LCA Tejas Mk1 & Mk1A - News and discussions
- Thread starter Ashwin
- Start date
-
- Tags
- indian defence forum
Yes and that missile uses same pylons as the Derby missile so integration will not be a problem.
Yep. But I don't think it's going to be cheap.
Two seekers and a triple pulse motor makes it magical.
I suppose it depends on how many are actually produced, Meteor has more orders. Not to mention, the Israelis are still developing the Stunner, so they can add in more goodies and make it more expensive. Plus they will add the "Bakra India" premium on the sticker price.
Already explained, BVR missiles are not designed for manuverabilility like close combat missiles, so claiming Meteor is bad for fighters, by completely ignoring that this applies to all similar missiles, doesn't make any sense. That's like claiming Derby is bad, because it not as manuverable as Python V.
So what counts, is it's ability as a BVR missile and in comparison with similar once and that's where it stands out.
You are wrong. Even BVR missiles have to be as agile as WVRAAMs for end game. They do fly like a normal rocket during the flight to the target but their ability to pull Gs and manoeuvre like WVRAAMs is a must to achieve a successful interception. In the final moments of interception, every target aircraft equipped with MAWS & RWRs will know the direction of approach and time to impact of the incoming missile. They will not only launch counter measures but also manoeuvre aggressively to outfly the missile.
One of the tactics employed by us to defeat the missile is to either take it headon to deny it a easy lock due to far reduced RCS, far reduced IR signature and extremely high rate of closure. If its from the sides, fly a course 90* to the missile, this will increase the forward throw angle of the missile by increasing the crossing speed and once the time to impact is just about 3-4 secs, turn with max G into the missile to fly over/under its path. The missile will have a slight lag in following the target and to make up for that lag, the missile will need to pull a G-Force which is equal to or more than the square of velocity diff in Mach no multiplied by the G-force pulled by the target. To explain further, if the missile is flying at mach-3 and target is flying at mach-1, the diff is twice mach and the target pulls 6G. The minimum G-force required for the missile to follow the target will be 2^2x6=24. I have not heard of any missile capable of pulling 24G at 35K feet. But a lot of fighters can pull 6G at 35K feet.
Lastly, the ability to outfly and counter a missile is directly dependent on the range/time at which it is detected. Longer the range/time more is the time to counter the missile.
R77/R73
AIM120/AIM9X
Derby/Python
Meteor/Iris-T, Asraam, Mica
The facts speak for themselves.
And the higher the speed, the shorter the time needed for the same range.
I have not understood what you mean to say with that. WVRAAMs do have higher G pulling ability as they are required to turn very tight just after launch on most occasions and also to take on a fighter pulling close to 9Gs. But what about their altitude capability? how much G can they pull as the altitude increases and what factors cause that deterioration.
@vstol Jockey
Sir Will it not be better to use Tejas as a Pure
BVR Fighter ie as A "Sniper " , firing long range Missiles ,as a part of Mixed Fighter Package with Su 30
Since it has limited Combat Radius
And when the Enemy F 16 and JF 17 s start taking evasive Action , the Su 30 will chase them and shoot them down
What do you say
Sir Will it not be better to use Tejas as a Pure
BVR Fighter ie as A "Sniper " , firing long range Missiles ,as a part of Mixed Fighter Package with Su 30
Since it has limited Combat Radius
And when the Enemy F 16 and JF 17 s start taking evasive Action , the Su 30 will chase them and shoot them down
What do you say
Each class of fighter has a specific role to perform. LCA was concieved as a replacement for Mig-21s which was a point defense fighter with limited escort role. LCA is just perfect for Pakistan and also for the hilly terrain on our chinese borders. For deeper strikes you do need a twin engine fighter with long legs. While combination of Su-30MKI & LCA will be ok for border areas, for deeper strikes its not fit.@vstol Jockey
Sir Will it not be better to use Tejas as a Pure
BVR Fighter ie as A "Sniper " , firing long range Missiles ,as a part of Mixed Fighter Package with Su 30
Since it has limited Combat Radius
And when the Enemy F 16 and JF 17 s start taking evasive Action , the Su 30 will chase them and shoot them down
What do you say
In Rafale season, parliamentary panel headed by Kharge slams HAL for failure to provide enough Tejas
Read more at:
In Rafale season, parliamentary panel headed by Kharge slams HAL for failure to provide enough Tejas - Times of India
Read more at:
In Rafale season, parliamentary panel headed by Kharge slams HAL for failure to provide enough Tejas - Times of India
Ajai is Not a Journalist
He is a Congress party member
His job is to find faults with everything that this Govt does
In your opinion , LCA should be paired up or teamed up with which Existing Fighter in IAF
As a part of a Mixed Fighter package
To utilise its Combat Potential to the
Fullest Or LCAs should operate on their own
Watch the last part of the video I posted above. They briefly discussed the matter Ajay raised regarding meteor integration with ELTA-2052.