Counter Article on “Stop Wasteful Military Deals”

[HariPrasad]

@HariPrasad

The simple fact that you use the term "will" so often to describe the MK2 says it all! As of now, there are only "aims" but not a single source about reliable specs is available, not to mention that not even all possible changes are cleared yet.
You put your hope on the MK2 mainly on baseless claims of Mr Saraswat (the most unreliable source that we have in India!) but not on facts. One fact for example is that no matter what payload the MK2 at the end will have, it will not able to carry similar loads to similar ranges like the MMRCAs, by the lack of useful hardpoints!
Simple example, strike with 2000lb Sudarshan LGB with maximum load:

LCA MK2 - 7+1 hardpoints (1 pod station):

1 x 2000lb LGB on the centerline
1 x LDP at the pod station
2 x 1200l fuel tanks at the inner wingstations
2 x BVR missiles
2 x WVR missiles

Roughly 3600Kg payload


Gripen E/F - 8 to 9 +1 hardpoints (depending on load 2 or 3 centerline hardpoints)

2 x 2000lb LGB on the centerline stations
1 x LDP at the pod station
2 x 1700l fuel tanks at the inner wingstations
2 x BVR missiles
2 x WVR missiles

Roughly 5400Kg payload


Rafale - 11 to 12 +2 hardpoints (depending on load 1 or 2 centerline hardpoints)

3 x 2000lb LGB on the centerline and midwing stations
1 x LDP at the pod station
2 x 2000l fuel tanks at the inner wingstations
4 x BVR missiles
2 x WVR missiles

Over 7000Kg payload


As you can see, even if the MK2 "might" (because it's not clear yet) be technically at a similar 4.5th gen level like the MMRCAs (most likely AESA radar and IRST, moder EW sensors...), performance wise it will be far inferior in most roles, especially with heavy loads.

Sancho ji,

Did you see the youtube video of Tejas MK1 July trial?

It carries 2 fuel tanks, 2 bombs and takes off in just 10 to 12 seconds.

It means that

2 tanks with 1300 liters of fuel means 1150 Kg each and 350 KG tank weight.

So 2(1150+350)=3000 KG of fuel tank and 500x2= 1000 Kg of bomb. I do not remember whether they carried A to A missile they fired in that video.

The total weight amounts to 4000 KG at least. Now a plane which can take off with 4000 KG weight in just 12 second is just not a dumb plane according to me.

MK2 is going to be much batter than MK1. So Your 3700 KG weight figure is not able to convince me.

Hand points are certainly not something very difficult to add on. I have seen photographs in which 4 missiles are carried on a single hand point on a stand. If IAF demands, certainly couple of more hand points can be added easily.

So far as Saraswat is concern, he is a guy with unmatched talent.The way he directed the Missile program is awesome.

LCA is is a complex program. We started from scratch and we want best and contemporaneity aircraft in the world.

If you just look back at our missile program by 2 years, you will get an Idea how fast the things changes. I remember that there were articles in 2011stating that India is much behind in missile race compare to China and Pakistan. Look at the way perceptions changed in just 2 years after we launched A4 and A5.

Look at the Arjun program. How fast highly potent MK2 came in.

LCA would have come much before if project would have been managed professionally. I am very optimistic about Tejas. I am sure that MK2 will be of Grippen NG class. It will give us a very potent fighter to operate in war scenario. This will be over and above the infrastructure and design and development capabilities build in the country. I do not see any reason why we should not get a MK2 as it is conceived. It may delay but when ever it comes I am sure that it will be a very useful aircraft which will be capable to replace Mig 21, Mirage 2000, Jaguar and Mig 27 and to some extant Mig 29 also.

 

[janon]

You said :
It can. That much is indisputable. Could be due to a less draggy and more aerodynamically optimised design, could be due to the wing shaping, which greatly impacts fuel efficiency, could be because of the fact that twin engine doesn't mean twice the fuel consumption, as the engines won't be flying at max rated thrust, could be due to any number of factors, or a combination of them.

Whatever the reason, the fact remains that the Rafale has a much, much higher combat radius than the LCA, which you can confirm from official sources for both.

My response:

1) You see combat radius is a very confusing term. I check wiki which clearly states the Range 850 KM and ferry range 3000 KM for MK 1. If we go by conservative side even though MK 1 itself can fly 2X850 Km =1700 KM which is not bad at all. If MK 1 can fly 1700 KM than certainly MK2 with additional 40% fuel can at least fly 60 to 70% long distance.(As take off consumes lot more fuel and not cruzing) After all GE404 is a highly fuel efficient engine and GE 41 is even batter in fuel efficiency. Your argument that twine engine does not mean twice fuel consumption is partly true. It may not be double but certainly in the range of 1.6 to 1.8 times. And your Argument that Engines won't be flying at Max thrust holds good for single engine aircraft also. So MK2 will have at least 2800 KM to 3000 KM range. Which is 80 % of rafale.

You said :

There were no criteria laid down, at least not that we know of in public domain. So I don't know how you can make assertions like that. Already mentioned the criteria which makes the Tejas a light aircraft and not a medium category one - weight of the airframe itself, payload, range, sensors. Add to that loiter time over target and mission endurance - ie, how many hours it can stay up in the air, how many passes it can have over a target with how much load and so on.

My response:
Man there were specific criterion laid down. How did they shortlisted Rafale and eurofighter otherwise? I remember Some

1) weight carrying 5.0 tons.
2) T/W ratio 1.1.
3) Some specific AOA, STR etc.

And do not repeat the argument that Tejas is a light aircraft again and again. I never said that is a medium category aircraft. I simply said that It will (MK2) have the MMRCA capabilities.

MK2 will be able to fly at least 70 percent of the time Rafale can fly and will have 70 to 80 percent range of Rafale. And yes 400 to 500 kg weight reduction is planned in MK2 with batter aerodynamic characteristic.

You said :

No. Gripen NG was the competing aircraft, although the trials were done on a gripen c/d. I think a prototype of the NG was also tested. Check out the specs of the gripen-NG, and you will find that it outclasses the gripen c/d in the parameters that I mentioned above. However the IAF was not convinced that the Gripen-NG could be ready in the time frame they want, so expecting an LCA mk2 to be ready in that time when even the mk1 is not ready, would be absurd. Gripen C/D hs been opertional for decades.
My response:

Man the way NG is superior to C/D, MK2 is going to be superior to MK1. MK2 is going to use same or even batter engine compare to NG. It is going to have almost same fuel capacity as NG. So there is absolutely no question of MK2 being much different from NG, Infact MK2 will have much more composite and light in weight.

You said:


My response:

Mk 2 Can carry out all the mission which Grippen NG can. Mk2 can carryout many Mission (Not all) which Rafale can. Now the question is that is it worth spending so much of amount for Rafale ? Answer is very subjective. I do not say that Rafale should be scrapped but only want to argue that if somebody says that we should focus on MK2 rather than spending huge amount on Rafale, They certainly have the point. After all we have MKIs and Super MKIS which can perform all mission that Rafale can and much more. Even I would prefer Mig 35 as they are almost as much capable as rafale and will come with TOT without any Nonesense that Dassault is creating. They will come at almost 1/3 rd cost. They will come with AESA Radar which Rafale do not have. We can get them configured as per our requirement like MKI.

1) Combat radius is not confusing at all. There is a reason I specifically mentioned combat radius and not other ranges, which can be confusing. This WP page explains each type of range:

Range (aircraft) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And you can't take the range given (800 kms) and multiply it by two. In that case, the same range for Rafale is 3700+ kms. Now multiply that by two!

Combat radius is the most relevant figure for ground attack missions. It simply means that this is the distace to which the plane can go, drop bombs and return. The combat radius of the Rafale is much more than that of LCA. It is a fact.

It is also a fact that the loiter time is much higher for Rafale. And that it will have an upper hand in air combat, even if we disregard the aerodynamics of the aircraft, because of superior sensor fusion (possibly the best in the world on any non 5th gen plane). Battlespace awareness, passive detection etc are all unmatched.

2) No, there were no specific criteria laid down, other than the fact that it had to be a medium category aircraft. That is why F-15 or Su-35 or LCA would not have qualified. The shortlisting was arrived at by judging which aircrafts best matched the IAF's ASR.

3) No, the LCA mk2 cannot carry out every mission that a gripen NG can. Again, check out the range for starters. Not to mention the fact that the Gripen itself is a succesful and proven design, and made by people who have a lot of experience.

About your point of whether it is worth it at this high a price - there I agree. The cost does seem unreasonably high, but the solution to that would be to get cheaper MMRCAs, or forego ToT and simply license manufacture or assemble the Rafales. We could have gone for cheaper options like the super hornet or gripen, instead of downselecting the two most expensive birds. However, we would still have needed M-MRCAs, and not light aircrafts (Which we need anyway).

That is a point you seem to be missing - the M-MRCAs are not being procured at the expense of the LCAs. The IAF needs, and will eventually have both. They serve different purposes. The IAF needs medium/heavies to project power and have strategic reach. And they need light aircrafts to defend our own airspace and beef up squadron strengths. The number of LCAs to be procured is not contingent on the number of M-MRCAs. If the LCA lives up to expectations, you can rest assured that the IAF will operate more of them than M-MRCAs. They have already committed to that.

Think about it like this - even if we had a thousand Agni-3s, we would not be able to hit shanghai. We need agni-5 to do that. So getting A-5 gives us new capabilities we did not have previously. We need both A-3 and A-5, for different purposes.

Bottom line: The 'L' in LCA stands for light, and the 'M' in M-MRCA stands for medium. That is an inescapable, incontrovertible fact.

 

[sancho]

MK2 is going to be much batter than MK1. So Your 3700 KG weight figure is not able to convince me.

Many wrong figures and just plain speculation by a video again, but the biggest problem is still that you look on the payload only, not on the number of hardpoints. LCA MK2 can have a payload of 8000Kg like the MKI and still would not carry a single weapon more that I showed, because it will remain with the same number of hardpoints like the MK1!

Hand points are certainly not something very difficult to add on.

Wrong again, ADA and HAL officials had confirmed, that adding hardpoints to the wings for example would require a credible re-design which would delay the program even more, that's why the MK2 will remain with the same wings and hardpoint layout. Another possibiliy would had been a re-designed fuselage, like Saab has done it with the Gripen NG, sadly we are not going for it and therefor no capability increase wrt weapon load can be achieved. The MK2 will mainly upgrade radar, avionics and increase the engine thrust, while the additional fuel is a requirement of IN aimed on the N-LCA and it's higher weight and fuel consumption.

So far as Saraswat is concern, he is a guy with unmatched talent.

True, the unmatched talent to show off in front of the media and talk pure nonsense!

I am very optimistic about Tejas. I am sure that MK2 will be of Grippen NG class. It will give us a very potent fighter to operate in war scenario.

There is no problem in being optimistic, but not only based on speculation and hope! Be realistic and add some official statements and sources to your optimism too, then you will get a better idea about it.
As I said, technically it can be similar to Gripen NG and might even come at the same time, performance wise however it will be more comparable to Gripen C/D (hardpoints, payload, weapon capabilities), because of the credible changes the NG has in that regard, that the MK2 don't have.

I am optimistic about LCA in general too, especially as a program and it's value for Indian aero industry, but we wanted to much out of the fighter and made it far too complicated, which is why we ended with so many problems. That's the prime lesson we have to learn, plan realistically and simple! 

3) No, the LCA mk2 cannot carry out every mission that a gripen NG can. Again, check out the range for starters.

To be fair though, the currently speculated combat range of LCA MK1 is based on old specboards, that also are differing from time to time or from ADA and HAL. The mentioned 300Km are nowhere realistic by the fact that LCA has the biggest internal fuel capacity of it's class (LCA > JF17 > Gripen C/D) and one of the lowest weights too (JF17 > LCA > Gripen C/D).
[/quote]

 

[janon]

...
To be fair though, the currently speculated combat range of LCA MK1 is based on old specboards, that also are differing from time to time or from ADA and HAL. The mentioned 300Km are nowhere realistic by the fact that LCA has the biggest internal fuel capacity of it's class (LCA > JF17 > Gripen C/D) and one of the lowest weights too (JF17 > LCA > Gripen C/D).

True, the combat radius figure does not seem credible. But the fact is that the combat radius is a lot less than that of the Rafale, which is to be expected for a fighter in a different weight class.

 

[sancho]

But the fact is that the combat radius is a lot less than that of the Rafale, which is to be expected for a fighter in a different weight class.

No doubt, but then again it depends on the load too. In normal A2A config, it should have longe endurance as well and here the capacity of the fuel tanks is hardly different too.

 

[HariPrasad]

1) Combat radius is not confusing at all. There is a reason I specifically mentioned combat radius and not other ranges, which can be confusing. This WP page explains each type of range:

Range (aircraft) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And you can't take the range given (800 kms) and multiply it by two. In that case, the same range for Rafale is 3700+ kms. Now multiply that by two!

Combat radius is the most relevant figure for ground attack missions. It simply means that this is the distace to which the plane can go, drop bombs and return. The combat radius of the Rafale is much more than that of LCA. It is a fact.

It is also a fact that the loiter time is much higher for Rafale. And that it will have an upper hand in air combat, even if we disregard the aerodynamics of the aircraft, because of superior sensor fusion (possibly the best in the world on any non 5th gen plane). Battlespace awareness, passive detection etc are all unmatched.

2) No, there were no specific criteria laid down, other than the fact that it had to be a medium category aircraft. That is why F-15 or Su-35 or LCA would not have qualified. The shortlisting was arrived at by judging which aircrafts best matched the IAF's ASR.

3) No, the LCA mk2 cannot carry out every mission that a gripen NG can. Again, check out the range for starters. Not to mention the fact that the Gripen itself is a succesful and proven design, and made by people who have a lot of experience.

About your point of whether it is worth it at this high a price - there I agree. The cost does seem unreasonably high, but the solution to that would be to get cheaper MMRCAs, or forego ToT and simply license manufacture or assemble the Rafales. We could have gone for cheaper options like the super hornet or gripen, instead of downselecting the two most expensive birds. However, we would still have needed M-MRCAs, and not light aircrafts (Which we need anyway).

That is a point you seem to be missing - the M-MRCAs are not being procured at the expense of the LCAs. The IAF needs, and will eventually have both. They serve different purposes. The IAF needs medium/heavies to project power and have strategic reach. And they need light aircrafts to defend our own airspace and beef up squadron strengths. The number of LCAs to be procured is not contingent on the number of M-MRCAs. If the LCA lives up to expectations, you can rest assured that the IAF will operate more of them than M-MRCAs. They have already committed to that.

Think about it like this - even if we had a thousand Agni-3s, we would not be able to hit shanghai. We need agni-5 to do that. So getting A-5 gives us new capabilities we did not have previously. We need both A-3 and A-5, for different purposes.

Bottom line: The 'L' in LCA stands for light, and the 'M' in M-MRCA stands for medium. That is an inescapable, incontrovertible fact.

1) See you seem to be confused. Pl read my post once again. Wiki says Ferry range of LCA is 3000 KM and range 850 KM. I took 1700 KM as a conservative figure. If you believe WIKI (You seems so as you quote WIKI) It is 3000 KM For Tejas and 3700 KM for Rafale. Do not try to twist the figure.

2) So without criterion, How did they shortlisted Rafale and Eurofighter? After all Mig 35 , F18 and F16 were also considered. In fact the planes were evaluated on more than 600 criterion. And when Grippen can qualify (For evaluation), How LCA can not? Can you pl explain?

3) Yes MK2 will be able to carry out all the missions which NG Can. Is your Justification of MK2 Can not perform mission which Grippen can is that the Grippen is a proven design and they have experience? By the way when Grippen first flew, Was it a proven design? LCA has much batter safety record than Grippen. Do you know SAAB guys couldn't write F CLAWS for Grippen and took the help from Lockheed ? Look at Tejas MK1 and compare with initial Grippen. Observe the take off with huge load and agility in Iron fist video. You will definitely get an Idea if you keep you eye and mind open. MK 1 in itself is a very good aircraft much batter than MIG 21, 27 and Jaguar. When MK2 will enter into IAF service It will be batter than M2k also. 

No doubt, but then again it depends on the load too. In normal A2A config, it should have longe endurance as well and here the capacity of the fuel tanks is hardly different too.

That is why it is always batter to compare ferry range. All other ranges will be by and large in proportion to that.

 

[sancho]

That is why it is always batter to compare ferry range. All other ranges will be by and large in proportion to that.

Different roles will be done with different fuel tanks and different ammount of fuel, while the ferry range is with maximum fuel. Interception roles for example would require only a centerline 725l tank, while any strike role will need 2 x 1200l fuel tanks. Not to mention that combat ranges are calculated differently by different altitude approaches..., so there is a lot to consider and you can't just take an average of all of them, only because it suits your believe.
The fact remains, a light class LCA can carry less weapon load, to less ranges, with weaker performance than a Rafale for example could.

 

[janon]

1) See you seem to be confused. Pl read my post once again. Wiki says Ferry range of LCA is 3000 KM and range 850 KM. I took 1700 KM as a conservative figure. If you believe WIKI (You seems so as you quote WIKI) It is 3000 KM For Tejas and 3700 KM for Rafale. Do not try to twist the figure.

2) So without criterion, How did they shortlisted Rafale and Eurofighter? After all Mig 35 , F18 and F16 were also considered. In fact the planes were evaluated on more than 600 criterion. And when Grippen can qualify (For evaluation), How LCA can not? Can you pl explain?

3) Yes MK2 will be able to carry out all the missions which NG Can. Is your Justification of MK2 Can not perform mission which Grippen can is that the Grippen is a proven design and they have experience? By the way when Grippen first flew, Was it a proven design? LCA has much batter safety record than Grippen. Do you know SAAB guys couldn't write F CLAWS for Grippen and took the help from Lockheed ? Look at Tejas MK1 and compare with initial Grippen. Observe the take off with huge load and agility in Iron fist video. You will definitely get an Idea if you keep you eye and mind open. MK 1 in itself is a very good aircraft much batter than MIG 21, 27 and Jaguar. When MK2 will enter into IAF service It will be batter than M2k also.

1) I am not twisting anything. I clearly mentioned, and repeated, that I am talking about combat radius, not ferry range. In war, that is the figure that matters, not ferry range in clean configuration. Check out the combat radius for rafale and tejas. You can't take the average of ferry range and normal range and call it a conservative estimate of anything. These quantities represent different things. Just like you can't take the average of a person's age and height, and call the average as his weight. I gave you a wiki link so that you can understand the difference between the various ranges.

Bottom line - I was talking about combat radius. I have said this three times now. Please don't pretend not to understand, and then accuse me of twisting facts.

2) The aircrafts were evaluated on 643 technical parameters. That is very different from saying that certain criteria were laid down for selection. If the aircrafts failed because they did not pass some pre-laid down criteria, they would not have bothered to compete at all, since the manufacturers know those criteria for their product beforehand. No aircraft was rejected because it failed to meet previously laid down criteria like AoA or TWR or ITR, as you said. Some failed because they could not take off from Leh, others were outmatched in many parameters by the EF and Rafale.

3) When gripen first flew it was not a proven design. But it is now, and it was when the MMRCA trials took place - that is what 'proven design' means. As of now, LCA mk2 exists only on paper. Even the mk1 is not yet ready to enter service. Gripen A/B/C/D has been in service with many customers for decades, and they have had all those decades of user feedback to make an NG. And if you look at the specs, it is obvious that the gripen NG is a medium category fighter, and the LCA is not. No matter how much you argue, even the manufacturers call the LCA as LCA. Because that is what it is - a LIGHT combat aircraft.

I just don't get it - when even the manufacturers call it a light combat aircraft, why do you persist in insisting that it can do the work of a medium one?

 

[HariPrasad]

Many wrong figures and just plain speculation by a video again, but the biggest problem is still that you look on the payload only, not on the number of hardpoints. LCA MK2 can have a payload of 8000Kg like the MKI and still would not carry a single weapon more that I showed, because it will remain with the same number of hardpoints like the MK1!

So isn't LCA Fuel tank carry 1300 Liter fuel each and weighs 350 KG? I think it is Calculation and not speculation. On a single hand point up to 4 AtoA Missile can be carried on a stand mounted on hand point.

Wrong again, ADA and HAL officials had confirmed, that adding hardpoints to the wings for example would require a credible re-design which would delay the program even more, that's why the MK2 will remain with the same wings and hardpoint layout. Another possibiliy would had been a re-designed fuselage, like Saab has done it with the Gripen NG, sadly we are not going for it and therefor no capability increase wrt weapon load can be achieved. The MK2 will mainly upgrade radar, avionics and increase the engine thrust, while the additional fuel is a requirement of IN aimed on the N-LCA and it's higher weight and fuel consumption.

I have not heard of officials had confirmed, that adding hardpoints will delay the program but I believe you. You see, many such design change take place in between. If you can recall, the air intake redesign were to be done in MK2 as per initial plan but we show it in MK1 itself and even each new LSP, design Changed from LSP5 to LSP7 and to LSP8. ADA do not attempt too much design change as they want MK2 to fly quickly but all the requirements will be taken care in future. They seem to have pragmatic approach which they took in Arjun MK2. And after all who doesn't do that? F 16, F18 ans Sukhoi series are nothing but the improvement of previous model. You guys seems to be confused because you compare them with the best. There is going to be an increase in fuselage length by about half of a meter (Not to add additional fule but to make it more aerodynamic.) and marginal increase in cross section also. Lots of internal readjustments are planed in MK2 including fuel capacity augmentation (To take advantage of space release because of plug in fuselage to make LCA more aerodynamic and not for higher fuel requirement of GE 414) . Single chip and other advancement in avionics are also going to release a good amount of space in addition to marginal weight loss. GE 414 is marginally heavy but do not consume more fuel. It generate more thrust because it operates at very high compression ratio of 30:1.

True, the unmatched talent to show off in front of the media and talk pure nonsense!

You see, development of Agni IV , Agni V and BMD is nonsense than I call this nonsense a talent.

There is no problem in being optimistic, but not only based on speculation and hope! Be realistic and add some official statements and sources to your optimism too, then you will get a better idea about it.
As I said, technically it can be similar to Gripen NG and might even come at the same time, performance wise however it will be more comparable to Gripen C/D (hardpoints, payload, weapon capabilities), because of the credible changes the NG has in that regard, that the MK2 don't have.
I am optimistic about LCA in general too, especially as a program and it's value for Indian aero industry, but we wanted to much out of the fighter and made it far too complicated, which is why we ended with so many problems. That's the prime lesson we have to learn, plan realistically and simple!

You see all this is a mater of perception. It can change is a minute. When I read the quote from Tassy that Agni V hit the target with a single digit accuracy and DRDO team reduced Agni III weight from design 49 tons to 22 tons, my perception about Indian Missile program changed completly.

MK2 will be a very potent aircraft. In some technical parameter it will be less than NG and in some parameter it will surpass NG. If you you see NG a batter performer in ground attack (as it carries more weight) I see MK2 a batter interceptor.( As it is small with small RSC, uses more composite, light weight)

 

[janon]

...
MK2 will be a very potent aircraft. In some technical parameter it will be less than NG and in some parameter it will surpass NG. If you you see NG a batter performer in ground attack (as it carries more weight) I see MK2 a batter interceptor.( As it is small with small RSC, uses more composite, light weight)

You do realize that the gripen-NG failed the contest, right? It could not meet the IAF'S expectations. So even if the LCA was comparable to a gripen NG, the IAF was looking for something better to form its medium weight aircraft requirement. However it (LCA) fits the bill perfectly for their light aircraft requirements, and that is the role it will play.

 

[HariPrasad]

1) I am not twisting anything. I clearly mentioned, and repeated, that I am talking about combat radius, not ferry range. In war, that is the figure that matters, not ferry range in clean configuration. Check out the combat radius for rafale and tejas. You can't take the average of ferry range and normal range and call it a conservative estimate of anything. These quantities represent different things. Just like you can't take the average of a person's age and height, and call the average as his weight. I gave you a wiki link so that you can understand the difference between the various ranges.
Bottom line - I was talking about combat radius. I have said this three times now. Please don't pretend not to understand, and then accuse me of twisting facts.

See man I do not understand that on one hand you accept that combat radious figure are not credible in your post no 19, you argue with me in old tone once again. See you will not be able to prove that Rafale has 4 time combat radius than LCA (1300 KM against 300 KM) so stick to you post no 19. I never said that you talk about ferry range. You seem to have serious comprehension problem. Pl read following post of Your, Mine and Sancho. ultimately we all agree here.

No doubt, but then again it depends on the load too. In normal A2A config, it should have longe endurance as well and here the capacity of the fuel tanks is hardly different too.

That is why it is always batter to compare ferry range. All other ranges will be by and large in proportion to that.

Not to mention that combat ranges are calculated differently by different altitude approaches..., so there is a lot to consider and you can't just take an average of all of them, only because it suits your believe.

To be fair though, the currently speculated combat range of LCA MK1 is based on old specboards, that also are differing from time to time or from ADA and HAL. The mentioned 300Km are nowhere realistic by the fact that LCA has the biggest internal fuel capacity of it's class (LCA > JF17 > Gripen C/D) and one of the lowest weights too (JF17 > LCA > Gripen C/D).

[/quote]

True, the combat radius figure does not seem credible. But the fact is that the combat radius is a lot less than that of the Rafale, which is to be expected for a fighter in a different weight class.

2) The aircrafts were evaluated on 643 technical parameters. That is very different from saying that certain criteria were laid down for selection. If the aircrafts failed because they did not pass some pre-laid down criteria, they would not have bothered to compete at all, since the manufacturers know those criteria for their product beforehand. No aircraft was rejected because it failed to meet previously laid down criteria like AoA or TWR or ITR, as you said. Some failed because they could not take off from Leh, others were outmatched in many parameters by the EF and Rafale.

Agreed but there were Paramaters on which they were evaluated. No aircraft met all the criterion but the aircraft met most of and most important criterion were selected. I say that TEJAS Mk2 qualifies on this basic criterion like grippen qualified. Failing in leh is not a big issue. Even MKI and Tejas failed in leh . It requires minor change in engine.

3) When gripen first flew it was not a proven design. But it is now, and it was when the MMRCA trials took place - that is what 'proven design' means. As of now, LCA mk2 exists only on paper. Even the mk1 is not yet ready to enter service. Gripen A/B/C/D has been in service with many customers for decades, and they have had all those decades of user feedback to make an NG. And if you look at the specs, it is obvious that the gripen NG is a medium category fighter, and the LCA is not. No matter how much you argue, even the manufacturers call the LCA as LCA. Because that is what it is - a LIGHT combat aircraft.

Same way when LCA flew for first time, It was not a mature platform but it is now a much evolved and mature platform. We have tested it vigorously. You see LCA MK2 does not exist on paper. You yourself said that Grippen C/D evaluated as NG was not ready. Same way MK1 is ready. MK2 is just a higher version of MK1 and not a new aircraft. So your argument that it is on paper do not hold good even as per your own criterion.And mind you, making of LCA MK2 has begun a long back.

And do not put word in my mouth. I never argued that LCA is a medium aircraft. I only said that it has MMRCA capabilities. 

You do realize that the gripen-NG failed the contest, right? It could not meet the IAF'S expectations. So even if the LCA was comparable to a gripen NG, the IAF was looking for something better to form its medium weight aircraft requirement. However it (LCA) fits the bill perfectly for their light aircraft requirements, and that is the role it will play.

I never argued that MK2 is going to be as good as Rafale. I only said that It will have MRCA capability. It somebody holds the view that we should spend more on MK2 compare to Rafale they are not complete nonsense. After all IAF has Sukhois and Super sukhois. PAKFA is coming followed by FAGFA. I am not strongly of the view that we should scrap Rafale for MK2.

 

[janon]

See man I do not understand that on one hand you accept that combat radious figure are not credible in your post no 19, you argue with me in old tone once again. See you will not be able to prove that Rafale has 4 time combat radius than LCA (1300 KM against 300 KM) so stick to you post no 19. I never said that you talk about ferry range. You seem to have serious comprehension problem. Pl read following post of Your, Mine and Sancho. ultimately we all agree here.

The only person with comprehension issues is you. Yes I said that the combat radius figure given in WP seems too low, but look at the next sentence - nobody would argue that the combat radius of the rafale is much higher. I did not say four times as high, I only said much higher. Stop creating strawmen and burning them down.

From the very beginning I have been pointing out combat range as the significant factor, whereas you were taking the average of two different kinds of ranges, which is an absurd thing to do.



Agreed but there were Paramaters on which they were evaluated. No aircraft met all the criterion but the aircraft met most of and most important criterion were selected. I say that TEJAS Mk2 qualifies on this basic criterion like grippen qualified. Failing in leh is not a big issue. Even MKI and Tejas failed in leh . It requires minor change in engine.

Failing at leh is indeed a big issue for the IAF, in fact it is almost make or break, because half of IAF's forward airbases are in high and thin atmospheric conditions. There is a reason they conducted one leg of the trials there.

"Minor change in engine?" That is risible and shows you have no idea what you are talking about.

You see LCA MK2 does not exist on paper. You yourself said that Grippen C/D evaluated as NG was not ready. Same way MK1 is ready. MK2 is just a higher version of MK1 and not a new aircraft. So your argument that it is on paper do not hold good even as per your own criterion.And mind you, making of LCA MK2 has begun a long back.

MK1 is not ready either. If it was, it would be doing squadron service, and not test flights in bangalore. As it happens, even full IOC has not been achieved. OTOH gripen A/B/C/D has been in service for decades.

And do not put word in my mouth. I never argued that LCA is a medium aircraft. I only said that it has MMRCA capabilities.

I did not put any words in your mouth that did not come out of there initially. Read the post you quoted, and you will see that I said :

'when even the manufacturers call it a light combat aircraft, why do you persist in insisting that it can do the work of a medium one?'

Responses in red. For the final time: LCA cannot do the work of an MCA. That is why even its manufacturers advertises it as an LCA.

 

[Ping]

Many wrong figures and just plain speculation by a video again, but the biggest problem is still that you look on the payload only, not on the number of hardpoints. LCA MK2 can have a payload of 8000Kg like the MKI and still would not carry a single weapon more that I showed, because it will remain with the same number of hardpoints like the MK1!

Every heard of bombs with multilocks, or on racks?

To be fair though, the currently speculated combat range of LCA MK1 is based on old specboards, that also are differing from time to time or from ADA and HAL. The mentioned 300Km are nowhere realistic by the fact that LCA has the biggest internal fuel capacity of it's class (LCA > JF17 > Gripen C/D) and one of the lowest weights too (JF17 > LCA > Gripen C/D).

JF-17 is heavier than LCA.

6586kgs vs 6560kgs

Ofcourse LCA has a larger wing area which contributes to the extra weight when compared to the all metal JF-17.

 

[sancho]

So isn't LCA Fuel tank carry 1300 Liter fuel each and weighs 350 KG? I think it is Calculation and not speculation. On a single hand point up to 4 AtoA Missile can be carried on a stand mounted on hand point.

Not really, it carries 1200l wing fuel tanks, which equals 960Kg and not 1150 like you "estimated", just one example out of numerous wrong figures. Also no hardpoint can carry 4 missiles, there are things like weight and size limitations for them, that you ignore here. However, if you like it or not, the MK2 with the currently known facts can't offer similar performance as most medium class fighters.

If you can recall, the air intake redesign were to be done in MK2 as per initial plan but we show it in MK1 itself and even each new LSP, design Changed from LSP5 to LSP7 and to LSP8.

There is no air intake re-design, nor will there be one in MK2. They only modified the edges of the air intake to reduce drag and according to officials that will remain in the MK2, only the inlet will be slightly larger, to provide the new engine with better airflow.

You guys seems to be confused because you compare them with the best.

Hehe, wasn't it you that claimed MK2 would be equal to MMRCAs? Janon and I only tried to show you the difference between wish and reality. Many of your figures and facts are wrong and you should go through the LCA thread to get a better idea about the fighter now (MK1) and the "potential" performance that MK2 might have.
For me it already would offer good enough performance to induct it into IAF, because it's main use for India is to be a cost-effective interceptor with light CAS capabilities. That's what it already can do and what the MK2 "realistically" will remain to do, with a bit more technical capability. There is no need to make more out of LCA than it should be and than it can do, only to say we have developed a world class fighter. 

Every heard of bombs with multilocks, or on racks?

Another one that don't know about weight and size limitations of hardpoints. The centerline station is between the gear bays, you can't carry multi racks there due to size limitations, especially not for bigger loads. The mid wing station can carry only 800Kg of loads, so it can't carry even a single 2000lb LGB, let alone 2 with a multi rack, not to mention that you have no hardpoints left for BVR missiles, when you use that station for bombs.
The rest has nothing to do with the topic.

 

[HariPrasad]

Not really, it carries 1200l wing fuel tanks, which equals 960Kg and not 1150 like you "estimated", just one example out of numerous wrong figures. Also no hardpoint can carry 4 missiles, there are things like weight and size limitations for them, that you ignore here. However, if you like it or not, the MK2 with the currently known facts can't offer similar performance as most medium class fighters.

Ok man. It is 1200 L not 1300 Liter as I said. But why do you ignore the weight of tank. Are you going to hang fuel with hand point? Reduce (1150-960)x2= 380 KG. Still figure is over 3600 KG. Tejas can take of within 12 second with 3600 KG payload (Certainly not the full load That Tejas can carry) . It is not bad. MK 2 is going to be a much more capable than MK1. When you can evaluate Grippen C/D and F16 for MMRCA competition (different matter that it was not selected), Why not Tejas ? Do you want to say that MK2 is going to be inferior to Grippen C/D?

Hehe, wasn't it you that claimed MK2 would be equal to MMRCAs? Janon and I only tried to show you the difference between wish and reality. Many of your figures and facts are wrong and you should go through the LCA thread to get a better idea about the fighter now (MK1) and the "potential" performance that MK2 might have.
For me it already would offer good enough performance to induct it into IAF, because it's main use for India is to be a cost-effective interceptor with light CAS capabilities. That's what it already can do and what the MK2 "realistically" will remain to do, with a bit more technical capability. There is no need to make more out of LCA than it should be and than it can do, only to say we have developed a world class fighter.

Yes man I said that It has MMRCA capability. MMRCA doesn't mean raffale only. When you can consider Grippen C/D and F 16 for evaluation for MMRCA, MK2 certainly have the same capability. So it has a MMRCA capability. And Pl enlight me about my wrong figure and facts I am ready to accept that. I am a regular reader of At least 3 LCA thread. Now do not say that I said 1300 liters of fuel and it is actually 1200 Liters. Because some body quotes it 1300 liters also. The figure may not be very precise but not wrong. I have full confidence in DRDO. The project which they pursue seriously, they have manged to surpass the expectation of user.Indian Missile program is an example. Like we stared with modest pruthvi 1 and reached Agni V (one of the best in the world) These are the technologies which keeps evolving. MK2 is going to be much much batter that MK1. There is no doubt about that.

There is no air intake re-design, nor will there be one in MK2. They only modified the edges of the air intake to reduce drag and according to officials that will remain in the MK2, only the inlet will be slightly larger, to provide the new engine with better airflow.

I think the redesign of air intake which was planned in MK2 was done in MK1 itself. So there is no need if any major redesign of air intake in MK2 except a marginal enlargement.

I see a lots of difference in air intake from previous PVs air intake and Intake in LSP5 to LSP7 And LSP8. It is clearly visible from pictures itself. Doesn't it qualify to be a redesign. Pl enlight me as I am not as knowledgeable as you are in subject matter. 


XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

• Published Date: Nov 10, 2013 2:07 PM
• Last Updated: Nov 10, 2013 2:07 PM

Defence scientists, engineers and pilots, attached to India’s Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) Tejas programme, are on a war footing to ensure that the fighter does not miss the December deadline for its Initial Operational Clearance (IOC-2).
Defence scientists, engineers and pilots, attached to India’s Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) Tejas programme, are on a war footing to ensure that the fighter does not miss the December deadline for its Initial Operational Clearance (IOC-2).

Three aircraft (LSP-3, LSP-5, LSP-8) from the Tejas flight-line are currently undertaking weapon trials in Jamnagar.

The Russian-made R73-E missile will be fired during the ongoing trials. Sources confirmed that the Ministry of Defence has made it clear to both Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) and Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) that the IOC-2 deadline will not be extended any more.

The Indian Air Force (IAF) pilots will formally get to fly Tejas after the IOC-2 declaration. So far, the Tejas variants have completed 2,391 sorties, clocking 1,520 hours in over 12 years.

Currently, the fine tuning of the software and various onboard systems are being done during various trials. Flight trials are also progressing in Bangalore with the final version of equipment and mission systems getting a relook.

“We haven’t been lagging on any of the IOC-2 parameters now. We are working to clear all the test points. The results of Jamnagar trials will be crucial,” said an HAL official working with the Aircraft Research and Design Centre.

“Every weapon has to be fired at different modes, expanding the flight envelope of the aircraft. It is a huge matrix and we have to tick-mark all points ahead of the IOC-2 closure. A final review is expected next month ahead of IOC-2,” the official added.Sources said that the Digital Flight Control Computer and Air Data Computer of Tejas have been showing hardware failures causing last-minute concerns to the engineers.

“But the show must go on. Now the naval prototype of Tejas (NP1) is also ready with all its modifications and raring to go. The modified Tejas trainer (PV5) with its matured software is also ready,” an official said.

The growing differences between HAL and IAF are a concern to New Delhi, which is bent on the programme getting the IOC-2 tag before December.The Finance Ministry’s refusal to grant pension to ADA employees recently (a long-pending demand) has also created heartburn to many working on the Tejas project. However, a DRDO official said December 20 has been tentatively fixed for IOC-2. “As of now that’s the date floating around, and it is subject to change,” the official added.

deadline/2013/11/10/article1882495.ece?service=print

Tejas: Trials on to beat IOC deadline