Why should it be confusing when the intent had been clearly stated??
If we are talking about its present form,your statement is totally valid.But the situation will totally change if the MkII receives all the planned upgrades like a bigger more powerful engine,weight reduction (although I still remain skeptical about it, @MilSpec ),AESA radar,OBOGS,integrated self protection suits combining MAWS and solid state jammers,FLIR,HMDS - Python V combo etc etc. it would definitely definitely be able to hold its own against fighters J10 variants.The LCA,with its 660mm nose diameter,can theoratically house quite a significantly bigger and more powerful radar than is possible with Dassault Rafale,although I'm unsure whether there would be enough power available to cater for the increased requirements.Can it be done if IAF decides to go with the uprated Ge F414s?? @MilSpec ??
Besides,I do not know the average and peak power ratings and the duty cycle of the LRDE developed X band TR modules,so I can not calculate the power requirements or the heat accumulations.Perhaps
@amardeep mishra could shed some light on this.
That's what you think because I failed to be totally clear with my arguments.Ok,let me clear it now.You do realize,that apart from fighting the PLAAF intruders,IAF will also be required to provide CAS to the ground troops,against invading PLAGF columns,don't you??Being Multirole MRCAs,LCAs will come in handy in such situations,if we look at the stated payload capacities of both LCA and Mig27.
I suppose this was lurking somewhere at the back of my mind, but I failed to pay sufficient attention to this thread.
Please look through the archives; you will find I had explained in some detail why, due to terrain, primarily, CAS would NOT be effective in hill country, and, in fact, as the example of Kargil shows, might be a trap for a force with limited resource. In that note, in the context of both the MiG27 and the Jaguar, I had pointed out that strike aircraft would be useless, and that, instead, previously-aimed cruise missiles, aimed at closing off choke points in the mountains, without pretending that such a counter would stop the PLA from using alternative rugged approaches off the road, would be more effective than air strikes.
Ok,'game' was probably not the best word to describe that.Let me rephrase that,will 'puzzles' do it for you??
Why not??What I can not understand is your repeated attempts to just write off the LCA.
I have been a staunch supporter and advocate for the Tejas, but not for force-fitting it into unsuitable roles, a sure recipe for disaster, and for the ignorant to then declare the entire procedure a failure.
At the moment, the justification for the Tejas in an interception role depends on the successful adoption of a number of upgrades, whose effectiveness and feasibility remains completely unknown. The justification for the Tejas in a ground attack role simply isn't there, because the generic ground attack role itself is suspect.
So you mean redeploy the Su 30s and Mig 29 UPGs to the China front for CAP and replace the LCAs with ground launched missiles??Well,that might actually work.............in fact this would be even better and more easily achievable than what I had proposed!!And I know the perfect candidate,Shaurya!!With its mobility,speed, a massive warhead capability coupled with a decent range makes it perfect candidate for the job.Nirbhays could do the job as well,but they are not yet ready and their warhead capacity is lower.
Funny,that I kept parroting on the same line in the Su30 thread against PAF,yet somehow I failed to apply this same logic to this scenario!!WTF!!
On a separate note,see??That wasn't too hard,was it now??Only had you posted this earlier,I wouldn't have to go through all the hassles of explaining and writing everything in detail,only to find out later that I had made a blunder and didn't even realize that!!instead,I could've just left you a small note of commendation and moved on!!