11 things you didn't know about India's LCA fighter jet

[Dash]

?????????????

The link where they spoke about the new ranking system...

 

[janon]

Initial Operating Clearance isn't equal to combat worthiness , do not get carried away .

1. Expand flight envelope to -3.5 to 8G (Currently -2 to 6G).
2. 24° angle of attack (Currently 22°).
3. In-flight refuelling capability (Integration of Cobham probe complete).
4. Demonstration of Rafael ADS Derby BVR air-to-air missile.
5. Demonstration of Rafael ADS Python-5 IIR close combat missile (Related post here).
6. Completion of integration & demonstration of KBP Gryazev-Shipunov GSh-23 23mm cannon.
7. New design drop tanks for supersonic flight.
8. New radome to improve radar and electromagnetic performance.
9. Validate more efficient cooling system for aircraft braking assembly.
10. Additional weapons testing, including PGMs.
Livefist: What It'll Take For India's Tejas To Be FULLY Ready

I only said 'combat worthy', not that it is fully ready for operational service. Obviously there is a reason for the 'I' in IOC.

Even without all those modifications listed, the tejas perform combat, to speak very loosely. It can drop bombs, it can fire short ranged missiles, it has a functioning radar. The above listed modifications are what IAF further wants.

Also, take a look at the trolling post I was responding to, and take it in context. That idiotic troll said that the tejas can't fly. I was only pointing out that it started flying in 2001, and was a flying machine since then, and in the next 12 years, it has become a fighting machine capable of many combat tasks. BTW the same distinction was made by the program chief also in one of the interviews - that now it is no longer a flying machine, but a fighting machine.

I know it is still not ready for operational service.

 

[Manindra]

Breaking news . Indian LCA tejas Has now 3 tyres. Now tejas is better than jf17. Hurrray hurry.
You guys make me laugh.

It had four tyres you blind

 

[Ra'ad]

This thread didn't have to become a versus thread.
Both platforms seem equivalent to me both in purpose and in performance. They are light fighters intended for filling up numbers in a very economical way. And they need to be easily upgradable to keep up with the world tech. They represent, for both countries, a huge success for their respective industries from a logistical point of view too. But these are not the 'special cards' of their airforces...which should be kept in mind. So no point in comparison and rivalry. They will be upgraded rapidly over the coming decades and would always have a '19-20 ka farq' as we say in urdu.

For the purposes of comparison we should pit F-16/J-10 against Su-30/Rafale. Coz they are the special cards of the respective AFs for now. This thread should remain tejas only. Someone please post comprehensive details and specs of tejas....and pics too

 

[Screambowl]

yeh toh jab war hoga tabhi pata chalega. hawa mein totey udaney se kya hota hai.

 

[janon]

This thread didn't have to become a versus thread.

True. Unfortunately every tejas thread ends up as a v/s thread, because somebody says something dismissive about it, and the obvious reaction from Indians is to ridicule the JF-17. And then the dick measuring starts.

About the rest of your post, ideally what we should be comparing is not platform v/s platform, unless everything else is evenly matched - size of airspace, possible objectives in war, air war doctrine, logistics etc. Since all these are very different for IAF and PAF, a comparison of plane v/s plane o limited utility.

It's not really liike the evenly matched assets will face each other, in a sort of pre arranged gentleman's game. In the mahabharata war, people of certain skills could only fight people of the same skill level on the other side. But real wars are not fought on those principles, its not like the MKIs will only take on the F-16s, the Tejas agrees to face off the JF-17s and so on. If there is an incoming fleet of hostile F-16s, and Tejas are doing CAP, you can bet that they will be vectored on to tackle the threat. And the same for the other side.

What we should really be comparing is the overall capabilities of the air force, whether either one can carry out their objectives succesfully and so on. For instance, if the cold start doctrine really exists, can the IAF succesfully provide air cover to all the IBGs? Can the lower end of the IAF's fleet provide enough CAP over all important targets? Can the PAF succesfully defend its aispace, or at least the relevant theater where the ground forces are fighting? Can the PAF, with it's best assets (say, F-16s backed by refuellers and AEWACs) do a sneak attack on a strategic target, evading the IAF's airborne and ground based defences? And so on.

However, doing comparisons like that are beyond the scope of armchair generals like us, so it's all about "my plane will kick your plane's ***!" or "tejas is a failure and can't fly, ha ha ha" or "chinese junk fighters are useless".

 

[Ra'ad]

True. Unfortunately every tejas thread ends up as a v/s thread, because somebody says something dismissive about it, and the obvious reaction from Indians is to ridicule the JF-17. And then the dick measuring starts.

About the rest of your post, ideally what we should be comparing is not platform v/s platform, unless everything else is evenly matched - size of airspace, possible objectives in war, air war doctrine, logistics etc. Since all these are very different for IAF and PAF, a comparison of plane v/s plane o limited utility.

It's not really liike the evenly matched assets will face each other, in a sort of pre arranged gentleman's game. In the mahabharata war, people of certain skills could only fight people of the same skill level on the other side. But real wars are not fought on those principles, its not like the MKIs will only take on the F-16s, the Tejas agrees to face off the JF-17s and so on. If there is an incoming fleet of hostile F-16s, and Tejas are doing CAP, you can bet that they will be vectored on to tackle the threat. And the same for the other side.

What we should really be comparing is the overall capabilities of the air force, whether either one can carry out their objectives succesfully and so on. For instance, if the cold start doctrine really exists, can the IAF succesfully provide air cover to all the IBGs? Can the lower end of the IAF's fleet provide enough CAP over all important targets? Can the PAF succesfully defend its aispace, or at least the relevant theater where the ground forces are fighting? Can the PAF, with it's best assets (say, F-16s backed by refuellers and AEWACs) do a sneak attack on a strategic target, evading the IAF's airborne and ground based defences? And so on.

However, doing comparisons like that are beyond the scope of armchair generals like us, so it's all about "my plane will kick your plane's ***!" or "tejas is a failure and can't fly, ha ha ha" or "chinese junk fighters are useless".

Could't be said better!

 

[Secur]

I only said 'combat worthy', not that it is fully ready for operational service. Obviously there is a reason for the 'I' in IOC.

Even without all those modifications listed, the tejas perform combat, to speak very loosely. It can drop bombs, it can fire short ranged missiles, it has a functioning radar. The above listed modifications are what IAF further wants.

Trust me , the initial operating clearance merely means a certification for air worthiness by the standard definition , just that the aircraft is available now in its minimally deployable form , combat worthiness is something else , the aircraft hasn't finished testing of different missiles/bombs which are to be integrated to the extent that even the gun isn't available yet . A really few weapons that can be fired and a fuctioning radar for now aren't the criteria for combat worthiness . Also , it appears from the data that several specification haven't been met until now or scaled down to pave way for early induction , you see the IOC - II was planned a little later . These aren't the "modifications" , far from it , just the envisioned specifications and no , they aren't talking about Block 2 here . The Tejas still has to get a long way before it can get operational and become combat worthy . As for the interview where the personnel stated it as such , can I have the link ?

P.S I got the context of your post just fine , that is why I said not to get carried away .

 

[OrionHunter]

12. It can't fly..

A troll with multiple 'thanks'!! How much more stupid can it get? If an Indian had said the same about the 'super plane', Thunderrr, some mod would have yanked the post off the forum and sent a message to stop trolling. But then, most Pakistanis on this forum have the license to troll to their hearts content as long as they post sh!t on anything to do with India!

And the mods go clap...clap....clap!

...instead of giving them a rap on the knuckles!

 

[sancho]

Trust me , the initial operating clearance merely means a certification for air worthiness by the standard definition , just that the aircraft is available now in its minimally deployable form , combat worthiness is something else , the aircraft hasn't finished testing of different missiles/bombs which are to be integrated to the extent that even the gun isn't available yet . A really few weapons that can be fired and a fuctioning radar for now aren't the criteria for combat worthiness . Also , it appears from the data that several specification haven't been met until now or scaled down to pave way for early induction , you see the IOC - II was planned a little later . These aren't the "modifications" , far from it , just the envisioned specifications and no , they aren't talking about Block 2 here . The Tejas still has to get a long way before it can get operational and become combat worthy . As for the interview where the personnel stated it as such , can I have the link ?

P.S I got the context of your post just fine , that is why I said not to get carried away .

According to your personal opinion, but not based on common standards all over the world. Any 4th gen fighter was indutcted into service with limited capabilities, in most cases even basic A2A capabilities only, while further weapon and techs were added in following years, till they gained full FOC status. For Tejas that is not different, infact it already will have capabilities that other comparable fighters added only in later upgrade levels. LCA MK1, will have A2A and CAS capabilities, has LDP, HMS and advanced EW capabilities and as the latest official statements confirmed, will have IFR too. When we compare that with the capabilities of similar class fighters like Gripen or JF 17, that would be equal to Gripen C/D and JF 17 block 2 standards!

 

[Secur]

According to your personal opinion, but not based on common standards all over the world. Any 4th gen fighter was indutcted into service with limited capabilities, in most cases even basic A2A capabilities only, while further weapon and techs were added in following years, till they gained full FOC status.

I wasn't talking about FOC here . You are right about the pattern of induction of majority of aircraft in this way , didn't make them such as far I see it , but exactly what is combat worthiness then as per you ? The answer I am getting is that Initial Operating Clearance equals that and this I disagree with , since its just a certificate awarded to the aircraft which can , can go "airborne" safely - the most basic definition .

 

[janon]

Trust me , the initial operating clearance merely means a certification for air worthiness by the standard definition , just that the aircraft is available now in its minimally deployable form , combat worthiness is something else , the aircraft hasn't finished testing of different missiles/bombs which are to be integrated to the extent that even the gun isn't available yet . A really few weapons that can be fired and a fuctioning radar for now aren't the criteria for combat worthiness . Also , it appears from the data that several specification haven't been met until now or scaled down to pave way for early induction , you see the IOC - II was planned a little later . These aren't the "modifications" , far from it , just the envisioned specifications and no , they aren't talking about Block 2 here . The Tejas still has to get a long way before it can get operational and become combat worthy . As for the interview where the personnel stated it as such , can I have the link ?

P.S I got the context of your post just fine , that is why I said not to get carried away .

You are right in all that, and I know all that. It's just that you can't expect me to be too exacting when responding to obvious trolls. As the poster just below you says, if I had gone to the JF-17 thread and said ''Junk fighter from china can't fly, ha ha ha'', I would have gotten infracted, instead of thanked multiple times. So what I do to counter trolls is to use slightly exaggerated counter claims. For the sake of argument, I could say that I said ''combat worthy'', not ''combat ready''.

To be pedantically precise, and in the interest of truthfulness, the tejas is not combat-ready, as in the IAF cannot go to war with it tomorrow if necessary. Far from it.

 

[sancho]

You are right about the pattern of induction of majority of aircraft in this way , didn't make them such as far I see it , but exactly what is combat worthiness then as per you ? The answer I am getting is that Initial Operating Clearance equals that .

The main problems for IOC1, compared to the improvements now imo were the limitations of the radar and FCS. Now with the flight envelope increased, radar and HMS used to guide R73, the MK1 should have gained the minimum requirements for A2A, with the addition of BVR missiles and further improvement of the radar capabilities till FOC. In CAS, LCA already has shown it's potential equal to the Jags or M2K capability of Kargil. IAF even instisted on trials at Leh with strike weapon loads and that although the MK1s are meant to be stationed at a totally different location. That shows the confidence IAF has, to use MK1 in CAS roles even in these areas if the need arises.

 

[Speeder 2]

12. It can't fly..

13. foreign design, foreign engines, foreign radar, foreign avionics, foreign weaponaries, with 30 years just made an empty shell which still has a permanent problem of overweight.

 

[Riaz Hussain]

everything is foreign in this junk aircraft. they are still comparing this to 1950's mig-21 speaks for itself. also after every landing lca has to change its entire landing gear because it is an use and throw landing gear. in war time they will be changing landing gear instead of fighting.