Tejas grounds Medium Combat Aircraft project

[faithfulguy]

There is no need to talk about AMCA until after FGFA is inducted. When India learn about PAKFA technology, it might throw the original AMCA design into the bucket and restart from scratch. So it is wise that India is placing all its resources in LCA and forget about AMCA design for another 10 years. Once it learn the PAKFA technology, it can start the design process. The first flight would be about 10 years after that time if India still deem AMCA necessary. By then AMCA would be to a 5th generation fighter what LCA is to the 4th generation fighter.

 

[Anony]

Two 5th generation platform with same capabilities, AMCA gives no operational advantage over FGFA,
to replace aging fleet of Mig 27 and jags more advance platforms are in oven, also AURA UcaV project is underway to complement IAF strike package.

IN still missing a dedicate 5th gen platform,

What operational advantage does Mig-29 give over Sukhoi,that both are inducted. You can't have 500en 5th gheavy weight fighter in your squadron. It should be a mix of all three types.

AURA is not counted here because, IAF has sactioned to keep to 40-45 squadron of manned pilots. AURA is not manned.

 

[selvan33]

What operational advantage does Mig-29 give over Sukhoi,that both are inducted. You can't have 500en 5th gheavy weight fighter in your squadron. It should be a mix of all three types.

AURA is not counted here because, IAF has sactioned to keep to 40-45 squadron of manned pilots. AURA is not manned.

no buddy.we are not going to get any advantage by inducting AMCA except the quantity. and also we are not going to operate fully a 5th generation. we will operate atleast 25 squadron of 4.5 generation fighter till 2040. And at the same time our navy is not having any potent fighters for its future carriers. so need for AMCA in IAF currently.

 

[Wet Shirt Contest]

What operational advantage does Mig-29 give over Sukhoi,that both are inducted. You can't have 500en 5th gheavy weight fighter in your squadron. It should be a mix of all three types.

AURA is not counted here because, IAF has sactioned to keep to 40-45 squadron of manned pilots. AURA is not manned.

IAF inducted Mig29's in 80's and Mki's in 2000's, in terms of brute force Mki is more potent platform, that justify the reason of inducting them, (given roles are different)

To add: There is no need of maintaining two different fleet of 5th gen fighters with same capabilities, IAF did not asked for amca, it was proposed by drdo & ada. on paper, what operational advantage AMCA gives over tailored made FGFA ? FGFA can perform all roles of AMCA without the cost of maintaining two different high end fleet in IAF.

Stealth UcaV is game changer, AURA is meant to complement IAF strike package..etc. threat perception and requirements changes.

 

[sancho]

What operational advantage does Mig-29 give over Sukhoi,that both are inducted. You can't have 500en 5th gheavy weight fighter in your squadron. It should be a mix of all three types.

Only that it is cheaper to operate and more useful as a quick reaction interceptor, but for both these points we already will have LCA and Rafale. Not to mention that you don't need stealth, when the target is detected, not that stealth is cost-effective.

FGFA / AURA - 5th gen, air superiority and deep strike
MKI / Rafale - 4.5 gen, multiple roles,
LCA / Rustom H - 4th to 4.5 gen, interception, CAS, recon

 

[Kloitra]

Only that it is cheaper to operate and more useful as a quick reaction interceptor, but for both these points we already will have LCA and Rafale. Not to mention that you don't need stealth, when the target is detected, not that stealth is cost-effective.

FGFA / AURA - 5th gen, air superiority and deep strike
MKI / Rafale - 4.5 gen, multiple roles,
LCA / Rustom H - 4th to 4.5 gen, interception, CAS, recon

Would not Mig-29 be a much better interceptor than LCA? Twin engine, more power for avionics?

 

[sancho]

Would not Mig-29 be a much better interceptor than LCA? Twin engine, more power for avionics?

Light and medium class fighters are used in this role, when jets have to scramble fast after a target is detected and depending which airbase is closer, it would be Mig 29s, LCAs, or Rafales.

 

[SRP]

HAL suspends all test flts of TEJAS Light combat aircraft wenever RCB plays in banglore, no wonder its behind schedule.thanks to Gayle- Tweeted by MS DHONI

 

[Kloitra]

Light and medium class fighters are used in this role, when jets have to scramble fast after a target is detected and depending which airbase is closer, it would be Mig 29s, LCAs, or Rafales.

All other factors excluding. I was thinking of operational advantages of Mig 29 over LCA. Be it jammer or radar, Mig would have advantage. It probably would have much bigger signature though. Two powerful engines would make it easier to have high thrust to weight ratio.

 

[Anony]

Would not Mig-29 be a much better interceptor than LCA? Twin engine, more power for avionics?

Yes, if I consider LCA at present stage. But in long run, I will go with LCA. It has very low RCS, thus hard to detect as far as PAF fighters are concerned.

Far more economical than Mig 29. (2 plane at the cost of 1)

With F-414INS6 engine, LCA will have lesser reaction time than Mig 29

Better ITR and probably STR too.

 

[sancho]

All other factors excluding. I was thinking of operational advantages of Mig 29 over LCA. Be it jammer or radar, Mig would have advantage. It probably would have much bigger signature though. Two powerful engines would make it easier to have high thrust to weight ratio.

The Mig can carry more load, is faster, has IRST and can be refuelled, which at least the MK1 won't. The LCA on the other hand will have the lower RCS, the should offer pretty comparable radar ranges and EWS.

 

[Kloitra]

The Mig can carry more load, is faster, has IRST and can be refuelled, which at least the MK1 won't. The LCA on the other hand will have the lower RCS, the should offer pretty comparable radar ranges and EWS.

But wouldn't more power be available in a twin engine for avionics? A single engine can be made fast, can get IRST, can have refueling pod. I am keeping future development in sight. LCA has lower RCS, but that is the only advantage it has. But wouldn't more power be available in a twin engine for avionics? More powerful radars can be developed for Mig. More jamming power. LCA would be in bigger disadvantage if its radar cant overcome interference or it cannot jam enemy. I am not even considering loading factors, and other things. They can be improved. A lighter missile can be made. More missile or load cannot help if game is over in first volley. But not the number of engine, which means power available.

Do you consider it an acceptable trade off for indigenous development, and cost? It probably does fit current operational requirement, but 20 years from now?

 

[sancho]

More missile or load cannot help if game is over in first volley. But not the number of engine, which means power available.

Not necessarily, an F16 for example is a single engine fighter too, but has a heavy class engine, with much power, very good TWR...too.
LCA offers any 4th gen tech that the Mig 29 UPG offers as well and even more, so I don't see a big weakness for it. The fact that it was designed with a nose diameter to house a similar sized radar as the Mig also shows the the capability difference of older gen light class fighters to modern once.

Do you consider it an acceptable trade off for indigenous development, and cost? It probably does fit current operational requirement, but 20 years from now?

The costs are acceptable, since the main value is not it's operational capability, but the experience and know how we gain from such an indigenous project. The problem only is, that we focused to much on the indigenous term and made a lot of mistake in the project itself. The future potential is dependent on the upgrade potential it will have and since it was developed with a good potential in mind, I do have some hope for it, although a Rafale offers more future imo.

 

[Kloitra]

Not necessarily, an F16 for example is a single engine fighter too, but has a heavy class engine, with much power, very good TWR...too.
LCA offers any 4th gen tech that the Mig 29 UPG offers as well and even more, so I don't see a big weakness for it. The fact that it was designed with a nose diameter to house a similar sized radar as the Mig also shows the the capability difference of older gen light class fighters to modern once.

Due to size and weight constraints, LCA cannot have very powerful engine. And twin engine fighters can be fitted with two powerful engines. F-16 had the need, Mig just didn't needed. I am not arguing about what LCA has to offer. Ok, let me clarify. When I asked you this question, I was thinking that in future, avionics would have more emphasis. You can use your radar (e.g. directed beam from AESA) to jam a missile/enemy radar. As would jammers. And probably more uses of active sensors. All of this would require very high power supplies, and thus powerful engines. And this is not distant future we are talking about as jammers and aesa exists.

The costs are acceptable, since the main value is not it's operational capability, but the experience and know how we gain from such an indigenous project. The problem only is, that we focused to much on the indigenous term and made a lot of mistake in the project itself. The future potential is dependent on the upgrade potential it will have and since it was developed with a good potential in mind, I do have some hope for it, although a Rafale offers more future imo.

If all its utility is to demonstrate/verify domestic tech and is to be used in small numbers, than operational capability do not matter at all. But if it were to be used in large numbers, and as interceptor, than it would be facing the most capable fighters of enemy.

 

[sancho]

Due to size and weight constraints, LCA cannot have very powerful engine. And twin engine fighters can be fitted with two powerful engines.

On the other side, due to size and weight, most twin engine fighters needs 2 engines and more thrust, while light fighters don't. When you compare the dry TWR for example, LCA MK1 belongs to the best in it's class and is even better than the Mig 29K:

LCAMK1 / Gripen C – 0,62
Mig 29K / F18SH – 0,60

So it's not that simple, but of course, such fighters can provide more power to their systems, however electronic jamming with AESAs is a very long shot for fighters of this generation.

If all its utility is to demonstrate/verify domestic tech and is to be used in small numbers, than operational capability do not matter at all. But if it were to be used in large numbers, and as interceptor, than it would be facing the most capable fighters of enemy.

It's operational capability doesn't matter much for us, because IAF has several way more capable fighters, but that doesn't mean LCA would offer good capabilities for the money you pay. If we had get it done in a better way, I am sure it would have some exports by now too.