know in what state the LSPs are but heck if we can buy 30 year old airframes that never flew from Russia why not convert these LSPs into an operational half squadron. We need everything we can afford in such situations.

Each LSP's are in a different configuration to test different capabilities and dont have the full SOP.

Also LSP's are being used to test both Uttam and possibly Elta 2052 integration, EW suite integration and a whole lot of other functions. Design & Development will get delayed

A better idea would have been to increase capacity of the existing line from 16 to 24. Personally I'm not happy with the MiG-29 and Su-30MKI given their old airframes (MiG-29) and dated radars (Zhuk, Bars) and other systems.

Converting HAL Nashik to a Tejas line for 16 aircraft per annum in addition to HAL Bangalore would have resulted in an annual capacity of 32. A five year order would have resulted in 160 Tejas that would have been ample to replace old MiG-21 Bis, MiG-21 Bison and some older Jaguars.

Thereafter these lines could have built MWF to replace remaining Jaguars, MiG-29 and Mirage 2000s that would have reached obsolescence by end 2020's

sankum · Post by **sankum** » 18 Aug 2020 19:30

Only 6 LSP are flying which are being used for testing.

yensoy · Post by **yensoy** » 18 Aug 2020 19:47

Vivek K wrote:
yensoy wrote: We don't want one-off quirky machines in the inventory. LSPs can be used only if they are every bit equal to production runs, otherwise between handling, servicing and logistics it all gets too complicated and not worth the trouble for frontline duties. OTOH, would be great trainer (post tandem training of course) and test bed aircraft.
Quirky machines? Really? Again - Indians come up with the toughest requirements for their own products but fall flat for imported rust buckets - perhaps they come with Natashas? and the Tejas comes with KotiNarayna?

Please see the highly knowledgeable tsarkar's post above. LSPs are LSPs for a particular reason. Each item in a preproduction run is built for some purpose or with some variation in process technology which often makes it different from the others. That doesn't mean they are rustbuckets or Natashas involved. Calm down.

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 18 Aug 2020 19:58

In general notwithstanding Tsarkar's post, we all repeat ad nauseam that the LSPs are different based on the same news reports, frankly I doubt any of us have any idea what is so different in airframes between LSP->IOC *that cannot be fixed*. Of course, wiring harnesses might be different, LRUs might be different but if it were possible we should upgrade the LSPs to IOC and then use for experimentation, keep them as close to operational readiness as possible.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 18 Aug 2020 20:21

sankum wrote:Is jammer pod integrated? I hope it is therefore it has been forward deployed.

Jamming pod integration is included in Mk1A, although I'm sure it will be back-ported to the Mk1 once done. I don't think integration of jamming pod is a necessity for forward deployment in the IAF. The Mig-29's were forward deployed for years without any SPJ. The upgraded ones are supposed to receive DARE's D-29 internal EW suite but it is unclear how many aircraft currently have it if any. But they are flying in Leh nevertheless. The MKI's also do not fly every mission with the SAP-518's on the wingtips. WingCo Abhinandan's Mig-21 was also not carrying the Elta pod but was armed with 2 R-73's instead if you remember (carrying the pod would mean carrying one less R-73. Same issue on the Tejas. Mk1A will fix this with the dual-rack pylon).

sanjayc · Post by **sanjayc** » 18 Aug 2020 22:32

Amid border tensions with China, indigenous fighter LCA Tejas deployed on Western front

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/ind ... 610650.cms

Amid the ongoing tension with China at Line of Actual Control (LAC) in Ladakh, the Indian Air Force (IAF) on Tuesday (18 August) deployed the indigenous Tejas fighter aircraft on the western front, reports ANI.

According to the report, the IAF has deployed the first LCA Tejas squadron, 45 Squadron (Flying Daggers) based out of Sulur under the Southern Air Command, in an operational role on the western front, close to the border with Pakistan.

"The LCA Tejas was deployed by the Indian Air Force on the western front close to the Pakistan border to take care of any possible action by the adversary there," government sources were quoted by ANI as saying.

The first squadron of the indigenous fighter aircraft, which has been developed by the Defence PSU Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, is of the initial operational clearance version while the second 18 Squadron 'Flying Bullets' is of Final Operational Clearance (FOC) version.

Kakarat · Post by **Kakarat** » 18 Aug 2020 22:58

https://twitter.com/livefist/status/1295717606461186053

Significant, but not the first time. 45 Sqn LCAs saw deployment at a frontline base in the western sector after the Balakot air strikes last year too. Amidst the current standoff, they've been deployed since late June.

SidSoma · Post by **SidSoma** » 18 Aug 2020 23:13

nachiket wrote:
sankum wrote:Is jammer pod integrated? I hope it is therefore it has been forward deployed.
Jamming pod integration is included in Mk1A, although I'm sure it will be back-ported to the Mk1 once done. I don't think integration of jamming pod is a necessity for forward deployment in the IAF. The Mig-29's were forward deployed for years without any SPJ. The upgraded ones are supposed to receive DARE's D-29 internal EW suite but it is unclear how many aircraft currently have it if any. But they are flying in Leh nevertheless. The MKI's also do not fly every mission with the SAP-518's on the wingtips. WingCo Abhinandan's Mig-21 was also not carrying the Elta pod but was armed with 2 R-73's instead if you remember (carrying the pod would mean carrying one less R-73. Same issue on the Tejas. Mk1A will fix this with the dual-rack pylon).

Usually Mig 21 carry 4 AAMs, Tejas can carry 5 AAms + SPJ, clearly an improvement over current condition. Remember even with 24+ enemy, IAF fired only 1 missile.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 18 Aug 2020 23:35

SidSoma wrote: Usually Mig 21 carry 4 AAMs, Tejas can carry 5 AAms + SPJ, clearly an improvement over current condition. Remember even with 24+ enemy, IAF fired only 1 missile.

The 6AAM+centerline tank config will probably be used for QRA and point defence missions. CAP missions will probably require 2 wing tanks and 4 AAM's for greater on-station time. In any case the pod has not been integrated yet. But that by itself doesn't preclude the Tejas' use in combat. That was my point.

Cyrano · Post by **Cyrano** » 19 Aug 2020 00:08

Press reporting that Tejas squadron has been deployed on the western front!

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 19 Aug 2020 00:08

https://twitter.com/SJha1618/status/129 ... 36929?s=20 ---> Oh for those who are wondering, the HAL Tejas has been deployed to a forward airbase in the Western Sector facing Pakistan.

https://twitter.com/SJha1618/status/129 ... 36928?s=20 ---> What is so surprising? Former ACM Dhanoa had made it clear a while ago that the HAL Tejas will indeed be deployed to a forward airbase sooner than later. I won't be surprised if it is eventually also based at Leh.Our boys are gonna love using the Derby against all those bore dragons.

https://twitter.com/SJha1618/status/129 ... 55936?s=20 ---> India has to now start thinking big. All this, 'we'll build 16 Tejas a year' etc. will not do. Rope in another player from the private sector for integration & place very large orders for the Tejas Mk-1A. Consider it part of the 'infrastructure push' needed to revive the economy.
My Note: Some Private "Indian Aerospace" Players are Mahindra Aerospace, Tata Advanced Systems Limited (TASL), Dassault Reliance Aerospace Limited (DRAL) and Adani Defence & Aerospace. I believe it is $250 million to set up a Tejas line. Mahindra is teamed up with Boeing/HAL for F-18, TASL teamed up with Lockheed for F-21, DRAL likely for any future Rafale order and Adani for Gripen. Dassault is negotiating with Reliance to buy out the Reliance stake in DRAL. If these companies can do screwdrivergiri on phoren fighters, they sure can do it on Tejas.

https://twitter.com/SJha1618/status/129 ... 97414?s=20 ---> Japan's F-15 fleet is getting worn out due to heightened Chinese air activity. India is going to face semi-hot/tense borders throughout this decade. We need the Tejas in serious numbers to maintain our posture. Can't have Su-30MKIs & Rafales pulling alerts all the time.

https://twitter.com/SJha1618/status/129 ... 97825?s=20 ---> 42 squadrons is the minimum strength required for a hypothetical 2-front conflict. In my view, the 'no war no peace' 2-front situation is already here. Given the expected wear & tear over the next decade, we need a larger air force populated with cheaper to operate fighters.

SidSoma · Post by **SidSoma** » 19 Aug 2020 01:24

nachiket wrote:
SidSoma wrote: Usually Mig 21 carry 4 AAMs, Tejas can carry 5 AAms + SPJ, clearly an improvement over current condition. Remember even with 24+ enemy, IAF fired only 1 missile.
The 6AAM+centerline tank config will probably be used for QRA and point defence missions. CAP missions will probably require 2 wing tanks and 4 AAM's for greater on-station time. In any case the pod has not been integrated yet. But that by itself doesn't preclude the Tejas' use in combat. That was my point.

Absolutely, I agree. Based on what we saw on 27th Feb, It would seem that an SPJ would be better than carrying an extra BVR. I hope they expedite the carrying of the pod.

V_Raman · Post by **V_Raman** » 19 Aug 2020 01:28

Maintaining massa style always on military is expensive - without domestic MIC we will go bankrupt. We might need our own marines as well - subset of army which is Always On.

Barath · Post by **Barath** » 19 Aug 2020 05:54

V_Raman wrote:Maintaining massa style always on military is expensive - ..... We might need our own marines as well - subset of army which is Always On.

The US duplicated forces and capabilities ($$$$). The US has needs for power projection globally. The marines had history, vested interests and Congressional support. And with all of that, the marines are now eliminating the "duplicate army" bit, focusing on littoral , getting rid of tanks, artillery, heavy equipment for mobility (as in deploy far away from mainland against china)

So, all in all, bad idea for India.

The "always on" option doctrinally is cold start. Hopefully with combined arms.

Which I assume is the relevance for Tejas ?

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 19 Aug 2020 12:29

A couple of questions about the forward deployed Tejas:

1) I am assuming it carries Derby and not Derby-ER as the medium range AAM. How does it compare with the F-16 Amraam? This is an area where the R-77 came up short

2) Does it have SDR (software defined radio) to protect from jamming & losing situational awareness, like what happened with Abhinandan

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 19 Aug 2020 15:31

suryag wrote:I dont know in what state the LSPs are but heck if we can buy 30 year old airframes that never flew from Russia why not convert these LSPs into an operational half squadron. We need everything we can afford in such situations.

Some of the LSPs will continue to be used for testing Mk1A changes. But I'm pretty certain that if HAL and IAF wanted, some of the later LSPs could be converted to IOC or FOC standard. Those LSPs don't have such varied systems from the IOC and FOC fighters that they couldn't be upgraded that way. And even with the fact that the LSPs ended up doing the bulk of the testing, they should have more than enough hours on each of their airframes.

Long story short- definitely doable, given the very high level of commonality in LRUs and systems (MC, radar, ECS, etc.), but getting it done will need HAL and IAF to agree on a contract because the OEM will need to provide warranty and support for them if they are to be used in service by the IAF.

BTW, this is not unheard of- for e.g. Taiwan's new AJT prototypes will end up being refurbed and then handed over to the ROCAF after the flight testing phase is over.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 19 Aug 2020 16:14

The news of the No.45 squadron's Tejas fighters being deployed at the Western border is clear indication that whatever integration work needed to be carried out to allow the IOC fighters to use the Derby BVRAAM has been completed and deployed. There is no way that the IAF would've deployed them unless they were BVR capable.

This news truly warms my heart! Decades of following this program and we now have an indigenous fighter guarding our border, even if it's in small numbers for now.

The experience will be invaluable, giving deep insights into what the Tejas platform is capable of, what may need to be addressed quickly and what new requirements will be needed to maintain and support a Tejas fleet at forward air bases.

Now to see an Elta-8222 SPJ and Astra on it!

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 19 Aug 2020 21:33

Prem Kumar wrote:A couple of questions about the forward deployed Tejas:

1) I am assuming it carries Derby and not Derby-ER as the medium range AAM. How does it compare with the F-16 Amraam? This is an area where the R-77 came up short

2) Does it have SDR (software defined radio) to protect from jamming & losing situational awareness, like what happened with Abhinandan

Someone more knowledgeable than me, will answer the second query. But with regards to your first query...

* Range of AIM-120C5 AMRAAM (the variant in PAF inventory) is around 110 km.
* Range of Derby is 50 km and range of Derby-ER is 100 km.

These are ranges that are officially published by the manufacturer. Actual performance varies on a number of parameters, the primary one being training. Also see these tweets below....

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/12356 ... 49856?s=20 ---> Abstract Ex - think about it. police gun range = 100 meters, but thief's gun range = 120 meters. Will this be reason enough for the thief to be allowed to escape? No. There's all kinds of tactics. For policing, as also, for air combat.

https://twitter.com/TheWolfpackIN/statu ... 91713?s=20 ---> Report: Taiwan govt is requesting US to approve supply of AIM-120Ds for ROCAF F-16 Block 70s to improve deterrence against new Chinese BVRAAMS like PL-15.

Range of AIM-120D is > 160 km and range of PL-15 is 300 km. A longer range missile is better to have, as long as the pilot is *TRAINED* to exploit that capability. At Balakot, the PAF's training was found wanting. The R-77 did not come up short and the PAF launched their AMRAAMs at D1Max.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 19 Aug 2020 21:50

Rakesh wrote:https://twitter.com/TheWolfpackIN/statu ... 91713?s=20 ---> Report: Taiwan govt is requesting US to approve supply of AIM-120Ds for ROCAF F-16 Block 70s to improve deterrence against new Chinese BVRAAMS like PL-15.

No such request is made and none of this sort is going to be approved. Canada, Australia and the UK are the only three countries for whom the AIM-120 D has been approved IIRC. To the best of my knowledge, no non-FVEY has requested or been approved for the AIM-120 D.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 19 Aug 2020 22:09

Brar, what missile is coming on those 66 F-16 Block 70s ordered last year by the Taiwan Air Force?

I believe they got 200+ AIM-120C7s in the previous decade. Did they not?

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 19 Aug 2020 22:37

Rakesh wrote:Brar, what missile is coming on those 66 F-16 Block 70s ordered last year by the Taiwan Air Force?

I believe they got 200+ AIM-120C7s in the previous decade. Did they not?

It would be C7's or the upgraded C8's but I don't they requested any additional stock over and above what they already have. The "D" has a drastically different missile communication, PNT, and signal processing (F3R) innards compared to the C8 or C7 (and prior) which is probably why it would be tightly controlled in terms of export for quite a while still. It is treated seperately as far as export is concerned and isn't usually clubbed as part of an FMS request for the F-16V or the F-35 even.