tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6050542.post3286518506154111725..comments2023-10-11T17:09:54.975+05:30Comments on LIVEFIST: *MMRCA Contract Update*Shiv Aroorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03510476258643893433noreply@blogger.comBlogger47125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6050542.post-76812625491550778872007-06-19T20:02:00.000+05:302007-06-19T20:02:00.000+05:30To my previous post I may add that the Tejas may m...To my previous post I may add that the Tejas may merit more than a couple of TV reports because after all it is the country's first modern fighter plane. Only a handful of nations have the same capability.<BR/><BR/>Since most chnnels report only about politics, films, cricket and stret crime, our capacity for appreciation for such milestones has been lost. Since it has been lost, news chnnels hesitate to report on the same. Thus, it is a cyclical cyclical cause & effect.<BR/><BR/>If there are more news report about say for example space technology, it would be far more interesting. However, more than the news on Cartosat-4's capabilities or India's upcoming launches, news channels "drone" about the Samosas of a (though very illustrious) astronaut, who is a naturalized American citizen and that only half-Indian.<BR/><BR/>Mr. Aroor, I would like to point out a line from an article of today's ExpressIndia newspaper :<BR/><BR/><B><I>"Five more Tejas aircraft would fly by end of this year giving a major fillip to test flights."</B></I><BR/><BR/>Although seemingly unlikely, I would like to ask you whether it is true.<BR/><BR/>Thank you.<BR/><BR/>ExpressIndia news url :<BR/><BR/>http://www.newindpress.com/NewsItems.asp?ID=IE120070617113551&Page=1&Title=Bangalore&Topic=0Abhimanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13725190272782358248noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6050542.post-44702983140473749852007-06-19T14:23:00.000+05:302007-06-19T14:23:00.000+05:30Mr. Aroor, informally only just from a discussion ...Mr. Aroor, informally only just from a discussion point of view, just as so many reporters make TV reports about Arjun tank (Mr. Shukla on NDTV), Brahmos (Headlines Today), or Agni-III (various channels), can't you possibly mull making one on the Tejas ?<BR/><BR/>The only 2 reportages about the Tejas were carried by good'ol DD and a highly inaccurate and baselessly negative report by Ms. Yadav on IBN-live.<BR/><BR/>Your report could herald the Tejas' quota of praise coming not just from government-run DD, but also from a highly citizen-interactive private news channel. You may alleivate the "bad-press" given to it in a very short time.<BR/><BR/>Though not directly mentioning MRCA (though it would be a pioneering nail-on-the-head hitting, if you do), you can mention some commonly-known facts that it is like say "India's Gripen", or drop a comparison between Tejas and JF-17.<BR/><BR/>Thank you.Abhimanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13725190272782358248noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6050542.post-21488006948685373162007-06-19T00:36:00.000+05:302007-06-19T00:36:00.000+05:30abhiman: firstly, thanks for watching! to answer y...abhiman: firstly, thanks for watching! to answer your queries, i didn't say the gripen was a favourite of the air force. i said it was a low profile fighter, but had already garnered a large fan base within the air force. the tejas clip shown in the MRCA story was deliberate. i thought it might serve as an ironic reminder. i see it has worked on at least one person!Shiv Aroorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03510476258643893433noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6050542.post-47669166808203272012007-06-18T23:29:00.000+05:302007-06-18T23:29:00.000+05:30Mr. Aroor I saw your TV news report on the 126 MRC...Mr. Aroor I saw your TV news report on the 126 MRCA deal, which was informative. It was also innovative in the sense that it was different from the usual news of politics, cricket and crime.<BR/><BR/>ACM Krishnamurty very rightly said in the end, that the Gripen and F-18 are very disparate because of the vast difference in their size and weight.<BR/><BR/>If I am not mistaken, it was mentioned by you that the Gripen is and I quote, "a favourite of the IAF pilots". I would like to ask you whether this is representative of most IAF pilots. If it is true, then they shall also have a good rapport with the Tejas (whether it comes as MRCA or not).<BR/><BR/>In the video, the Tejas was also shown for a few seconds so I thought maybe there will be a mention of the Tejas. I may take the liberty to ask whether it was edited or did you plan to speak on Tejas vis-a-vis MRCA.<BR/><BR/>Thank you.Abhimanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13725190272782358248noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6050542.post-40002734451829149182007-06-17T16:35:00.000+05:302007-06-17T16:35:00.000+05:30sniperz11, as rightly said by you the IAF initiall...sniperz11, as rightly said by you the IAF initially proposed MRCA at a time when "Tejas was nowhere". But now that the Tejas has speeded up and is nearing completion, the original purpose of MRCA has been "lost in translation".<BR/><BR/>Anonymous, as per Mr. Shiv Aroor's Feb '07 news report itself, the IAF prefers fighters in the category of Gripen and F-16, instead of the other 4 heavy category fighters.<BR/><BR/>Regarding Gripen's candidature, as per another Feb '07 news report, SAAB is "going the extra mile" to convince the IAF of its viability. It has opened a Bangalore office specifically to cater to the forthcoming MRCA tender. The following is a comment by SAAB's head, Mr. Ogilvy on Gripen's role in the IAF :-<BR/><BR/><BR/>"<I>The Gripen will be a perfect force mix with the powerful Sukhoi-30 MKI and is an apt replacement for the MIG-21.</I>"<BR/><BR/><BR/><I><B>That</B></I> is SAAB's opinion on Gripen's possible role in the IAF. SAAB is a serious bidder for the contract.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>It may be questioned that if the tasks of 'MiG-21 replacement' and 'complement to the Su-30' is not to be given to Tejas, then which fighter is ? The plank of Mr. Ogilvy's basing Gripen's candidature is the same plank on which the Tejas has been projected so far. Besides, as per <I>official</I> FMV (Swedish Defence Material Administration) site, the Gripen has an empty weight of 7000 kgs, internal fuel 3000 litres, weapon load of 5,300 kg and mtow of 14000 kg. As per B. Harry's article Tejas has internal fuel of ~ 2,800 litres, and mulw of 13,500 kgs. That may allow for significant weapon-load as well as fuel load which definitely is comparable to Gripen.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Thanks.<BR/><BR/>References :<BR/><BR/>http://in.news.yahoo.com/061220/48/6agt9.html<BR/>http://www.tribuneindia.com/2007/20070204/nation.htm#1<BR/>http://www.fmv.se/WmTemplates/Page.aspx?id=1406Abhimanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13725190272782358248noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6050542.post-13210978785032261362007-06-16T22:55:00.000+05:302007-06-16T22:55:00.000+05:30sorry for my disappearing acts (was busy)i am not ...sorry for my disappearing acts (was busy)i am not advocating to replace MMRCA with Tejas but my arguments is to scrap the whole MMRCA which simply is gonna add one more 4.5gen figther to fleet when half the world is moving to 5gen F-35 in future, till the price negotiations and agreements are signed for MMRCA PAK-FA might have taken to air ,and if MOD really wanted more range and payload for Tejas a stretched version (BLOCK II) could have developed within two years (as told by a senior LCA engineer to me few years ago)but it was his opinion and could be wrong ,and pls shiv can you add www.lca-tejas.org to your list of sites yet list it could give some exposure of tejas to some visitors here <BR/><BR/><BR/>vinay<BR/>admin<BR/>www.lca-tejas.orgAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6050542.post-43081348080183586772007-06-16T17:25:00.000+05:302007-06-16T17:25:00.000+05:30Abhiman, sniperz11 etc...theoritcally, whatever yo...Abhiman, sniperz11 etc...<BR/><BR/>theoritcally, whatever you say as justification in bringing LCA to the table for MRCA is appropriate..<BR/><BR/>But when see the particality, its different..<BR/><BR/>the choice of Gripen is like a criteria to fill the min. quote for any purchase procedure..it is just for adding a competitor..anything more..as Mirage was by default choice before this present government.<BR/><BR/>coming to the current scenario..apart the technical abilities in the qualification of MRCA, this whole excercise is seen as tool in levaraging the benefits as widely believed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6050542.post-84281262650527752702007-06-16T16:49:00.000+05:302007-06-16T16:49:00.000+05:30Yes. Thats something that I also am flummoxed with...Yes. Thats something that I also am flummoxed with... why call for Gripen and not LCA. I think the Gripen will ultimately be removed from the competition.<BR/><BR/>And the post from BRF is absolutely correct. We need to have some pride in our own technology. You see the Pakistanis jumping in joy about the Al-Khalid and JF-17, which are nothing compared to the LCA and Arjun. And on our side, we have stupid people who criticize these projects no end.sniperz11https://www.blogger.com/profile/11613739977706693094noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6050542.post-9000310636636367612007-06-16T14:10:00.000+05:302007-06-16T14:10:00.000+05:30If there is a primary requirement for mission prof...If there is a primary requirement for mission profiles that require loads upto 2000-2500 kg (like most of the mission profiles of F-16 or F-18), then Tejas can be considered for MRCA.<BR/><BR/>But if the requirement is of a mission profile which requires a loadout of 4,500 kg---AND without much degradation in range and maneuverability---then Tejas' consideration may be slightly difficult.<BR/><BR/>I say 'slightly', because if the Gripen is being considered by the IAF, then by all known precincts of logic, the Tejas should also be considered too. That is because the Gripen and Tejas are equivalent in all respects like payload capacity, range, speed etc. They are also powered by GE-404 engines.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Thus, the IAF must surely have "seen something" in the Gripen, regardless of its lower max. range-loadout capacities than the other contenders. Whatever that "something" is, it must definitely be present in the Tejas also, because it is universally acknowledged that the Tejas is virtually Gripen's clone.<BR/><BR/>That's why there may still be "faint hopes" of Tejas' last-minute consideration for the MRCA contract.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, the following comment by Kartik in bharat-rakshak forum must be read by all critics of the Tejas. I am posting it here also, as this blog is also popular :-<BR/><BR/><B><I>...the JF-17 'Thunder' is technologically inferior and based on a Super-7 program that began in the 1980s as well- and is going to come around the same time as the Tejas, yet I never see Pakistanis crying as much as our people do- </I></B><BR/><BR/>Thank you.<BR/><BR/><BR/>http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewtopic.php?p=363719#363719Abhimanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13725190272782358248noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6050542.post-20276408536648759032007-06-16T02:55:00.000+05:302007-06-16T02:55:00.000+05:30Good point Abhiman. If you remember, MRCA has been...Good point Abhiman. If you remember, MRCA has been mentioned since 2001. That was also the time when we had quite a few crashes, and public support in the LCA was quite low. By 2003, calls for new aircraft had picked up (esp after Parakram). Once that happened, everyone just forgot about the root cause. Now, we just talk about "which MRCA", without knowing "why MRCA".<BR/><BR/>I think that the IAF was still stuck in that mindset of "needing Mig-21 replacements since LCA was nowhere", when it issued the RFI. Since then, a lot has happened. LCA has picked up, RFP has been delayed, and Uncle has opened up. That has probably confused the IAF, who are now thinking about what they want. Thats why you see the 14 ton Gripen competing with a 35 ton Mig-35. The removal of the 20 ton limit by the IAF is also informative.<BR/><BR/>I think the IAF has finally fallen fully behind the LCA project (since any MRCA replacement for it would be far away anyway), and has decided to focus on the mid-weight class, since MCA and 5th Gen are some time away. Methinks the IAF will end up going in for either the Rafale or Mig-35. F-16, F-18 and Gripen are out (unless F-16I can make a good offer).sniperz11https://www.blogger.com/profile/11613739977706693094noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6050542.post-5759183310747706702007-06-16T00:17:00.000+05:302007-06-16T00:17:00.000+05:30sniperz11, I agree with you now that the internal ...sniperz11, I agree with you now that the internal fuel will be reduced if external load is 5,500 kgs. That is because I checked right now that the max. internal fuel of Tejas is ~ 2,300 kgs. Thus, external load any greater than 5,000 kgs will automatically reduce internal fuel's weight.<BR/><BR/>Thus, the range reduction will not only be by imposition of max. load, but also the reduction of internal fuel by that load.<BR/><BR/>Well, I admit that I am beginning to feel that my arguments have been "with little substance" throughout. Still, this 126 MRCA contract is like as though something is constantly irritating the eye badly, or some "looming" disaster.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, it may be inferred that the internal fuel weights and max. external loadouts of all other aircraft like F-16, Gripen etc. may also not be simultaneously applicable. This may be a "solace".<BR/>The main disadvantage is a complete specification set of all aircraft.<BR/><BR/>I always think that had the 126-MRCA proposal been NEVER announced by the IAF say, until a few days back, then <B>everybody</B> would have expressed shock and surprise while thinking "then why did we build Tejas for" ? Everyone including the media would have seriously questioned the IAF's decision then.<BR/><BR/>It is only that the 126 MRCA proposal has been "spoon-fed" to us <I><B>parallely</B></I> to the Tejas' development since so many years now, that we forgot to question it. It is like a constant inculcation of propaganda.<BR/><BR/>Thanks.Abhimanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13725190272782358248noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6050542.post-25239393090153856762007-06-15T00:39:00.000+05:302007-06-15T00:39:00.000+05:30I do hope you're right Abhiman. That would really ...I do hope you're right Abhiman. That would really make the LCA stand out<BR/><BR/>I've completely forgotten what we're arguing/debating over?? :-}<BR/><BR/>Don't worry. I havent confused the 13 tons MTOW for anything else.<BR/><BR/>So, assuming your calculations, <BR/><BR/>load carried = 45% of weight (acc article)<BR/><BR/>Assuming weight referred to is the MTOW of 13 tons,<BR/><BR/>load= 5.85 tons<BR/><BR/>which means<BR/><BR/>loaded weight of plane = 13-5.85<BR/><BR/>..... = 7.15 tons.<BR/><BR/>Since the empty weight of the LCA is 5.5 tons<BR/><BR/>fuel carried = 1.6 tons<BR/><BR/>However, the 5.85 tons is not really possible, since the max loads taken by the pylons is potentially only 5.5 tons<BR/><BR/><BR/>So, your figure of 5600 kg is more plausible. In which case:<BR/><BR/>MTOW of 12.5 tons<BR/><BR/>Load of 5.5 tons (45% of MTOW)<BR/><BR/>Loaded wt. of 7 tons<BR/><BR/>empty wt = 5.5 tons<BR/><BR/>=> fuel = 1.5 tons.<BR/><BR/><BR/>So, 5.5 tons may yet be possible technically, but that would mean that the fuel is too small.<BR/><BR/>Lets see.. Guess we'll have to wait for more info from ADA. Till then, all maths is useless.<BR/><BR/>The most common figures I'm hearing is 12.5-13 tons MTOW and 13.5 tons AUW (All-up Weight)*.<BR/><BR/>*All up wt is the max. weight of th aircraft that can stay up in the air (usually due to Air to air refuelling, the plane can go above the MTOW even).sniperz11https://www.blogger.com/profile/11613739977706693094noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6050542.post-78143478161729716942007-06-14T22:37:00.000+05:302007-06-14T22:37:00.000+05:30I may disagree sniperz11. The figure of 13 tons is...I may disagree sniperz11. The figure of 13 tons is the sum total of all weights carried by the plane upon take-off. This includes pilot, engine, internal fuel, essentials and weapons. The article says mtow is 13 tons, but as per B. Harry's article the mtow is 12.5 tons.<BR/><BR/>45% of 12.5 tons is = 5,600 kgs.<BR/><BR/>The article speaks in the context of 13 tons weight only.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, the full specifications may be known "little by little" in subsequent air-shows only.<BR/><BR/>Thanks.Abhimanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13725190272782358248noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6050542.post-29020074893534914462007-06-14T01:05:00.000+05:302007-06-14T01:05:00.000+05:30Hmm... yes. I have seen this 45% figure. However, ...Hmm... yes. I have seen this 45% figure. However, I think there is a small error in ur calculations.<BR/><BR/>I think the weight they are referring to is the loaded weight of the aircraft with fuel. Assuming an MTOW of 13 tons for the LCA, the MTOW figure=<BR/><BR/>loaded wt = empty wt + basic + fuel<BR/>MTOW = empty weight + basic weight + fuel + weapons.<BR/><BR/>Basic wt is the wt of pilot and other essentials for the mission (which is around 200 kg).<BR/><BR/>which means that <BR/><BR/>13 ton = loaded + 45% of loaded (weapons)<BR/><BR/>... = 1.45 * loaded weight.<BR/><BR/>... = 1.45 * weapons load/0.45<BR/><BR/>doing the maths, <BR/><BR/>weapons load = ~4 tons<BR/>and<BR/>loaded wt = 8.8 tonssniperz11https://www.blogger.com/profile/11613739977706693094noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6050542.post-75320423816733041872007-06-13T23:43:00.000+05:302007-06-13T23:43:00.000+05:30Though I did not find Mr Baweja's statement, I hav...Though I did not find Mr Baweja's statement, I have found an older article as per which the Tejas can carry as much as 45% of its takeoff weight in weapons.<BR/><BR/>The following is a quote :<BR/><BR/>"<I>ONE of the major attributes of the LCA, besides the use of advanced composites, is its low weight - 13 tonnes - and ability to carry as much as 45 per cent of its weight in weapons. But with many key components such as the engine, radar (when it does come) and so on becoming heavier, the aircraft's weapon-carrying capacity has been degraded slowly."</I><BR/><BR/>45% of 13 tons can be 5.85 tons. Upon a weight gain due to the addition of radar and other components it can be safely assumed that the weapon-load shall still exceed 5 tons by a significant margin.<BR/><BR/>Thanks.<BR/><BR/>reference :<BR/>http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl2215/stories/20050729000707700.htmAbhimanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13725190272782358248noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6050542.post-35445456582260748132007-06-12T00:18:00.000+05:302007-06-12T00:18:00.000+05:30sniperz11, the figure of 9,500 kgs includes the we...sniperz11, the figure of 9,500 kgs includes the weight of the engine and internal fuel also. The GE F404 engine weighs 1000 kgs and the internal fuel of the Tejas is 2,300 kgs. Upon a MTOW of 12,500 kgs the external load can be calculated at over 5,000 kgs.<BR/><BR/>I will try to find the news article where Mr. Baweja has clearly stated the 9 ton carriage by Tejas' airframe.<BR/><BR/>Thanks.Abhimanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13725190272782358248noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6050542.post-33859289782524935982007-06-11T11:58:00.000+05:302007-06-11T11:58:00.000+05:30Abhiman, I don't doubt the fact that the LCA can o...Abhiman, I don't doubt the fact that the LCA can operated at full load. However, my concern is its maneuverability. The F-16 may not operate at max load, but that doesn't mean that we should scrap that capability, because that potential offers more flexibility... you can carry drop tanks to use, and drop them off before combat and keep the 4.5 tons. That can't be done with the Tejas. <BR/><BR/>As for degradation, it happens, no matter what the platform. Every single plane will lose capability when fully loaded, since all the engine power is going into just keeping it in the air. Which is why the Su-30 has been given powerful engines, so that it has power to spare even at all-up weight. <BR/><BR/>Your post assumes 5,550 kg load. If that were so, I agree wholly with your views. Of Course, like I said, if the Tejas can indeed carry 9500 kg of load, that puts all our assumptions and discussions on its head.<BR/><BR/>If the LCA can indeed carry 5500 kg, then it comes into the f-16 class, and if so, I agree with you that it would be best suited for the MRCA tender. However, till then, assuming 4.5 ton load, I hold my views.sniperz11https://www.blogger.com/profile/11613739977706693094noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6050542.post-6607400942001889372007-06-11T00:48:00.000+05:302007-06-11T00:48:00.000+05:30sniperz11, the Tejas can actually be loaded and op...sniperz11, the Tejas can actually be loaded and operated at full weapons-load. The opportunity to operate with full-load will not arise for the F-16 <B>unlike Tejas</B>. 4,500 kg of weapons load is standard for most aircraft like F-18 and F-16, which incidentally is the max. external load of the Tejas.<BR/><BR/>Regarding degradation of maneuverability, I do not think it will be that much, because of the statement by Mr. Baweja. It implies that the max. external load of the Tejas is actually 5,500 kgs and hence one ton less than capacity may not result in maximum degradation. I will search for the news article and post it as soon as I find it.<BR/><BR/>Thank you.Abhimanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13725190272782358248noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6050542.post-41290361464823494412007-06-10T22:58:00.000+05:302007-06-10T22:58:00.000+05:30http://www.ibnlive.com/videos/42597/iaf-flying-mac...http://www.ibnlive.com/videos/42597/iaf-flying-machines-wings-clipped.html<BR/><BR/>I think that all "newcomer" journalists have to ritually write a report on any indigenous product (Tejas in this case), and describe how it is "delayed", it may become "irrelevant", etc. However in this case, lying or purposeful careless coverage is seen.<BR/><BR/>The points raised by Ms Shuchi Yadav can easily be refuted :<BR/><BR/>1) No more than 6 prototypes need to be built because the PV-3 has been built to the production standard already. All the next constructions will be production standards to be inducted. It is clear she does not understand what "prototype" means.<BR/><BR/>2) Ms Yadav fails to mention the reason for the Tejas' achievement of 677 sorties. The primary reason is the 2.5 years of US sanctions after the 1998 nuclear tests. Another reason is that (Mr. Subramaniam gives a hint) in 2004, the IAF changed the ASR's of the wing midstream in the program, which delayed the introduction of the PV-3 by more than a year.<BR/><BR/>3) The avionics are ready, except the <I>indigenous</I> radar.<BR/><BR/>4) As mentioned in the third point, only the <I>indigenous</I> radar is not ready. The Israeli Elta radar has begun to be installed in the Tejas already since the past few months.<BR/><BR/>5) 20 US GE-404 engines will replace the Kaveri engines in the first 20 Tejas aircraft. Thus, the Kaveri's unavailability will not delay the Tejas programme.<BR/><BR/>But the main point of Ms. Yadav's is the headline of the report, "IAF flying machine's clipped". The sound-bytes of Mr. Subramaniam and Mr. Srivastava do not even remotely suggest that. She regards the views of retired air-force pilots that she claims to have interviwed more than the statement of Mr. Subhramaniam who is the project director of Tejas (the former say that Tejas won't be completed before 2012).<BR/><BR/>However, it is completely unclear how she concludes that the Tejas is no longer a MiG-21 replacement and that and I quote her, "IAF is and the air force is firming up plans for other aircraft amid fears that it could become irrelevant."<BR/><BR/>The following Doordarshan video quotes IAF officers (actually seen in the video and not "mythical" officers of the IBN report) who appreciate the Tejas and its capabilities. Incidentally, the ending portion of the CNN-IBN report has plagiarised clips from this video itself :-<BR/><BR/>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wy5y-Ugw4-M<BR/><BR/>It is in reports like these, that I really appreciate the gentlemanly, sober and to-the-point reporting of Doordarshan compared to the almost "sleazy" and shrieking coverage given by private channels like CNN-IBN.<BR/><BR/>I'm afraid, but Ms. Shuchi Yadav's report is assiduously doctored and purportedly seeks to present wrong facts and hence to create incorrect conclusions.<BR/><BR/>Thank you.Abhimanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13725190272782358248noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6050542.post-52619753574138860562007-06-10T22:28:00.000+05:302007-06-10T22:28:00.000+05:30Abhiman, Tejas with its present capability can bea...Abhiman, Tejas with its present capability can beat all older IAf aircraft, as you have noted. However, when performance envelopes are constantly improving rapidly, trying to create a direct replacement is not wise. The bomb trucks of WW2 had the capacity of modern Trainers. If they had replaced them with similar perfomance aircraft, it would have been disastrous.<BR/><BR/>My point here is that the doctrines are constantly evolved, and a direct comparison of the Tejas against previous gen aircraft is wrong. Instead, we should compare them with the other present aircraft.<BR/><BR/>As for why the F-18s, etc do not carry full ordinance, that is because the performance drops drastically when the planes operate for long when heavily loaded, and in combat. US planes in Iraq are facing this very problem, and are quickly becoming fatigued. By your point, the Tejas will thus be normally loaded only 2500 kg or less. Thats a factor to take into account. Also, you can carry more weapons (since they have more pylons).<BR/><BR/>However, just because they are only lightly loaded shouldn't make u ignore their capability. And, even though it seems small, a 2 ton payload increase is crucial and quite important.<BR/><BR/>Plus, you can't expect the Tejas to perform at full load. It would be worse than a Il-76 at those loads, and at full fuel. That makes for vulnerable aircraft. You do need an aircraft that can carry at leas 4 tons of ordi, enough fuel for a 1200 km combat range, and have enough power and agility to beat off the enemy defenses. Thats where the medium class aircraft come in- they are not too heavy and large, and are cheaper to operate, but have good performance, range and 6 ton capacity. (I was most impressed with the Rafale for this role, although I'm not sure it'll be bought).<BR/><BR/>The role that you mentioned is correct... the LCA is best suited for interception and point defense. MKI is well suited for all roles. however, we do not have enough to fulfill all the roles, and they will be kept as Air dominance and long range strike and maritime strike aircraft. they are quite expensive to operate as well (which is why I think the similar Mig-35 isn't a very suitable contender).<BR/><BR/>As for weight of LCA:<BR/><BR/>Weights:<BR/><BR/>Empty: 5500 kg<BR/>MTOW: 12500 kg<BR/>Fuels: 2500-3000 kg<BR/><BR/>Thus<BR/>Weapons: 4000-4500 kg<BR/><BR/>the 9.5 ton is interesting, and I wonder where Mr Baweja has said that. If it is true, that would be excellent, and would turn most figures on their head. And would mean that the Tejas is something else.sniperz11https://www.blogger.com/profile/11613739977706693094noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6050542.post-13052728076071838352007-06-10T21:49:00.000+05:302007-06-10T21:49:00.000+05:30sniperz11, in this post I assume max. external loa...sniperz11, in this post I assume max. external load of Tejas as 4,500 kgs. <BR/>Tejas can thus replace the existing MiG-21 to MiG-2<I><B>9</B></I> of the IAF, because all these fighters too have max. loads which don't exceed 4000 kgs.<BR/><BR/>Now, the Mirage-class multirole planes like F-16 or MiG-35, which have 6.3 tons of external load may be superior than Tejas at a capacity of 4.5 tons. But I am still not convinced that another new foreign plane is needed, because no mission requirements need full loads of 6,300 kgs, be it SEAD, interdiction etc. Even F-18s are not known to carry more than 4 tons of load in any mission profile, though its max capacity is 8 tons.**<BR/><BR/>Moreover, if Tejas' external load capacity is indeed 5,500 kgs, an MRCA may definitely not be needed.<BR/><BR/><BR/>In the IAF, Tejas can be used for interception and attack, whereas for deep-strike and surgical strikes, Su-30s can be used. For a further discussion, we may calculate the external load of the Tejas given that as per the statement of Mr. Baweja, it can carry 9.5 tons of load, and that its MTOW is 12.5 tons.<BR/><BR/>Thanks.<BR/><BR/>References :<BR/><BR/>** Fas.org article on F-18.Abhimanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13725190272782358248noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6050542.post-19835382202711906912007-06-10T01:46:00.000+05:302007-06-10T01:46:00.000+05:30I agree with your view about the Mig-35 (consideri...I agree with your view about the Mig-35 (considering that its almost like the Su-30, although I'm not so sure about the lower operating costs of the MKI. IAF going in for Life-cycle costs seems to support this view to some extent.<BR/><BR/>As for the suggestion of keeping the LCA and Su-30 like the Americans do, Its my opinion that we should develop our own doctrine that suits us and not ape the west, which has been proved wrong over and over again (at least for our uses). Also, we lack the money to sustain operation of heavy point-defense aircraft. This money, the US has, and is thus able to use heavy and expensive-to-operate aircraft to patrol.<BR/><BR/>IAF has used 3 tiers- lightest (Mig-21s) for Point-defense and interception, medium (Mig-27s & Mirages) for bomb truck and earth mover jobs. With the Arrival of the Su-30s, we have added another element- that of crucial Area defense and patrolling, as well as Air Dominance, which entails long endurance. Added to this is Maritime patrol.<BR/><BR/>As you note, the MKIs would be good for A2G attacks. However, there are only so many MKIs, which will be needed for Air defence. Obviously, we need more, which is where the extra 40 come in. However, the IAF wants a smaller and cheaper to operate aircraft.<BR/><BR/>I don't wish to Argue with an established IAF doctrine, since we can't change it anyway. The best that we can do is analyze it and try to piece the jigsaw. Unfortunately, like I said, till the RFP comes out, we won't know exactly what the IAF wants, and theres no use talking till then.<BR/><BR/>As for the LCA, its surely good. But an extra 2 ton capacity does change the balance tremendously, and that is where the MCA will come in in the next few yrs (I hope).sniperz11https://www.blogger.com/profile/11613739977706693094noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6050542.post-39230021650210768672007-06-10T00:54:00.000+05:302007-06-10T00:54:00.000+05:30To my previous comment I may add that the Tejas a...To my previous comment I may add that the Tejas and Su-30MKI may be the only aircraft that the IAF may require. This may exactly be like the USAF which operates only F-15 and F-16 in addition to naval F-18.<BR/><BR/>In tandem, these 2 aircraft will complement each other very well.<BR/><BR/>Thanks.Abhimanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13725190272782358248noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6050542.post-43219281470273460042007-06-10T00:33:00.000+05:302007-06-10T00:33:00.000+05:30sniperz11, your support to Tejas as a MRCA contend...sniperz11, your support to Tejas as a MRCA contender is heartening. I also take back my views on Vinay with due apology.<BR/><BR/>Earlier in another article by Mr. Aroor, I had expressed that the max. external loads of all pylons of Tejas may not be exploited simultaneously and hence total external load of 5,500 kgs may not be achievable by Tejas. Or, it may be as you said, that there shall be reduction in the fuel capacity and hence range of the Tejas, upon being loaded with 5,500 kgs of external load. However, the same penalties of substantial reduction in range due to carriage of max. payload shall also be applicable on F-16 and MiG-35 also. <BR/><BR/>Regardless, it is confirmed that the composite airframe of the Tejas can haul a weight of 9.5 tons including fuel and engine, as per the statement of HAL chairman, Mr. Baweja.<BR/><BR/>Again, the empty-weight of Su-30MKI is only 2 tons more than MiG-35 to allow for a max. external load of 1.5 tons more than the MiG-35, in addition to one more crew. The normally fuelled Su-30MKI is equated or only slightly outclassed by the lighter Typhoon, Rafale and F-18 in range-payload.<BR/><BR/>I agree that the Su-30MKI is much much more maneuverable than these fighters upon full external loading, but still I do not think that this makes the Su-30MKI at the "far end of the spectrum", and thus a need for a "medium performance" fighter. <BR/><BR/>Anyway, the Su-30MKI shall have far lower operating costs for a given mission profile than the other western contenders.<BR/><BR/><B>In my view, the contenders are NOT exactly placed in the middle between the Tejas and Su-30MKI. All of them tend very close to either of these 2 aircraft, and which is why the MRCA contract may not be necessary at all. Even if there were a contender which were placed exactly between the Tejas and Su-30 in terms of range-payload, there would not have been need of one because the Tejas and Su-30 can together handle all kinds of attacks like defence, air-superiority, precision-strike, deep-strike etc.</B><BR/><BR/>Thank you.Abhimanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13725190272782358248noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6050542.post-67277735802666424532007-06-10T00:32:00.000+05:302007-06-10T00:32:00.000+05:30This comment has been removed by the author.Abhimanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13725190272782358248noreply@blogger.com