farhan_9909
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2009
- Messages
- 8,989
- Reaction score
- 10
- Country
- Location
LCA should be named Altaf bhai
LCA will not be able to penetrate enemy lines
- Thread starter Windjammer
- Start date
GURU DUTT
BANNED
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2011
- Messages
- 14,363
- Reaction score
- -75
- Country
- Location
both of them are owt of control of pakistan and looks like both giving sleepless nights to your nation
farhan_9909
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2009
- Messages
- 8,989
- Reaction score
- 10
- Country
- Location
both of them are owt of control of pakistan and looks like both giving sleepless nights to your nation
kyon k dono qoam k dushman hai
Dazzler
PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2008
- Messages
- 9,163
- Reaction score
- 31
- Country
- Location
both of them are owt of control of pakistan and looks like both giving sleepless nights to your nation
Its the other way around, in LCA case, it is ur nation that is spending sleepless nights.
holysaturn
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- May 24, 2009
- Messages
- 710
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
DRDO and the Air Force are doing a mistake by going for a MK2,it will be another wild goose chase. The problem of performance is not with the mk1 design but the requirement to stuff everything possible into the dense airframe of the tejas.The air force wanted everything the upg mirage-2000 airframe had into a smaller aircraft, they were in a delusion that they dint know what they wanted from this little aircraft, a gnat like fighter or a hawker hunter like fighter.
A good fighter meeting the ASR perfromance with the existing mk1 airframe can be achieved with minimum design changes.
1.First there is not need for multi mission requirement in the tejas(other aircraft can do it),it should have been made into an interceptor,point defence fighter agile at all altitudes and good at BVR within 50km.A compact,light radar with light weight missiles such as IRIS-t,derby(data-linked BVR unncecesary for 50km) should be used.
2.Reduce the max speed to between 1.4-1.5 mach(tejas will be out of fuel before it reaches 1.8M on afterburner even with tanks) just above the transonic-supersonic drag rise region.
3.Limit the supersonic manoeuvrability to 2-3g(a pilot cant sustain beyond that),limit subsonic-transonic g to 8g.These above changes will reduce the stresses on the airframe by a huge margin thus making the fabrication lighter and easier.
4.Use aluminium and fibre glass composites instead of carbon fibre,we just don't produce CFC but only fabricate them then why use a strategically vulnerable material(remember how the brits used wood in the de havilland mosquito).
5.All nav attack systems,mission planning systems,air to ground targeting pods,auxiliary power units to support them and other systems which are unnecessary for the above mission must be removed.
6. Optimise the air intakes for the predominantly used subsonic-transonic region , reduce the cross section of the tejas with the space created and elongate the airframe slightly so that wave drag is reduced(like what was done with the f-16xl).
7.Remove the heavy draggy racks installed for heavy bombs and drop tanks(except centreline for ferry missions).
8.Remove the excessive dead weights(ballast) which were installed to counter the above equipment.
9.Built in test equipment(BITE),condition monitoring equipment give a large number of false alarms which unnecessarily ground the aircraft,so use reliable,proven COTS BITE and health monitoring equipment only for critical equipment(such as engine,FBW).
10.All the aircraft need not have a air-to air probe,in combat only a few aircraft carry out missions which use air to air refuelling and esp not often by the tejas,so equip only a fraction of the fleet with this capability.
11.Design for supportability,reliability and manufacturability instead of perpetually chasing revised ASR.
If these changes are done with good care we can have an affordable,reliable,supportable fighter even with the 404 and the existing airframe, with which the airforce can fight.But if we are lost in the glamour of glossy fighters in magazines we are doomed.
A good fighter meeting the ASR perfromance with the existing mk1 airframe can be achieved with minimum design changes.
1.First there is not need for multi mission requirement in the tejas(other aircraft can do it),it should have been made into an interceptor,point defence fighter agile at all altitudes and good at BVR within 50km.A compact,light radar with light weight missiles such as IRIS-t,derby(data-linked BVR unncecesary for 50km) should be used.
2.Reduce the max speed to between 1.4-1.5 mach(tejas will be out of fuel before it reaches 1.8M on afterburner even with tanks) just above the transonic-supersonic drag rise region.
3.Limit the supersonic manoeuvrability to 2-3g(a pilot cant sustain beyond that),limit subsonic-transonic g to 8g.These above changes will reduce the stresses on the airframe by a huge margin thus making the fabrication lighter and easier.
4.Use aluminium and fibre glass composites instead of carbon fibre,we just don't produce CFC but only fabricate them then why use a strategically vulnerable material(remember how the brits used wood in the de havilland mosquito).
5.All nav attack systems,mission planning systems,air to ground targeting pods,auxiliary power units to support them and other systems which are unnecessary for the above mission must be removed.
6. Optimise the air intakes for the predominantly used subsonic-transonic region , reduce the cross section of the tejas with the space created and elongate the airframe slightly so that wave drag is reduced(like what was done with the f-16xl).
7.Remove the heavy draggy racks installed for heavy bombs and drop tanks(except centreline for ferry missions).
8.Remove the excessive dead weights(ballast) which were installed to counter the above equipment.
9.Built in test equipment(BITE),condition monitoring equipment give a large number of false alarms which unnecessarily ground the aircraft,so use reliable,proven COTS BITE and health monitoring equipment only for critical equipment(such as engine,FBW).
10.All the aircraft need not have a air-to air probe,in combat only a few aircraft carry out missions which use air to air refuelling and esp not often by the tejas,so equip only a fraction of the fleet with this capability.
11.Design for supportability,reliability and manufacturability instead of perpetually chasing revised ASR.
If these changes are done with good care we can have an affordable,reliable,supportable fighter even with the 404 and the existing airframe, with which the airforce can fight.But if we are lost in the glamour of glossy fighters in magazines we are doomed.
Last edited:
GURU DUTT
BANNED
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2011
- Messages
- 14,363
- Reaction score
- -75
- Country
- Location
no we are not we have many other things to worry like bolstering owr economy and giving employemnet to owr youth as for tejas well its just one of many programmes running to bolster owr defnces we have many other assets which are giving your establishment sleepless nights and there is nothing they can do about it ...... as they say money talks and bull****walks
... have a nice day sir
Windjammer
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2009
- Messages
- 41,319
- Reaction score
- 181
- Country
- Location
Yes, they are both Terminally ill.
Viva India
BANNED
- Joined
- May 5, 2015
- Messages
- 448
- Reaction score
- -1
- Country
- Location
Tejas would finish whatever left after SU 30s and Rafale lay waste every thing civilian and Military when they penetrated deep into enemy territories.
holysaturn
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- May 24, 2009
- Messages
- 710
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Let people have a productive discussion,why do you derail all the good meaningful threads? discuss the core problems,ask if it is present on pakistani equipment if yes what are possible generic solutions that can applied to all equipment. Some of the senior elites,think tanks,analysts are the most void members here on PDF
Rain
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2009
- Messages
- 870
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
We see here, from majority of indians responces, that indians agree on one thing that is LCA is not for cross border actions.
That realization is good starting point. They extend this realization to the fact that JF17 and LCA or not same / comparable.
That realization is good starting point. They extend this realization to the fact that JF17 and LCA or not same / comparable.
GURU DUTT
BANNED
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2011
- Messages
- 14,363
- Reaction score
- -75
- Country
- Location
still you cant stop taliking about both that shows how much you fear them both though they control your thoughts eventhough both are not physically in your teritorry
LCA and JF 17 are not comparable 100% right cause LCA dosent have to worry about most of the jobs which areto be done by JF 17 as PAF have no money or options to do them with a more able and leathel platform but IAF doesso lets talk sensibally sir
Hindustani78
BANNED
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 40,471
- Reaction score
- -47
- Country
- Location
Updated: May 10, 2015 05:51 IST
LCA Mark-I has limited capability: CAG - The Hindu
‘It does not meet operational requirements of IAF’
In critical observations pertaining to national security preparedness, the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) has said the Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) Mark-I Tejas being inducted into the Indian Air Force (IAF) has limited capability and does not meet the force’s operational requirements. In a second report, it pointed to the ammunition shortage in the Army’s war reserves. The two reports were tabled in Parliament on Friday.
The IAF had issued Air Staff Requirements (ASR) in 1985 for a light-weight multi-mission fighter aircraft to be inducted in 1994 to replace the MiG-21s in service. But LCA achieved initial operational clearance only by December 2013 and final operational clearance is expected only by 2018-end.
53 significant shortfalls
“LCA Mark-I does not meet the ASR. The deficiencies are now expected to be met in LCA Mark-II by December 2018,” the CAG said in the report. The initial operational clearance version has “53 significant shortfalls” in meeting ASR, resulting in reduced survivability and operational employability, it observed.
The aircraft was developed by DRDO, and Aeronautical Development Agency had put the indigenous content at 70 per cent, but CAG said it “actually worked out to about 35 per cent” as of January this year as critical systems were imported. This delay, the CAG said, had forced the IAF to undertake “alternate temporary measures” such as upgradation of other aircraft and revise the phasing out of MiG-21s.
The project was sanctioned in 1983 at a cost of Rs. 560 crore, but has eventually ballooned to Rs.10,397 crore.
In the second report on ammunition management of the Army, the CAG pointed to the massive shortage in war wastage reserves of ammunition which is equivalent to 40 days of intense period.
Even the Minimum Acceptable Risk Level (MARL), which is 20 days, was not maintained “with availability as on March 2013 being below the MARL in respect of 125 out of 170 types of ammunition.”
While ammunition with 10 days’ availability is considered critical, the types of critical ammunition had increased from 15 per cent to 50 per cent over five years up to 2013, the report noted.
LCA Mark-I has limited capability: CAG - The Hindu
‘It does not meet operational requirements of IAF’
In critical observations pertaining to national security preparedness, the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) has said the Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) Mark-I Tejas being inducted into the Indian Air Force (IAF) has limited capability and does not meet the force’s operational requirements. In a second report, it pointed to the ammunition shortage in the Army’s war reserves. The two reports were tabled in Parliament on Friday.
The IAF had issued Air Staff Requirements (ASR) in 1985 for a light-weight multi-mission fighter aircraft to be inducted in 1994 to replace the MiG-21s in service. But LCA achieved initial operational clearance only by December 2013 and final operational clearance is expected only by 2018-end.
53 significant shortfalls
“LCA Mark-I does not meet the ASR. The deficiencies are now expected to be met in LCA Mark-II by December 2018,” the CAG said in the report. The initial operational clearance version has “53 significant shortfalls” in meeting ASR, resulting in reduced survivability and operational employability, it observed.
The aircraft was developed by DRDO, and Aeronautical Development Agency had put the indigenous content at 70 per cent, but CAG said it “actually worked out to about 35 per cent” as of January this year as critical systems were imported. This delay, the CAG said, had forced the IAF to undertake “alternate temporary measures” such as upgradation of other aircraft and revise the phasing out of MiG-21s.
The project was sanctioned in 1983 at a cost of Rs. 560 crore, but has eventually ballooned to Rs.10,397 crore.
In the second report on ammunition management of the Army, the CAG pointed to the massive shortage in war wastage reserves of ammunition which is equivalent to 40 days of intense period.
Even the Minimum Acceptable Risk Level (MARL), which is 20 days, was not maintained “with availability as on March 2013 being below the MARL in respect of 125 out of 170 types of ammunition.”
While ammunition with 10 days’ availability is considered critical, the types of critical ammunition had increased from 15 per cent to 50 per cent over five years up to 2013, the report noted.
sathya
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2010
- Messages
- 2,847
- Reaction score
- 1
- Country
- Location
Dazzler
PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2008
- Messages
- 9,163
- Reaction score
- 31
- Country
- Location
no we are not we have many other things to worry like bolstering owr economy and giving employemnet to owr youth as for tejas well its just one of many programmes running to bolster owr defnces we have many other assets which are giving your establishment sleepless nights and there is nothing they can do about it ...... as they say money talks and bull****walks
That's it, starting from LCA and CAG to employment n economy and what not. Talk about off topic rants
sancho
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2009
- Messages
- 13,011
- Reaction score
- 27
- Country
- Location
That doesn't make any sense! The upgrade for the M2K was decided only in the recent years, while the LCA ASR is available for decades, so the one has nothing to do with the other.
Also, the design of the fighter is the main problem, since ADA and DRDO designed it, to be the smallest fighter in it's class, which never was a requirement of the IAF! The small form factor however, made the ratio to it's wings too big, which is one reason why drag is a problem, that reduces the flight performance from the ASR aims (speed for example). Same reason is the problem to carry enough fuel and avionics and EW systems internally, as ALL current gen fighters do. So it was ADA's / DRDO's misconception of the needed size, that is currently proving to be the main issue, which will be corrected in the MK2, by extending the airframe and adding more power. Personally, I doubt too that the specs can be met by the MK2, since the weight increase should be dramatic too, but it still shows us where the problem is!
