The Tejas fighter’s role in war

[rockstarIN]

@sandy_3126

Depends on too many variables. If you have an F-16 with CFTs carrying more fuel, engaged in battle over either enemy territory or 'Air Denied Area' (SAMs), it has limited time to finish off the mission. The time is called the 'loiter time'. LT depends on variables like the extended period of flight in a target area + the tactics used to deal with ,multiple threats.

Now if you are MKI, yes you do carry a lot of gas but it won't last much longer than an F-16 because you also have two one of the most powerful and fuel hungry engines in the world. In other words, you'd burn twice as much gas as a viper during 'reheats' and Afterburns.

Now you should understand why 'supercruise' is so important.

That Russian-western engine comparison won't apply JFT-LCA scenario?

Aeronaut said: ↑
It can fly a lot longer than the Tejas without refueling, which means that Tejas would have to disengage to refuel or eject.

 

[dbc]

Is that a indication of you believing Blk52 at par or better than Rafale ?

Better at what? Define the mission please.

 

[janon]

I suggest you read on the basics of aircraft design and performance and back up your BS..or keep quiet when you cannot come up with actual proof. Otherwise you will be locked out these threads and can sit and watch while others post.

It is good that you want to maintain high standards for the thread, but do posts like #61 meet your high standards? I wish you would apply the same punishment to people who make pointless flame baits. At least the fellow you are berating said something of substance, however wrong he may be, and not simply a one liner meant to provoke.

Better at what? Define the mission please.

Is there any mission for which an F-16 block 52 is better than a Rafale, without taking other assets like AEWACs into account. One on one?

 

[OrionHunter]

The Tejas’ likely adversary, the Pakistan Air Force’s F-16 fighter, has a slightly larger flight envelope, but the Tejas’ superior avionics give it a combat edge over the PAF’s older F-16A/Bs (currently being upgraded in Turkey); and superior to their new JF-17 Thunder light fighter, co-developed with China. Only the PAF’s 18 new F-16C/D Block 52 fighters, flying since 2010-11 from Jacobabad, may be a match for the Tejas.

Seems you've inhaled a lot of laughing gas, which is Nitrous oxide. It's therefore better you keep your mouth shut or use a gas mask so you wouldn't have to inhale and laugh so much.

 

[SrNair]

no one takes shukla seriously....

what you mean by that?

 

[MilSpec]

what you mean by that?

Exactly as what I wrote, no one take ajai shukla seriously, he's a hack! The writer here is comparing LCA tejs, which is still under testing, 1.6 mach speed, 7G fighter jet with f16 which is a thoroughbred battle proven mach 2, 9G fighter jet..... I dont want to comment on jf 17 comparison, because I dont have the testing specs on hand..... Comparison of different platform without understanding the specifications is foolish and that is exactly what the writer has done here....F16 can fly faster, turn harder, see further than the LCA tejas in it's current configuration.....

What Indian media needs to do is less comparison and just report on developments in the program, once the system matures, comparisons can become evident....ye tod denge phod denge attitude is best left at home....

 

[kingdurgaking]

Did you have any source of that!!!i know the issue but it is quite for different reasons

It is there in public domain .... nor a secret ... if any one in the forumn disagrees i will provide the source

 

[SrNair]

Exactly as what I wrote, no one take ajai shukla seriously, he's a hack!

that right.LCA Tejas first aim is to how to get FOC.At present condition it is better than JF-17.But that only end at JF-17 .F-16 is proven,battle hardened fighter.LCA must need time.

 

[NKVD]

It is there in public domain .... nor a secret ... if any one in the forumn disagrees i will provide the source

As per of My knowledge India rejected R-77 due its seeker un reliability Marked by Cag reports

Putting a big question mark on the performance of the Russian beyond visual range (BVR) air-to-air missiles with the Indian Air Force, an audit report by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) has noted that nearly half the missiles tested either did not home in on targets during evaluations or failed ground tests because they were ageing much before their shelf lives.

The R 77 (RVV-AE) BVR missiles, fitted on board the Su-30 MKIs, MiG-29s and MiG-21 Bisons, were bought from Russia starting 1996. More than 2,000 missiles were ordered after the Kargil conflict and 1,000 have been delivered.

The CAG report, which will be released soon, is based on evaluations of the missile — its range is close to 90 km — during ground tests, inspections and test firing by the IAF. The missiles were bought at a "cost of Rs 2 crore each" but their failure during tests, says the CAG report, has affected the "operational preparedness" of the IAF.

"All figures in the report are based on air force records. Everything is verified by the IAF," an official said.

The problem with the missiles was referred to Russia and several teams subsequently visited India to rectify faults. IAF officers familiar with the missiles confirmed that this has been a problem area for long. "It is a known fact that the missiles do not work as we would like them to. Periodic tests that are carried out when they are in storage show their dismal state. We also have problems with spare parts," said a retired officer who was closely associated with the matter.

Former Air Chief Marshal S Krishnaswamy said: "When the missiles were bought, they were top of the line, world class systems that no other country had. As we did not have our own testing facilities, they had to be tested in Russia. The question to be asked is whether the government approved testing facilities for the missiles in India."
Source:
Nearly half of Russian air-to-air missiles with IAF have homing, ageing problems: CAG report - Indian Express
Livefist: Auditor Slams Navy's Selection Of R-77 Missile

 

[MilSpec]

that right.LCA Tejas first aim is to how to get FOC.At present condition it is better than JF-17.But that only end at JF-17 .F-16 is proven,battle hardened fighter.LCA must need time.

I fail to understand this attitude, why do we need to state it is better than Jf17? and how did you arrive at that conclusion? do we have the anything to compare the Jf17 specs with ? If Wiki is where you draw your answers from, then my dear friend, it is a bad place to be in....

 

[SrNair]

I fail to understand this attitude, why do we need to state it is better than Jf17? and how did you arrive at that conclusion? do we have the anything to compare the Jf17 specs with ? If Wiki is where you draw your answers from, then my dear friend, it is a bad place to be in....

so you think JF-17 is much better than LCA?

 

[MilSpec]

We dont integerate R-77 ... Russia has denied the source code.. which is why we have chosen Derby...

You are wasting time in asking proof from our neighbours... we need to believe there words with out proof.. i know a person recently basel... who said a lot of things in F-16 and JF-17 .. which is difficult to believe ..... but believe it as a worst case scenario.. Better for IAF to prepare for worst case scenario but hope for best



Hard to believe such a question from DBC... Shukla doesnt like Rafale... he likes F-35.... but he has made reference from IAF pilots... seems hard to believe.. what is your comment?? about older F-16

Complete BS, What source code are you talking about RVV AE? RVV AE is quite expensive, and the reason for Derby/Python IV has been because of higher shelf life, different seeker and a huge bang for the buck price, with RVV SD and even better K77 Aesa coming into the picture R77 line is going to become a game changer and it will still remain in contention and yes India posses all the system architecture bus address which I assume you are referring to as source code for Rvv ae...

For the Long range and medium range AAM solution for LCA and future products was to consolidate astra1/2 AAM series thus Python IV/ Derby solutions are stop gap measure and not permanent ordinances. If R77 was chosen, you would see a larger book order and eventually some babu pushing for ToT deal for RVV series instantly killing the astra program....

so you think JF-17 is much better than LCA?

I dont know, because I dont have specifactions of Jf 17 to compare with and I am not Ajai shukla, and I try to avoid foot in my mouth syndrome

 

[SrNair]

Complete BS, What source code are you talking about RVV AE? RVV AE is quite expensive, and the reason for Derby/Python IV has been because of higher shelf life, different seeker and a huge bang for the buck price, with RVV SD and even better K77 Aesa coming into the picture R77 line is going to become a game changer and it will still remain in contention and yes India posses all the system architecture bus address which I assume you are referring to as source code for Rvv ae...

For the Long range and medium range AAM solution for LCA and future products was to consolidate astra1/2 AAM series thus Python IV/ Derby solutions are stop gap measure and not permanent ordinances. If R77 was chosen, you would see a larger book order and eventually some babu pushing for ToT deal for RVV series instantly killing the astra program....


I dont know, because I dont have specifactions of Jf 17 to compare with and I am not Ajai shukla, and I try to avoid foot in my mouth syndrome

Sir Can you explain the FBW system used in LCA and JF-17 ?

 

[MilSpec]

Sir Can you explain the FBW system used in LCA and JF-17 ?

What aspect would like to know?

I suspect your contention is to Quadruple redundancies in LCA to the conventional control in roll and yaw axis for the JF17, if that is the comparison you want to make then you should be aware of,

Mig29S a/c without any FBW systems, Which was one of the top most dogfighters, and to qoute the rusian pilots, "a computerised control flight can make an average pilot a good pilot, on the flip side it turns a phenomenal pilot into a good pilot too "

Next is the there is no indication that JF17 cannot receive the same slat control for the complete FBW, as it will again include not more than 6 to 8 channes of control for the mission computer, for the LVDT's Hydraulic cylinders, Servo valves if needed, And For the pitch and yaw axis in my opinion , it might not be such a bad move to have conventional control as you will be able remain more agile in close combat. But then again too little of FBW and In flight control information is available for both aircrafts so to draw comparison is still quite premature...

 

[SrNair]

What aspect would like to know?

I read somewhere ,LCA used quadraplex digital FBW system ,but JF-17 used less advanced than that.I dont know what is it