Very grim news for the Indian Air Force

Military aircraft - Post cold war aircraft, including for example B-2, Gripen, F-18E/F Super Hornet, Rafale, and Typhoon.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2334
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post20 May 2020, 02:27

Range is less important with aerial refuel and that capability is achieved from FOC Mk 1 onwards.

The key deficiency is the inability to internalize the Jammer due to space constraints which won't be resolved until Mk 2. That means the Jammer will need to take up a hardpoint. Add that 2 tanks will need to be carried for decent radius and the 2 outboard hardpoints can carry only R-73s. That leaves only 3 for munitions. For counter air missions, that's less of an issue as Tejas variants from FOC Mk1 onwards would carry 2 Derby with the SPJ. However for ground attack, it will need a designation pod so its a choice of having both designation pod + SPJ and only 1 munition or carry 2 munition without the SPJ or rely on tankers/accept reduced range by carrying only 1 tank.

Considering its replacing Mig-21s, the above isn't an issue. The LCA is an upgrade to the Mig-21 and has to handle only F-16s/JF-17s on its western front. Most of the Mig-21 airbases are all near the border i.e. no need significant range. Srinagar where the 2nd sqn will be based is only 150km from Islamabad. Well within combat radius. With the resolution of the teething issues, I can understand why the IAF went with the Tejas.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6702
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post20 May 2020, 02:42

weasel1962 wrote:Range is less important with aerial refuel and that capability is achieved from FOC Mk 1 onwards.

The key deficiency is the inability to internalize the Jammer due to space constraints which won't be resolved until Mk 2. That means the Jammer will need to take up a hardpoint. Add that 2 tanks will need to be carried for decent radius and the 2 outboard hardpoints can carry only R-73s. That leaves only 3 for munitions. For counter air missions, that's less of an issue as Tejas variants from FOC Mk1 onwards would carry 2 Derby with the SPJ. However for ground attack, it will need a designation pod so its a choice of having both designation pod + SPJ and only 1 munition or carry 2 munition without the SPJ or rely on tankers/accept reduced range by carrying only 1 tank.

Considering its replacing Mig-21s, the above isn't an issue. The LCA is an upgrade to the Mig-21 and has to handle only F-16s/JF-17s on its western front. Most of the Mig-21 airbases are all near the border i.e. no need significant range. Srinagar where the 2nd sqn will be based is only 150km from Islamabad. Well within combat radius. With the resolution of the teething issues, I can understand why the IAF went with the Tejas.



First, "range" is always an issue as is the limited number of weapons and payload the aircraft can carry. Plus, being close to the boarder just makes the LCA more vulnerable to counter attacks. (or even first strikes)

Simple fact is most of the leading 4th Generation Fighters. Would offer considerably more performance and payload. So, again what's the advantage of the LCA???


BTW I don't see the LCA MK I or MK IA being much of a threat to Pakistani JF-17's or F-16C's either....(Air to Air)
Offline

milosh

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1065
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post20 May 2020, 15:25

Corsair1963 wrote:Laughable the LCA like most small fighters offers poor payload vs range. As a matter of fact the LCA is basically just a "point defense fighter". Which, offers very little in overall capability. Hell, most 4th Generation Fighters are more than a match for the LCA. (MK I or MK IA) That is just the cold hard truth....


Tejas/MMCA need to replace MiG-21, MiG-27 and Jaguars. Those planes don't have some respectible range. So range argument isn't so important, but if we talk about range while Tejas is small it carry nice amount of fuel for its size (big composite delta wing), Tejas Mk1 carry ~ 2500kg of fuel, F-16:
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military ... -specs.htm

So I really don't see Tejas Mk1 is so bad in range/fuel.

So with finished Tejas Mk1 there isn't really need for MMCA. What is more important to India is to invest in ACMA by joining some other 5/6gen program which fit in ACMA requirement. UK offered India to join in Tempest program which would be big boost for Tempest if they get rising economical super power to join it, with that and rich Arab states Tempest future look very interesting:
https://www.bloomberg.com/professional/ ... ut-almost/

About J-31, let we see it finished then we can talked about Pakistan buying one. Btw you seem didn't read news about Shenyang is working on new fighter, this could mean they are giving up on J-31 or J-31 need heavy redesign, one of engineer said it could weight lot more then what they planned (3tons I think) and some chinese sources mentioned 3D print structures of airframe aren't good as it was expected, 3D printed structures would reduce cost and weight of airframe a lot if they work:
https://www.3ders.org/articles/20130529 ... onent.html
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2334
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post21 May 2020, 01:15

Its a question of force size. The total buy for Mk1/1A is only 123 (20 IOC, 20 FOC, 83 1A) up to 2029. That affords 6 Tejas sqn + 2 rafale sqn. AMCA schedule has been reported to achieve 1st flight by 2024/2025 or 2032 depending on who one talks to. Note the earlier date may be even before Tejas Mk 2 appears so everything is taken with a nice dose of salt. Even at the earliest 1st flight, this still means AMCA production will only start ~2028/2029 or later.

P.s. Noted that the Tejas does include a separate sensor hardpoint so that mitigates what I mentioned earlier about the external Jammer required.

Tejas weapons station.png


1200litre Drop tank = 2100 lbs / 317 gal fuel
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6702
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post21 May 2020, 03:42

milosh wrote:
Tejas/MMCA need to replace MiG-21, MiG-27 and Jaguars. Those planes don't have some respectible range. So range argument isn't so important, but if we talk about range while Tejas is small it carry nice amount of fuel for its size (big composite delta wing), Tejas Mk1 carry ~ 2500kg of fuel, F-16:
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military ... -specs.htm

So I really don't see Tejas Mk1 is so bad in range/fuel.


Range is critically important and you don't want to judge the LCA vs the Mig-21, Mig-27, and Jaguar! You want to judge them against the threat....


So with finished Tejas Mk1 there isn't really need for MMCA. What is more important to India is to invest in ACMA by joining some other 5/6gen program which fit in ACMA requirement. UK offered India to join in Tempest program which would be big boost for Tempest if they get rising economical super power to join it, with that and rich Arab states Tempest future look very interesting:
https://www.bloomberg.com/professional/ ... ut-almost/


What some don't seem to get??? Is the AMCA is a good 20 years off at best. In addition it is a 5th Generation Design. Which, means by time it arrives. Other nations will be close to fielding "6th Generation Fighters".

So, looks like India is repeating the LCA mistake all over again.... :?

About J-31, let we see it finished then we can talked about Pakistan buying one. Btw you seem didn't read news about Shenyang is working on new fighter, this could mean they are giving up on J-31 or J-31 need heavy redesign, one of engineer said it could weight lot more then what they planned (3tons I think) and some chinese sources mentioned 3D print structures of airframe aren't good as it was expected, 3D printed structures would reduce cost and weight of airframe a lot if they work:
https://www.3ders.org/articles/20130529 ... onent.html


The J-31 has already been redesigned and at least appears to be progressing well. Regardless, real point comes down to Pakistan getting a Stealth Fighter. Which, is very likely at some stage. Why??? Because one it wants one and two China has every reason to provide one!

What it all really comes down too! Is India will very likely find opposing Stealth Fighters on not one but two fronts post 2030. While, India will have "none" under the current plan...

On top of that much of her fleet of fighters. Will be old and obsolete (Mig-29's, Mirage 2000's, etc.)....while many of her newer ones (LCA) will be small in size and limited in capability.
Offline

disconnectedradical

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 899
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2010, 00:44
  • Location: San Antonio, TX

Unread post21 May 2020, 04:40

Corsair1963 wrote:The J-31 has already been redesigned and at least appears to be progressing well. Regardless, real point comes down to Pakistan getting a Stealth Fighter. Which, is very likely at some stage. Why??? Because one it wants one and two China has every reason to provide one!

What it all really comes down too! Is India will very likely find opposing Stealth Fighters on not one but two fronts post 2030. While, India will have "none" under the current plan...

On top of that much of her fleet of fighters. Will be old and obsolete (Mig-29's, Mirage 2000's, etc.)....while many of her newer ones (LCA) will be small in size and limited in capability.


So what is India supposed to do then? Do nothing? Just give up?
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6702
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post21 May 2020, 07:12

disconnectedradical wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:The J-31 has already been redesigned and at least appears to be progressing well. Regardless, real point comes down to Pakistan getting a Stealth Fighter. Which, is very likely at some stage. Why??? Because one it wants one and two China has every reason to provide one!

What it all really comes down too! Is India will very likely find opposing Stealth Fighters on not one but two fronts post 2030. While, India will have "none" under the current plan...

On top of that much of her fleet of fighters. Will be old and obsolete (Mig-29's, Mirage 2000's, etc.)....while many of her newer ones (LCA) will be small in size and limited in capability.


So what is India supposed to do then? Do nothing? Just give up?


Surely, not but the point here is the current plan is not viable. If, she is going to put up a credible defense against China and Pakistan thru the 2030's and 2040's.

She needs a good mix of "capable" 4th and 5th Generation Fighters short-term. The former could be upgrade second hand examples or new aircraft. While, the latter has to be at least a modest number of F-35's. (only option)

Now long term she needs to join a future 6th Generation Fighter Program. (Tempest, FCA, PCA, etc.)


"IMHO"
Offline

milosh

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1065
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post21 May 2020, 17:48

Corsair1963 wrote:Range is critically important and you don't want to judge the LCA vs the Mig-21, Mig-27, and Jaguar! You want to judge them against the threat....


What threat? Pakistan? Range is more then enough. To attack expensive targets in China even Su-34/35 or F-35 would lack range.

LCA was designed to replace planes which lack range and LCA in fact have very good range, if you check what I posted its internal fuel fraction very good, you see LCA as smallish fighter so you think it doesn't have range, what you don't see is big delta wing:
https://www.deccanherald.com/sites/dh/f ... k=9HY1z1Wf

So you can argue it lack speed or agility but range :? that is most pointless critic of all about LCA.
Corsair1963 wrote:What some don't seem to get??? Is the AMCA is a good 20 years off at best. In addition it is a 5th Generation Design. Which, means by time it arrives. Other nations will be close to fielding "6th Generation Fighters".


Instead of ACMA they will probable go with Tempest. Buying LCA instead MMCA fighters will allow noticable more funds for that program.

Corsair1963 wrote:The J-31 has already been redesigned and at least appears to be progressing well. Regardless, real point comes down to Pakistan getting a Stealth Fighter. Which, is very likely at some stage. Why??? Because one it wants one and two China has every reason to provide one!


https://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1173418.shtml

This is from Dec 2019. Why Shenyang will start work on new fighter if J-31 is progressing well?

Corsair1963 wrote:What it all really comes down too! Is India will very likely find opposing Stealth Fighters on not one but two fronts post 2030. While, India will have "none" under the current plan...


Only stealth which China could have in late 2020s which can endanger India is stealth bomber. Fighters don't have range to attack India especially deeper in India.

Corsair1963 wrote:On top of that much of her fleet of fighters. Will be old and obsolete (Mig-29's, Mirage 2000's, etc.)....while many of her newer ones (LCA) will be small in size and limited in capability.


LCA have better range then MiG-29 and maybe even M2000 (similar FF but LCA jet engine is more efficient), it is much smaller target on radar then those two.

Its main competitor JF-17 while similar size is bigger on radar because it is mostly metal plane btw Pak F-16 are also noticable bigger on radar.

LCA with Meteors will be very dangerous small fighter.
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2334
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post22 May 2020, 00:55

JF-17 use of composites increases with the block i.e. Blk 2 uses more, whilst Blk 3 probably will use the most so far. Probably a reflection of composite production in China which presumably is the source of the material.
Offline

milosh

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1065
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post23 May 2020, 10:30

weasel1962 wrote:JF-17 use of composites increases with the block i.e. Blk 2 uses more, whilst Blk 3 probably will use the most so far. Probably a reflection of composite production in China which presumably is the source of the material.


Problem with JF-17 is lack of data, for LCA we have official numbers about composites, I think 60% of plane is composite (probable skin not weight) which is excellent for RCS when combine with RAM.
Last edited by milosh on 23 May 2020, 10:37, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

loke

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 965
  • Joined: 14 Nov 2008, 19:07

Unread post23 May 2020, 10:36

IAF chief contradicts CDS Rawat, says plan is to buy 114 foreign fighters besides LCA Tejas


https://theprint.in/defence/iaf-chief-c ... as/424468/

So it seems the IAF is still pushing for the MMRCA.
Offline

loke

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 965
  • Joined: 14 Nov 2008, 19:07

Unread post23 May 2020, 10:53

More about the MMRCA:

NEW DELHI — The Indian Air Force is overhauling its plan to induct 114 medium-weight multirole fighters, with a senior service official saying the aircraft will be built in India with significant foreign technology transfer and no foreign procurement.
The effort will cost about $17 billion under the Make in India economic policy.

The official added that the RFI included the requirement for transfer of technology, including the transfer of design, development, manufacturing and repair expertise. It also included the requirement for the unilateral capability to integrate weapons, systems and sensors. The capability to upgrade the aircraft and a provision on exporting the aircraft is also part of the program. India is also seeking transfer of technology for stealth technology, active electronically scanned array radars, avionics, electronic warfare systems and engines.

When South Korea (which, unlike India, is a close US ally) teamed up with US companies to build their new fighter jet, SK was denied some critical technology that they explicitly asked for.... for instance, they ended up getting AESA technology from Saab...

Saab has worked on stealth technology, for instance through the Neuron program. The only thing listed above they cannot deliver on is the engine. However India will not get engine tech no matter what a/c they are buying. Saab is probably the only company that will be allowed to deliver substantial tech transfer on: stealth, AESA radar, avionics, and EW systems. The US companies will simply not be allowed to transfer that technology to India. Of course they can try to offer "dumbed down" versions that are sufficiently primitive to be allowed to be transferred, however, as demonstrated in SK, other options then becomes more attractive.

https://www.defensenews.com/global/asia ... t-program/
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6702
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post25 May 2020, 04:09

milosh wrote:
What threat? Pakistan? Range is more then enough. To attack expensive targets in China even Su-34/35 or F-35 would lack range.

LCA was designed to replace planes which lack range and LCA in fact have very good range, if you check what I posted its internal fuel fraction very good, you see LCA as smallish fighter so you think it doesn't have range, what you don't see is big delta wing:
https://www.deccanherald.com/sites/dh/f ... k=9HY1z1Wf


LOL Range is more than enough...(ABSURD) Range is not only to and from target. It's also time over target. In addition the current range of the LCA is even less than say the F/A-18 Hornet. Which, is hardly stellar to begin with . Plus, in flight refueling is limited in the case of the LCA....


Instead of ACMA they will probable go with Tempest. Buying LCA instead MMCA fighters will allow noticable more funds for that program.


First, I've seen nothing to suggest India will join the Tempest Program. Yet, she needs to do something and soon! (both short and long term) As the current plan is not a viable option. If, India has any hope of countering the PAF/PLAAF post 2030.


Only stealth which China could have in late 2020s which can endanger India is stealth bomber. Fighters don't have range to attack India especially deeper in India.


Laughable so a few hundred Stealth Fighters (both J-20's and J-30's) are no threat to India! Hell, the US may as well stop production of the F-35....
:doh:



LCA have better range then MiG-29 and maybe even M2000 (similar FF but LCA jet engine is more efficient), it is much smaller target on radar then those two.

Its main competitor JF-17 while similar size is bigger on radar because it is mostly metal plane btw Pak F-16 are also noticable bigger on radar.

LCA with Meteors will be very dangerous small fighter.


Sorry, while the LCA maybe a slight improvement over older 4th Generation Fighter types in certain aspects. It's still lacking in many respects. Regardless, how the LCA compares to the Mig-21, Mig-29, or even Mirage 2000 is beside the point...

Honestly, I doubt the PAF and PLAAF see the little LCA as much of a threat...(small war load, limited presence, non-stealthy)


As for the JF-17 combined with the F-16 and likely the J-31 post 2030. I would consider it to be a big threat. Especially, if India also has to worry about the PLAAF and PLAN.

It's worth noting that Pakistan continues to upgrade the JF-17. Especially, in respect to AESA Radars and BVR Missiles.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6702
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post25 May 2020, 04:11

loke wrote:More about the MMRCA:

NEW DELHI — The Indian Air Force is overhauling its plan to induct 114 medium-weight multirole fighters, with a senior service official saying the aircraft will be built in India with significant foreign technology transfer and no foreign procurement.
The effort will cost about $17 billion under the Make in India economic policy.

The official added that the RFI included the requirement for transfer of technology, including the transfer of design, development, manufacturing and repair expertise. It also included the requirement for the unilateral capability to integrate weapons, systems and sensors. The capability to upgrade the aircraft and a provision on exporting the aircraft is also part of the program. India is also seeking transfer of technology for stealth technology, active electronically scanned array radars, avionics, electronic warfare systems and engines.

When South Korea (which, unlike India, is a close US ally) teamed up with US companies to build their new fighter jet, SK was denied some critical technology that they explicitly asked for.... for instance, they ended up getting AESA technology from Saab...

Saab has worked on stealth technology, for instance through the Neuron program. The only thing listed above they cannot deliver on is the engine. However India will not get engine tech no matter what a/c they are buying. Saab is probably the only company that will be allowed to deliver substantial tech transfer on: stealth, AESA radar, avionics, and EW systems. The US companies will simply not be allowed to transfer that technology to India. Of course they can try to offer "dumbed down" versions that are sufficiently primitive to be allowed to be transferred, however, as demonstrated in SK, other options then becomes more attractive.

https://www.defensenews.com/global/asia ... t-program/



Apples and Oranges......
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2334
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post25 May 2020, 06:57

The Mk1A timeline is allowing time for the Uttam to complete development as an alternative to the 2052. There is also an indigeneous designation pod. Safran has also been pushing for ToT on the Kaveri project. I don't think there is any push to develop an alternative to the Cobham radome but generally local % content has significant potential to increase.
PreviousNext

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 38 guests

cron