LCA TEJAS MK-I & MK-IA: News and Discussion

[chnvipgz]

same for most high ranking baboons too. The whole leadership class is fully compromised

Then why people get surprised when pro nato deals are made in india.Even rajiv gandhi worked as a salesman for Saab Scania.

Wikileaks: Rajiv Gandhi 'a middleman' for Sweden's Saab-Scania

Former Indian PM Rajiv Gandhi may have been "a middleman" for Swedish firm Saab-Scania when it was trying to sell Viggen fighter aircraft to Delhi in the 1970s, says Wikileaks.

www.bbc.com

 

[Sanglamorre]

same for most high ranking baboons too. The whole leadership class is fully compromised

We actually do have a deep state, but it's beholden to the west.

 

[Anants]

We actually do have a deep state, but it's beholden to the west.

It's floating(on flattery) state then .. not deep state

 

[Ajatshatru]

The part we should be looking at is Tejas mk1A costs mere 43 million dollars, this will go even lower for the next 97 mk1As.
You get 7 mk1As for the price of 1 rafale.

Tejas and the Super Sukhois will also be more deeply integrated into India’s network-centric warfare ecosystem. The Indian Rafales became the most expensive fighter jets in the world primarily because of their integration into this ecosystem — the cost of integration significantly increased the overall price of the Rafales.

 

[Chakuntilal]

We needed technocrats who are heavily educated and with tough attitude, examples are rajiv chandrasekhar ji , ashwini vaishnaw ji, s jaishankar ji and manohar parrikar ji

Political science students will never understant the importance of r&d and technology, hope rajnath ji retires soon and rather joins bjp highcommand and gives MoD to some knowledgeable technocrat

waise S Jaishankarji political science ke student rahe hai JNU mein aur Dovalji economics ke.

 

[Spitfire IX]

The part we should be looking at is Tejas mk1A costs mere 43 million dollars, this will go even lower for the next 97 mk1As.
You get 7 mk1As for the price of 1 rafale.

Let's say Mk1A flyaway cost for 97 aircraft is 43 million USD. Rafale flyaway cost is not 300 million USD. Mk1A is not 7 times cheaper but yes, you should get several Mk1A operating for the cost of getting one Rafale operating.

 

[vin pahadi (kumauni)]

Tejas and the Super Sukhois will also be more deeply integrated into India’s network-centric warfare ecosystem. The Indian Rafales became the most expensive fighter jets in the world primarily because of their integration into this ecosystem — the cost of integration significantly increased the overall price of the Rafales.

well our deal is cheaper than some other rafale buyers. indonesia, greece nd UAE orders were cheaper than us.

1:- india 36 rafale = 8.9 billion dollars.
that make per aircraft cost 247 million dollars.

2:- qatar 24 rafale = 6.9 billion dollars.
per aircraft cost 288 million dollars.

3:- indonesia 42 rafale = 8.1 billion dollars.
per aircraft cost 193 million dollars.

4:- egypt first 24 rafale = 6 billion dollars.
per aircraft cost 250 million dollars.

5:- greece first 18 rafale = 2.8 billion dollars.
per aircraft cost 156 million dollars.

6:- UAE 80 rafale = 19 billion dollars.
per aircraft cost 238 million dollars.

if we bought rafale in greece price of 156 million dollars (if its F3R version) nd later upgrade it with our own systems. we can get 114 rafale in cheaper price.

 

[average indian]

There must be somewhere, like Ashwini Vaishnaw and Chandrasekhar were found for railway min and MoS electronics ministry.

Thing is Leaderji is not at all interested in matters of defense as he is in the various BJP Manifesto/Chaddi ideological goals and Ekanami/Industry maxxxing matters.

Parrikar died, Bipin Rawat died and since their respective departments are under baboo or chandigarh lobby uniform auto-pilot

Can VK Singh be promoted to DM

 

[Neil (नील/Нил)]

I know this is stupid but can we create a sead platform on tejas or mwf ? I know asking more is stupid , but it can reduce our burden in future , when j35 is operational.

For SEAD/DEAD based Operations, you typically need a very powerful EW platform to help jam & burn through enemy air defence Radars. Keep in mind that there are various methods of jamming used in modern warfare. Look at the Boeing EA-18G Growler as an example. It being larger than the LCA, more than twice as heavy and has two F414-GE-400 engines instead of just one GE F404 engine on the Tejas. Having two engines is a plus point as along with producing more thrust, it also generates far more electrical power which is necessary for the jammer to run on. Simply put: More power => More jamming.

China has designed and built its own EW platform on the basis of the J-16 which it calls as J-16D. If we want something on the likes of the J-16D or EA-18G, then ideally we should convert a limited number of SU-30MKI to Growler configuration to perform SEAD & DEAD missions. For this, we need to equip our Flankers with a robust EW warfare suite which is already in the works as you can see in this slide.


But does that mean that the Tejas or its subsequent versions like the Mk-2 doesn't have any potential or room for growth to stand out as a powerful Electronic Warfare platform? Not really because compared to aircraft like the EA-18G, J-16D, the LCA has an advantage of boasting a smaller RCS owning to several RCS reduction features like the extensive usage of composites, small size, S-duct intakes. Yes the EA-18G also has S-duct intakes but as a whole, the RCS of LCA is magnitudes times less than that of either EA-18G or J-16D. From what I have read, the MWF will reportedly sport an RCS that is less than 1/4th of that of the current Mk-1 in service with the Indian Airforce.

So why all the talk about Jamming & RCS reduction? You see, both Jamming & RCS have a synergy relationship. Read about "Radar burn-Through".


Incase you didn't understand the above diagram, I will explain it in a more simplified manner, basically the further away you are from your target, the more jamming power you will need to compensate for the distance. Jamming signals degrade & lose their strength with distance so ideally you need to be as close to your target as possible to maximize your jammer's strength. That is why if have a lower RCS, you can get closer to your target and as a result your jammer will be more effective as there is less distance between you and your target. Ideally speaking for future SEAD operations, instead of Tejas Mk-1 or Mk-2, the AMCA will probably prove to be the best because of its VLO aka stealth capabilities. The F-35 is supposed to be very effective in these kind of missions involving SEAD & DEAD, so if the F-35 is capable of it, so will be the AMCA when it arrives.

 

[ashes]

Tha

For SEAD/DEAD based Operations, you typically need a very powerful EW platform to help jam & burn through enemy air defence Radars. Keep in mind that there are various methods of jamming used in modern warfare. Look at the Boeing EA-18G Growler as an example. It being larger than the LCA, more than twice as heavy and has two F414-GE-400 engines instead of just one GE F404 engine on the Tejas. Having two engines is a plus point as along with producing more thrust, it also generates far more electrical power which is necessary for the jammer to run on. Simply put: More power => More jamming.
View attachment 38540View attachment 38541
China has designed and built its own EW platform on the basis of the J-16 which it calls as J-16D. If we want something on the likes of the J-16D or EA-18G, then ideally we should convert a limited number of SU-30MKI to Growler configuration to perform SEAD & DEAD missions. For this, we need to equip our Flankers with a robust EW warfare suite which is already in the works as you can see in this slide.
View attachment 38542

But does that mean that the Tejas or its subsequent versions like the Mk-2 doesn't have any potential or room for growth to stand out as a powerful Electronic Warfare platform? Not really because compared to aircraft like the EA-18G, J-16D, the LCA has an advantage of boasting a smaller RCS owning to several RCS reduction features like the extensive usage of composites, small size, S-duct intakes. Yes the EA-18G also has S-duct intakes but as a whole, the RCS of LCA is magnitudes times less than that of either EA-18G or J-16D. From what I have read, the MWF will reportedly sport an RCS that is less than 1/4th of that of the current Mk-1 in service with the Indian Airforce.

So why all the talk about Jamming & RCS reduction? You see, both Jamming & RCS have a synergy relationship. Read about "Radar burn-Through".
View attachment 38546

Incase you didn't understand the above diagram, I will explain it in a more simplified manner, basically the further away you are from your target, the more jamming power you will need to compensate for the distance. Jamming signals degrade & lose their strength with distance so ideally you need to be as close to your target as possible to maximize your jammer's strength. That is why if have a lower RCS, you can get closer to your target and as a result your jammer will be more effective as there is less distance between you and your target. Ideally speaking for future SEAD operations, instead of Tejas Mk-1 or Mk-2, the AMCA will probably prove to be the best because of its VLO aka stealth capabilities. The F-35 is supposed to be very effective in these kind of missions involving SEAD & DEAD, so if the F-35 is capable of it, so will be the AMCA when it arrives.

Thank you for such an excellent, really appreciate it. Btw , What is our current alternative to a Sead platform , is using anti radiation drones our only option ?

 

[liberalredditor]

source and credits - @ShiroBarks from twitter

 

[Neil (नील/Нил)]

Tha

Thank you for such an excellent, really appreciate it. Btw , What is our current alternative to a Sead platform , is using anti radiation drones our only option ?

One thing we need to understand is that missions which involve the neutralization of enemy air defences are very complex and difficult to carry out. They require precise intelligence & tactical planning to ensure success. When we talk about them, one may typically picture a fighter jet armed with jammer pods & anti-radiation missiles taking out enemy SAM Batteries but this need not always be the case. While generally aerial platforms like aircraft are preferred, SEAD & DEAD missions can be carried out by ground and naval platforms too.
The most important step before you carry out these missions is you gather intelligence about the enemy's ADS cover which you plan on taking out. This would involve knowing variables like:
1. How many air defences are there in a given area?
2. What type of air defence systems are they?
3. What is the range of detection of these ADS's?
4. How coordinated are their air defence network layers?
5. What kind of counter-measures they would deploy against your attacks to take them out?
6. What is the environment like? E.g Atmospheric conditions, Weather, Landscape etc.

There are more things taken into account when planning to destroy enemy air defences. Depending on several factors, It is then decided which platforms would be the most ideal to ensure highest probability of success.

As mentioned before, SEAD & DEAD can be carried out using not just aircraft but also naval platforms like ships & submarines in addition to ground assets like artillery, surface to surface ballistic missiles and more. So as you can see, anti radiation missiles like Rudram, HARMs etc are not the only solution, there is infact a wide multitude of weapons that can be used in these operations.

Since this thread is for discussing Tejas, I will preferably not write anymore OT posts. This is a very interesting topic which deserve its own thread for discussing more about it. I hope that solves your query!