LCA Tejas Mk1 & Mk1A - News and discussions

jetray

Senior member
Mar 15, 2018
2,119
1,199
India
Kills at that range will be normal in tomorrow's wars. Back in the 80s and 90s, what was 40-50Km back then is 300Km today, because even the best radars could only track fighters from less than 80Km away. Because kills are made based on what the radar sees. Old radars could only see up to 100Km effectively, the same is now over 400Km tracked. So anything that can be tracked from 400Km away can be killed with BVR.
I wouldnt be surprised in future if a cruise missile ends up acting like a long range BVR. Just need a network to track and tie up all the targets seamlessly without losing them.
 

Ankit Kumar

Team StratFront
Nov 30, 2017
4,213
4,029
Bangalore
The longest range kill made recently was 150Km via S-400. And that's harder than using AAMs. So we already have precedent.

IFF confirmation is not needed in every situation. Like the post-Balakot skirmish, where everything across the border could be shot down. Today, it's more or less the physical limitations of the missile itself.
Ground based air defence has certain inherent advantages to it too.

And air to air bvr engagement is still very limited.

I had asked this a former pilot and he had said that over very long distances things like battery life of missile , it's seeker etc everything comes into play. And they are trained not to waste a round untill they can actually have confidence that the missile if having proximity fuse will atleast do some kind of damage.

And for that they will usually fire the R27 family between 10-30 kilometres only. And the advertised range of that R27 in ideal conditions is 75-80 kilometres.

That is BVR engagement.

Now a days with better battery and energy, maybe double the range , that's why I keep saying 40-50 km. Beyond that a contemporary fighter jet will escape 90% of the times.
I wouldnt be surprised in future if a cruise missile ends up acting like a long range BVR. Just need a network to track and tie up all the targets seamlessly without losing them.
Untill you can get the cruise missile to be able to withstand atleast 30-40 G, it won't happen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Valhalla

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
14,983
10,956
India
I wouldnt be surprised in future if a cruise missile ends up acting like a long range BVR. Just need a network to track and tie up all the targets seamlessly without losing them.

There's apparently an AAM version of the Brahmos meant to shoot down large body aircraft.

The Russians too can simply modify the Zircon to shoot down AWACS, tankers etc at mach 9 from 500-1000Km away. If you actually think about it, the Russians can make most large aircraft entirely useless in just a few years with very little effort, if they haven't done it already.
 

Ankit Kumar

Team StratFront
Nov 30, 2017
4,213
4,029
Bangalore
Long range air to air kills at 100km against a fighter target is claimed by Aim54s.

But actual verifiable air 2 air kill against a fighter jet, I doubt you will find anything beyond 60km.
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
14,983
10,956
India
Ground based air defence has certain inherent advantages to it too.

And air to air bvr engagement is still very limited.

I had asked this a former pilot and he had said that over very long distances things like battery life of missile , it's seeker etc everything comes into play. And they are trained not to waste a round untill they can actually have confidence that the missile if having proximity fuse will atleast do some kind of damage.

And for that they will usually fire the R27 family between 10-30 kilometres only. And the advertised range of that R27 in ideal conditions is 75-80 kilometres.

That is BVR engagement.

Yeah, so he's talking about very old tech. The IAF has only very recently started operating new tech via the Rafale. LCA Mk1A will be our next one, followed by MKI MLU, the big one. Everything else before Rafale have very low range, made worse with altitude. And it's the new radars that give that "confidence" he's referring to.

That's the actual range of the R-27 in combat conditions with the Mig-29.

Untill you can get the cruise missile to be able to withstand atleast 30-40 G, it won't happen.

Nah, that's not necessary. They compensate for lower agility via a larger warhead. The G performance of missiles like the R-33/37, AIM-54 etc aren't impressive. Gets worse with the S-400's long range missiles as well.

Seekers have also advanced to the point where you get HTK even with very low Gs, like Patriot.

In fact missiles like Astra Mk1, AIM-120 etc have very low G performance during the end game phase. Performance gets a major boost only with dual pulse or ramjet.

Eg, for VL-MICA: From 0 to 7 km MICA has maneuverability of 50g, however by 12 km this is reduced to 30g as energy is lost.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Valhalla and Sathya

Lolwa

Senior member
Feb 6, 2020
1,616
1,025
Delhi
I wouldnt be surprised in future if a cruise missile ends up acting like a long range BVR. Just need a network to track and tie up all the targets seamlessly without losing them.
It would need to be atleast above mach 2 to actually hit an aerial target.
 

Lolwa

Senior member
Feb 6, 2020
1,616
1,025
Delhi
Its the speed at the final stage that matters.
Well the Chinese have the yj12 that goes mach 3 in terminal phase.
images - 2022-07-22T182627.584.jpeg
images - 2022-07-22T182622.286.jpeg
 

Sathya

Senior member
Dec 2, 2017
2,671
1,586
India
What happened to additional lines ?
Why so slow rate?
R we living in Antarctica?
What should happen to increase production rate? 2 active enemies not enough?

This is going to delay & make the mk2 obsolete..

Next generation can read how somebody screwed us in indigenous programs..

Now no one has the will to act.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Valhalla

Ankit Kumar

Team StratFront
Nov 30, 2017
4,213
4,029
Bangalore
What happened to additional lines ?
Why so slow rate?
R we living in Antarctica?
What should happen to increase production rate? 2 active enemies not enough?

This is going to delay & make the mk2 obsolete..

Next generation can read how somebody screwed us in indigenous programs..

Now no one has the will to act.
Hmm, even with production starting from 2024, it should not take more than 2028 to to complete the order, even without the Kiran Hanger. With that it's 19 a year.
If it's 2030, then they are aiming for 12 airframes a year.
 

Sathya

Senior member
Dec 2, 2017
2,671
1,586
India
Hmm, even with production starting from 2024, it should not take more than 2028 to to complete the order, even without the Kiran Hanger. With that it's 19 a year.
If it's 2030, then they are aiming for 12 airframes a year.

And this is after Private sector making Sub assemblies. .

And this is their plans, which they always cross over.. maybe a year or two.

Only if I am blindly optimistic, can think about concurrent Mk2 production.
 

Ankit Kumar

Team StratFront
Nov 30, 2017
4,213
4,029
Bangalore
And this is after Private sector making Sub assemblies. .

And this is their plans, which they always cross over.. maybe a year or two.

Only if I am blindly optimistic, can think about concurrent Mk2 production.
One reason I can think of is economics. I have always said that a pvt company will want to look after its own first. And that's why splitting the 114 MMRCA is not right. You need a minimum order of 100 airframes because you got to give out contracts. And no one is signing up your contracts for just 5 year of work.

It seems to me the pvt sector involved is facing the same issue.

It's better to give an additional order of 20-30 airframes so that the number of airframes per year increase, because the pvt supplied will want a long contract.
 

R73 FTW

Member
Mar 21, 2022
55
25
Bharat
WLVN detected fake news rejectedo_O
1658992962840.png

The key part to note here is that "MOD has a set a TARGET of making 83 planes by Feb 2030". Really recommend to not at first believe anything WLVN has to say
Hmm, even with production starting from 2024, it should not take more than 2028 to to complete the order, even without the Kiran Hanger. With that it's 19 a year.
If it's 2030, then they are aiming for 12 airframes a year.
Wasn't there rumors going around of 24 airframes a year capacity? And if it gets to 2029/2030 then only logical explanation I can think of for that is in 2028 one line will be started for Mk2
 
  • Like
Reactions: Valhalla and Sathya

HariPrasad

Active member
Dec 5, 2018
330
195
Surat
I'm talking about A2G and we need astra mk2 integration. Tejas is a very underrated design. It will be able to handle everything except for the j-20 and j-10C's in the neighborhood.
Right now jF-17 has a lot of stand off options so does the tejas but the jf-17 has the yj-83 and cm400 akg. We have the rampage being integrated and brahmos Ng. But for the time being integrating harpoon/exocet and KH-35 would be a good stop-gap. Although we really need to develop something like a cm-400 akg a cheap aero ballistic standoff missile.

Tejas will easily outclass J 10 c in bvr and do well against J 10 c in WVR.
I wouldnt be surprised in future if a cruise missile ends up acting like a long range BVR. Just need a network to track and tie up all the targets seamlessly without losing them.


BRAHMOS NG (Air launch) will already have BVR capabilities against AWACS
 

HariPrasad

Active member
Dec 5, 2018
330
195
Surat
What happened to additional lines ?
Why so slow rate?
R we living in Antarctica?
What should happen to increase production rate? 2 active enemies not enough?

This is going to delay & make the mk2 obsolete..

Next generation can read how somebody screwed us in indigenous programs..

Now no one has the will to act.

Assembly line is ready but MK1A is not ready for production. It is likely that it may get ready and certifired before schedule. All tests are happening smoothly without any issue.