LCA Tejas Mk1 & Mk1A - News and discussions

Arpit

Vox Populi
Nov 30, 2017
273
243
Delhi
Just thinking out loud.
Would you then want large numbers of such point defence fighters that would focus on interception albeit being multirole, or would you rather have large number of air superiority/strike role aircraft that can take the fight to the enemy airspace?

Given the current fleet, would you focus on increasing MKI/Rafale/ORCA type fighters or should we focus on single-engine mk1A/Mk2/MWF type single-engine fighters?

Or neither of the two options and wait it out for the 5th gen developments/offerings instead of chasing numbers?

Just asking question, why US use F 16 incase of hijacking. Why most of mission in Afg is by F 16 instead of F-15 or F-22? Even now, for NORAD first responders are still F-16. Why?

Why the US used F/A 18 SH in Syria (instead of F-22), and achieved one of the best high tempo mission in history of aviation.

Why MiG 21 were doing CAP missions on morning of 27th Feb 2019? And why French Air Force gone gung ho in Syria, but had to roll down high tempo mission within a month.

All your answers lie in it.
 

Lolwa

Well-Known member
Feb 6, 2020
847
639
Delhi
Put the nail in the coffin of the Jags and let them RIP.

My wish list.

2030 time frame
> With the current 13 Sqdns of MKI (including TACDE) 3 additional Sqdns (15 sqdns)
> With the current squadron 3 squadrons of M29 additional 2 squadrons, with a Phazatron Zhuk Aesa radar. (5)
>M2k Current fleet (2 sqdns)
>Tejas LCA 1P (2 sqdns)
>Tejas MWF (6sqdns)
>Rafale current 2 + 6 Sqdns as part of MRFA
> F35 JSF 4 sqdns.

42 sqdns total


Post 2030

replace 5 Mig29 sqds with AMCA and + 3 sqdns
Replace 2 m2k sqds with ORCA and additional 3 sqdns
Additional 4 Sqdns of F35 JSF

Total 52 sqdns.
I think jsf won't come but we could very well have the su 57 as a replacement since amca will take atleast 2030 to come online by that time we wil have a 200-300 J-20 fleet with the Chinese atleast.
And orca is a failed project it's doa. We are better served having more rafales and MWF orca doesn't make sense...
 
  • Agree
Reactions: JustCurious

Lolwa

Well-Known member
Feb 6, 2020
847
639
Delhi
Tell this to a twin engine Mig31. I mean interception time not maintanence.
The mig 31 was primarily designed as a interceptor. There's no other equivalent to the mig 31. The f15C is similar in design but it's more closer to the su27/30 than the mig 31 in terms of roles. Sure It can do a job of a interceptor but it's not a dedicated one like the mig 31. And mig 31 might be the last of its kind to fit that role...
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
9,787
7,414
India
Everything you said was well put.
My only objection "A lot of people do not know that the IAF is actually an extremely forward-thinking air force."

In advanced countries, every major technological infusion happens over many decades, while the IAF had planned for one every decade.

So the F-15 came out in the 70s, its replacement in 2005 and the next replacement will come in by around 2035.

IAF planned for the MKI in 2000, Rafale in the 2010s, FGFA in the 2020s and AMCA in the 2030s. That's unmatched by anyone else. Each decade brought in a major technological improvement in the IAF's ability to wage war. Now if you consider the 2040s would bring in FCAS and 2050 would bring in AMCA's next indigenous successor, we would have 6 generations of aircraft in a span of 5 decades, with at least 4 within 3 decades as practically assured. Each jet being comprehensively superior to the earlier one. Most other air forces would only have 2 aircraft generations within that time. We would actually have to replace "generation" with "cycle" by then.

Now the USAF is considering to do the same, by working on their NGAD's successor immediately after it becomes available. Then they plan to shrink that to 8 years for every new jet. So almost every decade a new aircraft, just like what the IAF had planned. But while the IAF planned to do that by alternating between indigenous and imports, the USAF plans to do their cycles on their own.

Would recommend reading the article in full.
Roper released a white paper to go with his presentation, “The New Digital Acquisition Reality.” In it he provided a chart showing that the digital approach he is promoting—building more different kinds of aircraft, but buying only a notional 75 of each type—will cost 18 percent more to develop and 25 percent more to produce. Then, however, it will save 81 percent in modifications and 49 percent in operations and support costs. The chart suggested that after 50 years of this rhythm, aircraft would be introduced every six to eight years and have an average age of eight years.

Roper is basically suggesting what @vstol Jockey has planned for MSA.
But what Roper calls the “Digital Century Series” would flip that paradigm: Instead of maturing technologies over time to create an exquisite fighter, the Air Force’s goal would be to quickly build the best fighter that industry can muster over a couple years, integrating whatever emerging technology exists. The service would downselect, put a small number of aircraft under contract and then restart another round of competition among fighter manufacturers, which would revise their fighter designs and explore newer leaps in technology.

Although the IAF's thought that far ahead, they do not have the money to make it a reality, as is evident. But considering the actual requirement is only for up to 200 jets of each type, once enough money comes into the picture, those 200 jets can be made in just a few years, like the Chinese are doing with the J-10 and J-20, by building 50-60 each year. As suggested by Roper, the USAF will bring in only 75 jets per cycle.

A huge chunk of aircraft cost goes into maintenance post the 30-year period, the second overhaul basically. So a quicker induction cycle, like what the IAF had planned, will eliminate the need to go for the second overhaul. So if the FGFA had come through, the MKI could have begun its phase out process from 2030, almost what even Roper was suggesting, although he wants to eliminate the overhaul cycles in their entirety.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Paro

Hydra

Well-Known member
May 19, 2020
1,330
627
Mumbai
The mig 31 was primarily designed as a interceptor. There's no other equivalent to the mig 31. The f15C is similar in design but it's more closer to the su27/30 than the mig 31 in terms of roles. Sure It can do a job of a interceptor but it's not a dedicated one like the mig 31. And mig 31 might be the last of its kind to fit that role...

If we had mig31 on that awful day, things would have been different. PAF would definitely loose two AEWs on that day
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
9,787
7,414
India
We have a large Navy, with 3-5 sqns of MKI's in the dedicated maritime role will be big insurance for the Navy. In maritime role with it's exceptional anti-shipping qualified ordnance, even a naval fleet that is overwhelmingly bigger than ours can be kept on their toes.

Just 8 MKIs capable of firing Brahmos-A are enough. Adding more jets won't do anything.

The IN needs carriers and carrier-capable aircraft because they need air presence far from our shores.

For gaining a full air superiority over the western front we will have to take losses. Accounting for that, MKI numbers are important.

We can lose half our MKI fleet during a war and we will still have enough in the end for another war. Our MKI numbers are well beyond ridiculous. Even 190 is a lot. We don't even have the airspace needed to use so many.

Sure , but I say more MWF the better.

Yeah, definitely. But the MWF requires development. Even if it's inducted beginning 2026, as planned by ADA, it won't be combat-ready until 2028 or 2029. And it's not going to get to full maturity until after 2030, it's a 5+ year process to put a new jet through its paces. Then there's always the potential for the dates slipping.

Mk1A won't face this issue since it's only a modernisation of the Mk1. So the IAF has taken these things into consideration when they approved 73 jets of the type.

I have a feeling that in the next decade F35 will be on offer, and IAF will lap it up.

The F-35 won't meet the IAF's requirements. Plus even the Pentagon is now complaining about costs. And there are severe development issues, and it's likely many of them won't be fixed.


Even if the F-35 did not face those deficiencies, it still wouldn't meet IAF's requirements. The IAF needs aircraft with a very high climb rate, the F-35 is not suitable for that. Plus it's single-engine, so it's not suitable for survivability in the mountains.

There's also this problem.

In order to compensate for the time lost fixing their jet, we will need to wait for the next modernisation of the F-35, which will only become available in 2035-40, about the time AMCA is expected. But by then aircraft like Tempest and FCAS will become available and present far superior alternatives. Then there's also the USN's NGAD, considering the USAF won't allow export of their version (which is not a good idea). Which is why the F-35 was never viable for the IAF.

Anyway, it's unlikely for the IAF to ever choose a single-engine jet for its high end requirements. At the low end, it's way too expensive, plus it's not suitable for the low end mission. Any alternative in the 2020 period is the Su-57 Mk2.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: JustCurious

Lolwa

Well-Known member
Feb 6, 2020
847
639
Delhi

If we had mig31 on that awful day, things would have been different. PAF would definitely loose two AEWs on that day
It could have gone different and I feel we need to integrate the r37m on the mki. Though I feel the results wouldn't have changed since it was a case of RoE than just capability. The f16's had the element of surprise and it was plain theatrics from their side. Their plan was to bait a fighter inside Pakistani airspace so it was successful but they lost an f-16 in the process so it kind of shows that the PAF didn't achieve jackshit. They could barely even enter our airspace. The only failure was of the mi-17 fratricide that happened. If our mig 21 could enter enemy airspace and take out there fighter it just shows how vulnerable the PAF is. If an actual extended battle took place the PAF will be further pushed back. Even with our current inventory we can ground the PAF fleet. Once Astra becomes fleet wide available it will only make it more difficult for the PAF to put up a fight. The pl-15 still hasn't come. There jf 17's sd-10's have an inferior range to our older r77's which had lesser range. Forget the rvv-ae and all the newer missiles.
The problem was not of the machine but IAF was not mentally prepared of having to fight instead they treated it like a regular interception. If the IAF had been ready for a rebuttal a much larger retaliation and counter of aircrafts should have been present instead only 8 aircrafts went up against 24 aircrafts. Also the AA team was itself trigger happy and couldn't remain calm in the fog of war. Well it was a learning experience and I hope IAF have has finally tasted some blood and for all the hoohaa the Pakistanis do it was a brilliant plan by them which got wasted for theatrics for their awam.
 
Last edited:

Milspec

सर्वदा शक्तिशाली; सर्वत्र विजय
Moderator
Dec 2, 2017
2,025
2,597
United States
45696 cr for 83 a/c's,
So 76.465 Million per a/c... (at 72rs per usd)
Is it just me or is that a tad bit expensive for LCA?
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: Volcano and Bali78

Milspec

सर्वदा शक्तिशाली; सर्वत्र विजय
Moderator
Dec 2, 2017
2,025
2,597
United States
IAF planned for the MKI in 2000, Rafale in the 2010s, FGFA in the 2020s and AMCA in the 2030s. That's unmatched by anyone else. Each decade brought in a major technological improvement in the IAF's ability to wage war. Now if you consider the 2040s would bring in FCAS and 2050 would bring in AMCA's next indigenous successor, we would have 6 generations of aircraft in a span of 5 decades, with at least 4 within 3 decades as practically assured. Each jet being comprehensively superior to the earlier one. Most other air forces would only have 2 aircraft generations within that time. We would actually have to replace "generation" with "cycle" by then.

Well, in the same breath when you say IAF planned for MKI, in 2000 but planned for too many of them.

Planned for Rafale's in 2010 but ended up acquiring piecemeal of them a decade later,

Then planned for FGFA in the 2020's ( While itself pulled out completely from it's own plan - it's 2021 now)

When did it plan for the LCA? or the LCA mk2, which was supposed to be the bullwark to replace it's primary mig21 fleet?

The contradictions in the praise you lay for IAF is quite baffling to me?

An airforce that plans for Paper planes as it's a strategic footprint might have some serious work to do.

Lets take the MKI, as an example. As you mention IAF planned for the MKI, did it plan to induct MKI till 2021, two decades of induction process. So it would continue to build it's 4th gen aircraft untill it's 5 gen FGFA arrives at 2020 per your assertion?

For Rafale, what exactly did IAF plan in 2010? evaluation? this is 2021 and we have two squadrons in hand.

For PAKFA, did it do any preliminary design analysis, what if project failed, what would be it's fall back strategy.

If this is the strategic outlay of IAF, they should really look up a simple PFMEA, a lot of these planners will get fired.

Comparison with USAF, where for every major platform it undertook it had multiple designs for comparative analysis is straight out of system integrators hand book. For LWF it had options in form of f16 and F17, for it's FX program it had 4 preliminary design proposals, for it's ATF it had YF22 and YF23 programs, and for it's JAST program it had X32 and x35 platforms.

While IAF : Had one design for LCA, one design from AMCA... what happens if LCA as a design package doesn't work what if the it's propulsion system doesn't cut it, what happens if it's Multimode radar doesn't work wouldn't that cause a set back to the best laid 50 yr plan?

What happens if Dassault hikes it's a price to levels it cannot afford it anymore; what does it fall back to?

What if AMCA faces design, manufacturing, technological development issues or FGFA fails it's test requirements, What happens to it's 5th gen program. What redundancy does the IAF have?
 
Last edited:

Nilgiri

Senior member
Dec 4, 2017
535
1,299
45696 cr for 83 a/c's,
So 76.465 Million per a/c... (at 72rs per usd)
Is it just me or is that a tad bit expensive for LCA?

Has to do with Indian economy not trading/integrating enough with relevant sectors of world economy (these last 10 - 20 years etc)...more than anything else...and not having a large surplus + Cur.A-driven forex pile.

The demand and supply of USD w.r.t INR is not broad enough and deep enough basically (especially for manufacturing + electronic sector)...so the narrow scope it is valued on (w.r.t both economies and world economy) is not adequate for lot of capital intensive things especially.

i.e USD exchange rate is not a good price reference conversion in India's case for this kind of top tier+low production run Multi-assembly manufactured thing (esp with comparison of other countries prices for systems that are far more integrated/developed in trade).

Indian labour and supply side is effectively overpriced (in USD) compared to INR's internal price reference and inflation.

You see something similar happen with the ridiculous paying through the nose and everything else (seemingly) with what KSA and gulfies fork out for US and western defence imports. Again they are integrated very poorly in the broad seam referencing (its just oil in their case) to dictate the "true" adequate value for their currency.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Amal

Milspec

सर्वदा शक्तिशाली; सर्वत्र विजय
Moderator
Dec 2, 2017
2,025
2,597
United States
Has to do with Indian economy not trading/integrating enough with relevant sectors of world economy (these last 10 - 20 years etc)...more than anything else...and not having a large surplus + Cur.A-driven forex pile.

The demand and supply of USD w.r.t INR is not broad enough and deep enough basically (especially for manufacturing + electronic sector)...so the narrow scope it is valued on (w.r.t both economies and world economy) is not adequate for lot of capital intensive things especially.

i.e USD exchange rate is not a good price reference conversion in India's case for this kind of top tier+low production run Multi-assembly manufactured thing (esp with comparison of other countries prices for systems that are far more integrated/developed in trade).

Indian labour and supply side is effectively overpriced (in USD) compared to INR's internal price reference and inflation.

You see something similar happen with the ridiculous paying through the nose and everything else (seemingly) with what KSA and gulfies fork out for US and western defence imports. Again they are integrated very poorly in the broad seam referencing (its just oil in their case) to dictate the "true" adequate value for their currency.
Same Manufacturer offers MKI's for 54 million USD? how do we reconcile that?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nilgiri