97 MK1A + 24 FOC which are to be upgraded to MK1A standard
LCA Tejas Mk1 & Mk1A - News and discussions
- Thread starter Ashwin
- Start date
-
- Tags
- indian defence forum
This is Just One More Proof that the " Small " MK1 and MK1A have Limitations
MK 2 is the Definitive Multi Role Medium Weight Fighter that will be able to fulfill all desires of DRDO and IAF
NOW if we only we had designed the LCA around
AL 31 Like the Chinese J 10
The story would have been different altogether
We are assembling AL 31 since 2002
Yes, but then you forget that LCA was conceived as a point defence interceptor to replace the MiG-21, to be stationed at the frontline airbases and use their shelters. That put a hard cap on just how big the LCA could be. Designing the LCA around something like the AL-31FP (or similarly sized powerplant) doesn't meet the stated design goal. The fact that the LCA has evolved into what it is today, is a classic case of requirements creep and point defence interception role being out of fashion. Plus, we're getting the bigger Tejas Mk2 which basically addresses all the shortcomings of Mk1/Mk1A (except RF stealth).
What is equally disturbing is that GE 414 was offered to India in 2002 when Vajpayee visited US
And by 2010 , MK 2 had been approved by DRDO and IAF And in October 2010 ,GE 414 was announced as the powerplant for MK 2
But We were stuck in LSP series aircraft of MK1
In 2010 LCA ,had the first flight with a RADAR ie LSP 3
What I mean to say is that we were progressing so slowly with MK1 and MK2 and GE 414 had been approved
So why didn't we just stop MK1 and Start MK2 directly in 2010
At least by now ie 2026 ,MK2 would be fully operational
But this Obsession with MK 1and then MK1A has wasted many many years
Sanctions, Setbacks, and Self-Reliance: The Making of Tejas
Project Conception In 1973, Prof. Narasimha left academia for Hindustan Aeronautics Limited. He joined the Aircraft Design Bureau at a time when Indian aviation was entering an ambitious phase. Four years later, he was appointed Chief Project Coordinator, a position he held until 1979. In the...
www.strategicfront.org
New Article from @ShiroBarks
Sanctions, Setbacks, and Self-Reliance: The Making of Tejas
Project Conception In 1973, Prof. Narasimha left academia for Hindustan Aeronautics Limited. He joined the Aircraft Design Bureau at a time when Indian aviation was entering an ambitious phase. Four years later, he was appointed Chief Project Coordinator, a position he held until 1979. In the...
New Article from @ShiroBarks
IAF chiefs and officers are hellbent on rejecting Tejas Mk1a and Mk2.
Look at the recent podcast of Ctrl Alt Defense.
Worse, Vishnu Som keeps asking stupid questions like "are Tejas relevant when China is inducting 5th gen jets at pace?". Even worse are the answers given by IAF officers who say that they are not relevant. Wild!
These morons don't realise 4.5 jets are going to the work horse for the next 25 yrs or more. 4.5 gen jets strike the right balance between cost, operational cost & maintenance and manufacturing at scale.
Super Hornet is the workhorse of US Navy and F15/F16 is the workhorse of US Airforce.
5th gen jets cannot be manufactured at scale and maintained in a prolonged war. Worse, look at their sortie availability at any point of time.
Last edited:
I'm not trying to downplay china here as a cope, but 5th gens isn't a wunderwaffe that make 4th gens completely useless. US F-35 fleet across all services has cumulative <50% availability rate despite years of service maturity and some of the finest engine tech there is. F-22 Raptor hovers around 40% despite being older and having decades of service maturity. This is during peacetime when the enemy isn't bombing your infra or you're having to generate a tonne of sorties than usual. F-35s export customers like UK report ~30% availability rate for their aircraft, although I agree they're the B variant. But F-35 just has a single engine.
Su-57 is struggling to get mature enough and get into actual combat, and has faced a lot of issues which it still needs to resolve before anyone says we should import it outright. Chinese 5th gen fleet, with two engines which are currently behind western engine tech are likely to fall in the same ballpark if not worse which is more likely.
So to think AMCA is the solution would be stupid as well, when that jet itself won't have the necessary rates of availability to generate sorties. Your 4.5 gen aircrafts would be the ones doing that on all sides. Especially long range stand-off attacks.
What IAF needs to focus is on CCAs which they don't even have a doctrine for but "muh HAL bad saar" made a prototype without IAF even laying out an ASQR for it. Only an arms embargo can fix these import bahadurs.
The IAF has always had a defensive mindset vs China. But they seem to be going through somewhat of an emotional breakdown currently. From boasting about MKIs having detected J-20s over Tibet to crying hoarse over 6G fighters, the loss of confidence has been telling.
It's a good thing that the PLAAF is currently focused on Taiwan and Japan or they'd be pissing their pants already.
We are not getting 5G jets anytime soon. What choice does the IAF really have other than buying more 4.5G airframes?
What I find particularly egregious is that the IAF has no Plan B to deal with the situation. They have said no to the IRF and resisted theaterization which could've eased the pressure on the fighter fleet. For example, with theater commands, the IAF could have tapped INs MiG-29Ks (+ incoming Rafale-M) for anti ship missions and use its Jag IMs for conventional A2G.
The CDS has failed in resolving inter-service conflict and bringing out theaterization. He needs to go.
It's a good thing that the PLAAF is currently focused on Taiwan and Japan or they'd be pissing their pants already.
We are not getting 5G jets anytime soon. What choice does the IAF really have other than buying more 4.5G airframes?
What I find particularly egregious is that the IAF has no Plan B to deal with the situation. They have said no to the IRF and resisted theaterization which could've eased the pressure on the fighter fleet. For example, with theater commands, the IAF could have tapped INs MiG-29Ks (+ incoming Rafale-M) for anti ship missions and use its Jag IMs for conventional A2G.
The CDS has failed in resolving inter-service conflict and bringing out theaterization. He needs to go.
You are spot on about CCAs + 4.5 jets as motherships.
Rafale F5 version aims for that as well. A 4.5 jet capable of acting as mothership for autonomous UCAV.
Do you know what's the current status of CATS Warrior from HAL? Any progress?
Gov shld tell IAF to shut it and go ahead with IRF.
First flight planned for next year but I'd be happy if they get it right. Official CCA plan for IAF is with RPSA Ghatak which is still far away and doesn't yet have even CCS approval.
At the height of the Cold War, the USAF deliberately hyped up Soviet capabilities to get more funds from their govt.
Perhaps the recent interview to NDTV by retired VCAS Kapoor was meant more for GoI decision makers than the general public. But even so, calling Tejas Mk2 'operationally irrelevant' (in response to a clearly leading question by Vishnu Som) doesn't do much for the morale of serving IAF airmen. A VCAS, of all people, should've understood that.
I'm really hoping that recent rumors of a cabinet reshuffle turn out to be true and someone like Ashwini Vaishnav is made Def Min.
Meanwhile, the IAF is busy putting out a nonsensical requirement for Ghatak: supersonic supercruise, highG maneuverability, 4t IWB, 50k ft ceiling, stealth, etc. etc. all in a single UCAV.
No way KDE is going to meet this fantasy so another indigenous product successfully killed even before it started.
No way KDE is going to meet this fantasy so another indigenous product successfully killed even before it started.
Final QRs won't be public until the CAG failure report. Till then we have the TPCR to go by. Don't see how 50kn dry thrust will do all this:
I have some doubts about GHATAK achieving supercruise with the Kaveri engine. Other than that, the major change I see in the requirement is the emphasis on high manoeuvrability. Most of the other technologies could potentially be borrowed or adapted from the AMCA programme. For high manoeuvrability, we could consider 2D thrust vectoring or the requirement could be split into two variants, one with a canard and V-tail configuration optimized for manoeuvrability, and another tailless configuration optimized for surveillance and EW.
