IND151
BANNED
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2010
- Messages
- 10,170
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
First of all, even with an AESA, LCA will not even be close the Rafale in terms of capability. That's just a dream, since the AESA puts it only technically in the same generation that a Rafale is (also with similar avionics and EW capabilities), but it doesn't make it equal in flight performance, weapon carrying, range...
Secondly, we don't need CAD designs of the fighter to develop a weapon pod, that will be added on an external hardpoint.
And at last you didn't understand what the problem with LCA is in this regard:
As you can see, the Silent Eagle has attached the weapon pods to the side of the airframe, next to the air intakes. That is not possible with the LCA, since the gears and gear bays are extracting to the sides. Similarly, since the gears are housed directly next to the centerline station, there are lenght and width restrictions, once reason the centerline fuel tank is smaller than those at the wings. These size restrictions makes it not possible it add a weapon pod similar to the Silent Hornet, that could house any useful weaponload internally. So to add a weapon pod alone, we would have to re-model the gears, gear bays and fuselage, which at least could increase the width but still will limit the lenght.
LCA is simply designed to be very small and light and not to offer a lot of space in and around the airframe, that's why it's future potential for such RCS reductions is very limited, unlike with bigger medium or heavy class fighters. We even have difficulties to add more avionics and systems to the small airframe for the MK2, to make it 4.5th gen ready, so no matter what software we might have, it's no use when the platform don't offer the size and potential for such upgrades.
ADA/DRDO might aim on shaping the airframe a bit, but that only brings the clean RCS down and not the loaded / operational one, so no matter what they claim, that hardly will have an effect and has nothing to do with stealth at all.
This is because the DRDO and ADA officially can work on Tejas, we dont have IP rights to change MKI or Rafale without informing them. simple as it is.. and we dont have source code of there software program to change for the modification of opening and closing bay.. This may be possible in MKI but not in Rafale.. they will show the fingers to us... putting stealth on MKI also needs russia approval like the super MKI
Sancho didnt get what is happening in the world.. the components gets merged and becomes smaller and smaller.. see the laptops and chips, earlier the work of 10 chips is done by a single chips now.. real estate is a problem, but in course of time things will work out... that is where R&D comes outYou didn't get the gist of what @sancho is saying, there just isn't adequate real-estate on the Tejas to accommodate any such design changes and/or plug ins while larger aircraft (which can compensate for increased drag, weight, fuel consumption) like the MKI can accommodate such alterations (it is irrelevant whether we have the freedom to do so or not, the point being made is that such platforms are capable of coping with the radical upgrade process unlike the Tejas).
Sancho didnt get what is happening in the world.. the components gets merged and becomes smaller and smaller.. see the laptops and chips, earlier the work of 10 chips is done by a single chips now.. real estate is a problem, but in course of time things will work out... that is where R&D comes out
Its not some LRU or rotable that needs upgrading to realize what your hinting at, it will require an intensive restructuring from the ground up to ensure that the Tejas can even hope to assimilate the structural properties of a 5th gen or 4.5+ gen fighter. Suffice to say that the Tejas will never mount CFTs or weapons pods.
This is because the DRDO and ADA officially can work on Tejas, we dont have IP rights to change MKI or Rafale without informing them. simple as it is..
At least we get another meter length extra in mk 2 , that ll give some space for few gizmos..
Aircrafts are produced overhauled and decommissioned in batches, Not all Mig21FL's will be decommissioned immediately, the ones that are at tail end of flight hours will see decommissioning. Usually you do not want to decommision aircrafts from a sqdn without replacement, there are also other situations where certain sqdns low on numbers will train on with different air base and cross train...
So as LCA thejas Mk1 gains production numbers, you will see them replacing fishbed variants appropriately.
First of all, adding a weapon pod don't require any change at the fighters, it's just another external payload, therefor don't require any IP rights like you think
Secondly, we already have made changes to foreign fighters without any issues. M2Ks were modified with Israeli, rumoredly even Russian payloads. The MKI has attached Astra missiles for test flights as well as the Litening LDP. We have Russian fighters with Israeli self protection pods, or as seen recently added the Topsight HMS to Mig 29UPG. All this is no issue and at least with French, or Russians as reliable partners and do you honestly believe the Russians would stop us funding and developing a weapon pod for MKI, that they might need in future for their Su 34s and 35s as well? They will operate these fighter for the next 3 decades and will be more than interested as well, possibly even offer a joint development, to save costs. But only because LCA is indigenous, doesn't mean it's a good platform for anykind of future developments. It's meant to be cheap and simple, that's also why it doesn't need most modern displays or so, only we "could" integrate it, although it wouldn't make it operationally more capable. Same reason why I'm saying that indigenous AESA and Kaveri developments should be aimed on Mig 29K upgrades and not on LCA MK2, because it only delays LCA development as a whole, while it's more important to increase the indigenous content in the Migs for the future.
Half meter not one meterAt least we get another meter length extra in mk 2 , that ll give some space for few gizmos..