LCA AF Mk2 (Medium Weight Fighter) - News and discussions

[randomradio]

Perhaps, wider wingspan is because of increase in cross section of fuselage. Wing size has remained unchanged if I am not wrong.

The fuselage is the same.

 

[randomradio]

What guarantee future US government won't do the same...
Hence we need our own Aero engines at any given cost. Sam Dam Dand Bhed or Buy Rob Steal Espionage Reverse Engineering do whatever we can. Spend money on infrastructure like high altitude test beds, flying test beds etc

Sack all defence baboons who stopped funding for engine development. Bring Aero engines development under direct supervision of PMO like nuclear submarines...

Even after knowing there are issues and they are still pursuing US technology means the issues are not insurmountable.

I wouldn't think too much about it, but it means that we can't rely on the US for strategic systems.

Yeah, we need to develop all the necessary R&D infra, that's a given.

 

[randomradio]

So you're just making my point for me.

And they are still calling it "LCA."

Mk2 is structurally different to Mk1 as per the Project Director. I'll take his word over your's, thank you.

Not in the way you think.

It's for semantics. They want to make it seem like an LCA upgrade cuz IAF is already invested into LCA. Makes matters easier in the MoD. If you emphasize the fact that you cannot just take a Mk1/1A and upgrade it into a Mk2 (like you can with F-16A>>F16V). it would make it seem like it was ADA's failure for not making the product upgradable. It will be used as an excuse by import dalals to convince uninitiated babus to push for more imports. ADA has to play these games in order to survive.

The point is, the design hasn't changed/downsized since they called it an MWF. So for all practical intents & purposes, an MWF it still is.

And why shouldn't it be? If a 16.5T Gripen-E can be accepted as a competitor for MMRCA, then why can't a 17.5T Tejas Mk2 be considered medium-weight?

They are not playing with semantics.

And if all that you said is true, they would actually call it MWF. 'Cause change in the name would actually be semantics. Like F-16 to F-21. Or Su-27M2 to Su-35S.

Well H and SH are different aircraft with significantly different airframes, so yeah.

And they designation still remains F/A-18.

Eh? So you're just making my point for me? Well thanks for that.

It did the opposite.

Had we gone with a larger airframe from the start, then we needn't have developed the Mk2 at all.

Just block upgrades to Mk-1A, then Mk-1B, C etc. would have been enough. Just like with F-16. You could have taken any Mk-1 airframe, zero-lifed it, and upgraded it to keep up with all contemporary requirements. Like Slovakia or Turkey are doing to their F-16A/Cs upgraded to Vs.

But for us, it's not possible to upgrade Mk-1/1A to Mk-2 capabilities. If we want to put an IRST on it, we can't. If we want to double its payload, we can't.

Sure. But the Mk1 was a Mig-21 replacement.

And the Mk1 airframe was so good that they could modernize it to Mk2 without significant changes to its base design. Or we would have had to develop a new aircraft and fly it for 10 years and induct it alongside AMCA.

That's the surge rate. All jets can manage that - just not for long.

That's what you need high sortie rate for, surge operations.

Had Ukraine been in possession of a large fleet of F-16s prior to the conflict, the RuAF would have been demolished less than a year into the war. More details on that here in a previous conversation of mine on a different thread, read the linked RAND report as well:

Post in thread 'Ukraine - Russia Conflict' Ukraine - Russia Conflict

This is also why the Tejas Mk-1/1A & Mk-2 would easily pummel the JF-17/J-10C in a prolonged war. There was a point of time when IAF, like the Army, thought that a war wouldn't last more than a month or two, so that's all they need to be prepared for. But this thought process is gone now. IAF wants to be capable of carrying out a sustained air campaign. Our ground forces will have air support on call, throughout the war.

That's part of the reason why we go out of our way to push any Russian competitor out of fighter tenders for the last 20 years. We know that the current gen of Russian engines can never be a serious contender for our future requirements.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

And that's also why our 5th gen engine JV is only talking with GE, RR & Safran even though Russians parade around their Izdeliye 30 with '5th gen tech'. We want none of it, cuz we know it cannot deliver what we want.

Er... It's in a different class altogether. It weighs almost 1500 kg. We need 1000 kg and below. And only the West have offered full know-how and know-why for their second best engines. The Russians are only offering production ToT to a certain extent of their best engine.

The original in 2000s was meant to kill the Mk-1's growth potential. Had that gone through, most probably we'd never have seen Mk-1A and the line would have ended with 40 instead of 220 and Tejas would've been chalked off as another Marut saga.

Old Mk2 with F414 is the original Mk1. If it wasn't for the redesign, our original requirement was 40 LCA Mk1, 83 LCA Mk1/2, 200 Gripen E, and 200 Rafale. We added 5 more squadrons to the 83 via Mk1A, and Mk2 replaced Gripen E entirely.

The 40 Mk1s were DOA. The main old Mk2 with F414 would have given us more than 83, similar to the 97-jet boost Mk1A saw, and that would have been the real Mk1 meeting most of the ASR.

SEF was only killed thanks to Manohar Parrikar's push for Tejas Mk2.

Otherwise they'd have bought a Gripen or F21 and said there's no need to develop another fighter in the class cuz we have ToT of a proven one now.

Parrikar had nothing to do with either Mk1A or Mk2. He just happened to be the RM when the programs matured.

Mk1A was a result of HAL's ingeniuty, they started working on it before Modi became PM. And Mk2 was a product of ADA's genius, which too was before Modi.

"Your drawing of a horse is nice, just a few touches needed. You just need to change the legs, the head, the body & maybe the tail too. The rest is fine."



Dude there's literally no full part of the Mk2 that's the same as the Mk1. Just cuz it retains a few aerostructures (largely cuz they're proven & fit the bill) doesn't mean it's the same aircraft. Even the basic FC laws are rewritten cuz of the new control surfaces. It effectively carries twice the warload. Sensors are worlds apart. The way the pilot interfaces with the plane is totally differnt (side-stick vs centre stick).

You simply cannot take a Mk-1 and MLU it into a Mk-2. It's not an upgrade like F-16A to F-16V. It's a whole new aircraft.

As Saurav Jha said, the commonality in components between the two is only around ~25%. The Mk2 is essentially a new design made for executing entirely new mission profiles. We just reused as many parts from the Mk1 as we could to save time & money. That doesn't mean it's the same plane and therefore needs to be treated as in the same class.

The graphic just illustrates the basic change in dimensions over time.

You can keep saying that, but I'm just repeating ADA's own words, that the Mk2's testing cycle is so short because everything has already been completed on Mk1.

 

[Parthu]

And they are still calling it "LCA."

They are not playing with semantics.

And if all that you said is true, they would actually call it MWF. 'Cause change in the name would actually be semantics. Like F-16 to F-21. Or Su-27M2 to Su-35S.

And they designation still remains F/A-18.

Designations are made/changed for different reasons. Not everyone has the same reasons or compulsions as ADA does. UAC/Lockheed aren't fighting import lobbies.

They can call a Su-27M as Su-35 or a T-72BM as T-90 in order to entice export customers by presenting products as all-new post-Soviet designs, cuz Russians couldn't afford to spend on R&D for entirely new designs at that point.

Lockheed can designate it as F-21 to make it seem like they aren't selling us the same "F-16" as sold to Pakistan, even though it offers very little if anything that F-16V does not. They don't want it written in every newspaper column that Lockheed is offering the same plane as sold to Pakistan decades ago, that would be bad PR cuz most press/readers won't know or appreciate the improvements in different blocks.

Not in the way you think.

Enough to make it to the next weight class. Which is the point.

Sure. But the Mk1 was a Mig-21 replacement.

And I'm saying, it was a mistake to want it to be just that.

That's what you need high sortie rate for, surge operations.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

Only if you expect the air war to last no more than a few weeks to a month. This won't be the case, at least that's not the worst case that IAF wants to be prepared for.

With the MiG-21 (or any Russian jet really), you have an initial surge and then the sortie rate drops off drastically. Look at VVS sortie rate data in the linked RAND report in that post. This is why we had to operate around ~400+ Fishbeds at peak as dedicated ADFs, cuz you had to rotate in new airframes in order to maintain the rate. But we expect to achieve the same result with just ~200 LCA Mk-1/1As.

So as the war progresses, an LCA is basically 2x times as effective as a MiG-21. In fact it could be more, up to 4x times as the airframe-rating structural tests continue. Just as well, because we had to blow through 800+ Fishbed airframes over 60 years whereas we expect to keep just these 200 LCAs flying till 2070 at least.

In simple terms, over the course of its life, a single LCA delivers equal capability as 4 MiG-21s.

This is why calling it a MiG-21++ is a disservice. At best, it's a very misinformed off-the-cuff remark that doesn't take the reality of logistics & longevity into account. At worst it's a deliberate attempt to deride the program, probably in favour of imports.

Er... It's in a different class altogether. It weighs almost 1500 kg. We need 1000 kg and below. And only the West have offered full know-how and know-why for their second best engines. The Russians are only offering production ToT to a certain extent of their best engine.

There's no existing 5th gen engine from GE/RR/Safran either that can meet our requirement so what they currently have was never the criteria. It was about whether they have the technology we want or not. The Russians didn't so they were excluded.

We were always aiming for a new development with joint investment & joint IP ownership.

Old Mk2 with F414 is the original Mk1. If it wasn't for the redesign, our original requirement was 40 LCA Mk1, 83 LCA Mk1/2, 200 Gripen E, and 200 Rafale.

Nope. That would have given us ~800 4th/4.5 gens (if you include 270 MKI) which alone would account for 45 sqdns.

Then what about AMCA replacing ~120 M2K/MiG-29? It would've taken us to nearly ~52 squadrons even if FGFA had replaced MKI. The ~100 additional Mk1As we're buying now would have taken it to 57.

You're basically inventing a requirement for ~200 additional MMRCAs out of nowhere - just to make it seem as though the Tejas Mk2's evolution from a 13T LWF to a 17.5T MWF doesn't effect the Rafale's prospects at all.

As per current plans, 270 MKI + 220 LCA Mk1/1A + 120 Mk2 + 120 AMCA alone give you 730 jets, or 40.5 squadrons @ 18 per. The 2 Rafale squadrons make it 42. Everything else is either stop-gap or coming as replacement for these (like a 6th gen GCAP/FCAS replacing MKI). 114 MRFA would take it to 48 which is beyond the authorized strength.

There is talk about increasing the squadron requirement, but there's also talk about increasing Tejas Mk2 numbers to ~200. AMCA would also get additional orders. Basically, if the F-35 comes as a stop-gap for high-end frontline duties, that just about kills off any other foreign fighter prospects - unless Tejas Mk2 fails as a program for whatever reason.

We added 5 more squadrons to the 83 via Mk1A, and Mk2 replaced Gripen E entirely.

The 40 Mk1s were DOA. The main old Mk2 with F414 would have given us more than 83, similar to the 97-jet boost Mk1A saw, and that would have been the real Mk1 meeting most of the ASR.

There was never any need for a serious division in SEF-TEF MMRCAs. It was always a bogus requirement cooked up to kill indigenous programs.

Not to mention, procuring ToT & building 2 different foreign 4.5Gs was always way beyond our means. It wasn't a realistic program.

Parrikar had nothing to do with either Mk1A or Mk2. He just happened to be the RM when the programs matured.

Yeah and Hanuman had nothing to do with Ramayana.

Mk1A was a result of HAL's ingeniuty, they started working on it before Modi became PM. And Mk2 was a product of ADA's genius, which too was before Modi.

You can keep saying that, but I'm just repeating ADA's own words, that the Mk2's testing cycle is so short because everything has already been completed on Mk1.

How long Mk2 takes in testing is anyone's guess. What ADA is saying are just optimistic guesstimates. But even Mk-1/1A missed their estimates by a lot.

Either way, the point is Mk2 can fulfill a whole bunch of duties for which we originally needed a foreign MMRCA for.

 

[Sathya]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1895681205582115223

 

[Ashwin]

 

[randomradio]

Designations are made/changed for different reasons. Not everyone has the same reasons or compulsions as ADA does. UAC/Lockheed aren't fighting import lobbies.

They can call a Su-27M as Su-35 or a T-72BM as T-90 in order to entice export customers by presenting products as all-new post-Soviet designs, cuz Russians couldn't afford to spend on R&D for entirely new designs at that point.

Lockheed can designate it as F-21 to make it seem like they aren't selling us the same "F-16" as sold to Pakistan, even though it offers very little if anything that F-16V does not. They don't want it written in every newspaper column that Lockheed is offering the same plane as sold to Pakistan decades ago, that would be bad PR cuz most press/readers won't know or appreciate the improvements in different blocks.

So why didn't ADA change their designation? Or why did they change it back from MWF to LCA?

Enough to make it to the next weight class. Which is the point.

The changes made on Mk1 were made on old Mk2 as well, without changing the weight class.

And I'm saying, it was a mistake to want it to be just that.

Lol. Why?

Then why did they decided to order 220 of these jets when all it is, is a Mig-21++ with an AESA radar.

Only if you expect the air war to last no more than a few weeks to a month. This won't be the case, at least that's not the worst case that IAF wants to be prepared for.

With the MiG-21 (or any Russian jet really), you have an initial surge and then the sortie rate drops off drastically. Look at VVS sortie rate data in the linked RAND report in that post. This is why we had to operate around ~400+ Fishbeds at peak as dedicated ADFs, cuz you had to rotate in new airframes in order to maintain the rate. But we expect to achieve the same result with just ~200 LCA Mk-1/1As.

So as the war progresses, an LCA is basically 2x times as effective as a MiG-21. In fact it could be more, up to 4x times as the airframe-rating structural tests continue. Just as well, because we had to blow through 800+ Fishbed airframes over 60 years whereas we expect to keep just these 200 LCAs flying till 2070 at least.

In simple terms, over the course of its life, a single LCA delivers equal capability as 4 MiG-21s.

This is why calling it a MiG-21++ is a disservice. At best, it's a very misinformed off-the-cuff remark that doesn't take the reality of logistics & longevity into account. At worst it's a deliberate attempt to deride the program, probably in favour of imports.

All our wars are not expected to last more than a few weeks.

Indian Army's ammunition stock will exhaust after 10 days of war: CAG report

The stock of as many as 61 types of ammunition - out of a total of 152 types of ammunition considered critical by the Indian Army to fight a war - is available for just 10 days only, the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) has found.

www.indiatoday.in

The Indian military is required to hold ammunition enough to fight a short intense war of 20 days. Earlier, Indian military was required to have store supplies, spares and ammunition - called War Wastage Reserve (WWR) - to fight a 40 day intense war. In 1999 the WWR was scaled down to only 20 days.

There's no existing 5th gen engine from GE/RR/Safran either that can meet our requirement so what they currently have was never the criteria. It was about whether they have the technology we want or not. The Russians didn't so they were excluded.

We were always aiming for a new development with joint investment & joint IP ownership.

The Russians were never excluded due to lack of tech. They were excluded for political reasons.

That's why even MRFA exists, to reduce dependence on Russia. We would actually like Russia to not enter MRFA either.

Nope. That would have given us ~800 4th/4.5 gens (if you include 270 MKI) which alone would account for 45 sqdns.

Then what about AMCA replacing ~120 M2K/MiG-29? It would've taken us to nearly ~52 squadrons even if FGFA had replaced MKI. The ~100 additional Mk1As we're buying now would have taken it to 57.

You're basically inventing a requirement for ~200 additional MMRCAs out of nowhere - just to make it seem as though the Tejas Mk2's evolution from a 13T LWF to a 17.5T MWF doesn't effect the Rafale's prospects at all.

As per current plans, 270 MKI + 220 LCA Mk1/1A + 120 Mk2 + 120 AMCA alone give you 730 jets, or 40.5 squadrons @ 18 per. The 2 Rafale squadrons make it 42. Everything else is either stop-gap or coming as replacement for these (like a 6th gen GCAP/FCAS replacing MKI). 114 MRFA would take it to 48 which is beyond the authorized strength.

There is talk about increasing the squadron requirement, but there's also talk about increasing Tejas Mk2 numbers to ~200. AMCA would also get additional orders. Basically, if the F-35 comes as a stop-gap for high-end frontline duties, that just about kills off any other foreign fighter prospects - unless Tejas Mk2 fails as a program for whatever reason.

42 squadrons is for 850-900 jets. We will be climbing up to 45 squadrons in the 2040s. GoI says they may increase that further if necessary, although with the navy coming up with many carriers and the arrival of advanced drones, it may not be necessary.

What we have planned for today is 13 MKI squadrons + 11 Mk1/A + 6 Mk2 + 8 Rafale/MRFA + 2 (+5) AMCA by 2040-45. That's 40 (+5) out of 45 squadrons. With the exception of AMCA, the IAF wants to get all 12 Mk2s and MRFA squadrons, 232 in total, by 2035, although I believe 2037-38 is far more realistic.

So this is the plan.

There was never any need for a serious division in SEF-TEF MMRCAs. It was always a bogus requirement cooked up to kill indigenous programs.

Not to mention, procuring ToT & building 2 different foreign 4.5Gs was always way beyond our means. It wasn't a realistic program.

SEF and TEF are from the 1980s. So what indigenous program was competing with it?

M2000 and Mig-29 were the SEF and TEF resply. Then MKI came in, 'cause it become exportable. M2000 became Gripen/F-16 and later Mk2. IAF wanted a Western TEF alongside MKI, that's MMRCA and now MRFA.

LCA fits into its own segment for 250 jets. So it was always LCA + SEF + TEF since General Sunderji's time.

MKI too was supposed to be only for 190 jets, that's why the stopgap was just 40 jets. They added a further 40 to take it to 13 squadrons from an original requirement of 9.

So 9 MKIs (190) + 9 TEFs (126+63 = 189 remember?) + 9 SEFs (189) + 12+ LCAs (250). That's 39.5 squadrons, sanctioned at the time.

Yeah and Hanuman had nothing to do with Ramayana.

Sure. Give a politician credit, not the scientists.

How long Mk2 takes in testing is anyone's guess. What ADA is saying are just optimistic guesstimates. But even Mk-1/1A missed their estimates by a lot.

An already tested aircraft using a fully verified design, which has also been tested on a carrier?

Mk1 was a fresh development from scratch. Mk1A was delayed due to HAL's antics. They lost a year selecting an avionics partner and another year by overpricing the jet. So a 2019 deal came only in 2021.

Mk2 is a modification of a fully finished design.

Funny this:

Tracking The Tejas: How The Tejas Mk2 Design Became The Medium Weight Fighter | Delhi Defence Review

delhidefencereview.com

A total of four prototype aircrafts are planned for the flight test program. However, these 4 aircrafts will be production standard aircrafts, unlike LCA MK1 which saw the evolution through technology demonstrator, prototype vehicle and limited series production stages before serial production was taken up.

So ADA is apparently not sure about the time it will take but the prototypes are already production standard? Wow.

Either way, the point is Mk2 can fulfill a whole bunch of duties for which we originally needed a foreign MMRCA for.

Nope. It can't fly with one engine off. A very crucial requirement for DPS. The IAF will not send pilots out for DPS on a single engine aircraft.

Particularly after this:

With drone threat, air defence guns back in fashion; fragmentation ammunition key

The QRSAM being developed by the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) has a range of 30 km and has been a priority requirement for the Army

www.thehindu.com

What's funny is this is what the air force lives for, deep strike. This is what makes them a strategic force. Without deep strike, they just become glorified artillery. And you actually think the IAF will give up on such a capability?

Rafale, NGAD, and B-21 are the only Western jets around for deep strike. Later variants of the Felon need to step in for the Russians, like a Su-34. The Chinese are developing the JH-XX for the same role.

And if NGAD becomes single engine, they plan on developing the B-21 for self-escort when conducting deep strike.

Air Force open to greater B-21 stealth bomber role in strategy revamp

The B-21 Raider has so far avoided ballooning costs, said Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David Allvin.

www.defensenews.com

So even the Americans are not stupid enough to along with your plan.

The IAF too can't push DPS missions to the mid-2040s, especially against China. And we have just 2 squadrons today that can actually enter the Chinese airspace. Hopefully that climbs to 4 by 2030 before MRFA deliveries begin. And ultimately a healthy 8-10 squadrons suplementing AMCA, so we are at a comfortable 15-20 squadrons that can actually fly into China until the 2060s.

 

[randomradio]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1895681205582115223

He also says Mk2 won't come. It's 'cause he believes drones will be the future from 2030 onwards, negating the need for manned jets. Basically Ghatak, FUFA etc.

But both Mk2 and MRFA will come. There are no immediate alternatives for both. The drones will also come, but just later than what he said due to the gestation period. We need engines, Dry Kaveri is yet to finish testing.

Plus the drones need to be tested extensively over many years before they can truly replace the human brain.

That's why I keep saying AMCA will be our last manned jet (for the IAF).

So he says 2030 onwards, I say 2040 onwards.

 

[Parthu]

So why didn't ADA change their designation? Or why did they change it back from MWF to LCA?

Explained in Post 2120.

LCA Tejas Mk2 (Medium Weight Fighter) - News and discussions

Tejas Mk1 Elta 2032 has best clarity in IAF before Rafale got inducted.. Tejas nose cone diameter was as big as Rafales! How can it be compared to Mig 21 nose cone ? ( Maybe certification with Astra missile is yet to be done ? Like ATGM for LCH ) Currently Elta 2052 in Mk1A, from 41 st...

www.strategicfront.org

"They want to make it seem like an LCA upgrade cuz IAF is already invested into LCA. Makes matters easier in the MoD. If you emphasize the fact that you cannot just take a Mk1/1A and upgrade it into a Mk2 (like you can with F-16A>>F16V). it would make it seem like it was ADA's failure for not making the product upgradable."

The changes made on Mk1 were made on old Mk2 as well, without changing the weight class.

That was before they did the detailed design (which is done in the run-up to CDR). There was never any space in the old Mk2 that could accommodate all the new capabilities IAF wanted (like internal jammer, nose-mounted IRST, retractable IFR probe etc.)

Lol. Why?

Then why did they decided to order 220 of these jets when all it is, is a Mig-21++ with an AESA radar.

Cuz we could've gone for ~400+ of the same airframe otherwise. So much time & money would've been saved.

All our wars are not expected to last more than a few weeks.

Indian Army's ammunition stock will exhaust after 10 days of war: CAG report

The stock of as many as 61 types of ammunition - out of a total of 152 types of ammunition considered critical by the Indian Army to fight a war - is available for just 10 days only, the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) has found.

www.indiatoday.in

The Indian military is required to hold ammunition enough to fight a short intense war of 20 days. Earlier, Indian military was required to have store supplies, spares and ammunition - called War Wastage Reserve (WWR) - to fight a 40 day intense war. In 1999 the WWR was scaled down to only 20 days.

That's all we could realistically aim for back then considering we had very little domestic industry. We had to import everything from tank shells to artillery ammo. It wasn't feasible to spend forex to buy scores of reserves that could supply a long war. Our strategic focus was almost entirely on Pakistan - which also had the same problems, so a long war was never gonna happen.

But this can't be the thinking going ahead if war with an industrialized China is a possibility. Thankfully, we've already formed the base for these long-war capabilities as far as air power was concerned. Knowingly or unknowingly, since we decided to follow Western standards in engine & airframe for our domestic projects.

Army will follow later. They know that emergency procurement whenever things heat up isn't a workable solution in the long term. They're already working on it with long term procurement plans:

Aatmanirbharta in Ammunition Manufacturing: MoD inks Rs 5,336.25 crore contract with BEL for procurement of Electronic Fuzes for Indian Army for 10 years

The Ministry of Defence, on December 15, 2023, signed a landmark contract with Bharat Electronics Li

pib.gov.in

We're also going for long-term storage of perishables like explosives & solid fuel charges in underground climate-controlled facilities (like US & China already do).

The Russians were never excluded due to lack of tech. They were excluded for political reasons.

Both. To varying degrees in each case.

The engine JV for example, is purely because of lack of tech. Cuz the goal of the program is simply to acquire technology, we could care less where it's from. And there won't be a second tech acquisition after this, so there's just one egg to place.

42 squadrons is for 850-900 jets. We will be climbing up to 45 squadrons in the 2040s. GoI says they may increase that further if necessary, although with the navy coming up with many carriers and the arrival of advanced drones, it may not be necessary.

What we have planned for today is 13 MKI squadrons + 11 Mk1/A + 6 Mk2 + 8 Rafale/MRFA + 2 (+5) AMCA by 2040-45. That's 40 (+5) out of 45 squadrons. With the exception of AMCA, the IAF wants to get all 12 Mk2s and MRFA squadrons, 232 in total, by 2035, although I believe 2037-38 is far more realistic.

So this is the plan.

We count a squadron as 18 jets, not 21+. Of course a real squadron is never exactly 18, could be 16 or could be 22. But the norm for calculation is 18.

Our currently authorized strength is for 42 squadrons under that norm - so 750 jets rounded off.

The jets currently planned for long-term operation, minus the ones they'll replace, already get us to that figure (if you count the +97 Mk1A).

If you want 114 MRFA on top of this, first they'll need to revise the squadron requirement upwards. Otherwise between the 114 MRFA or +97 Mk-1A, only one deal can be authorized for purchase. The LCA follow-on appears to be close to signing, so unless IAF conducts a deep review of its requirements, MRFA isn't happening (this would be on top of the tender review they're already doing, in which it'll be explored if the basis for the requirement has changed and if an indigenous solution like Tejas Mk2 can't fulfill at least a part of this role).

SEF and TEF are from the 1980s. So what indigenous program was competing with it?

M2000 and Mig-29 were the SEF and TEF resply. Then MKI came in, 'cause it become exportable. M2000 became Gripen/F-16 and later Mk2. IAF wanted a Western TEF alongside MKI, that's MMRCA and now MRFA.

There was no SEF-TEF. The MiG-29 was a political purchase to appease the USSR. The IAF wanted more M2Ks instead.

This is well-documented history.

Sure. Give a politician credit, not the scientists.

It's the politician that ultimately is the decision-maker. And he made the right decisions & deserves credit for the same.

An already tested aircraft using a fully verified design, which has also been tested on a carrier?

Mk1 was a fresh development from scratch. Mk1A was delayed due to HAL's antics. They lost a year selecting an avionics partner and another year by overpricing the jet. So a 2019 deal came only in 2021.

Mk2 is a modification of a fully finished design.

Funny this:

Tracking The Tejas: How The Tejas Mk2 Design Became The Medium Weight Fighter | Delhi Defence Review

delhidefencereview.com

A total of four prototype aircrafts are planned for the flight test program. However, these 4 aircrafts will be production standard aircrafts, unlike LCA MK1 which saw the evolution through technology demonstrator, prototype vehicle and limited series production stages before serial production was taken up.

So ADA is apparently not sure about the time it will take but the prototypes are already production standard? Wow.

They're always optimistic about testing schedules.

The reason we could cut down on Mk2 testing requirements was cuz we made & tested the original Mk1 aerostructures so well that a lot of data could be reliably scaled & extrapolated when modifying it, further proved by simulations (as you said yourself). But that doesn't mean they are the same aircraft, or that they're in the same weight class.

Nope. It can't fly with one engine off. A very crucial requirement for DPS.

The tender requirements are often aimed at extracting useful information from vendors (which subsequently can feed into setting goals for indigenous programs).

The IAF will not send pilots out for DPS on a single engine aircraft.

Particularly after this:

With drone threat, air defence guns back in fashion; fragmentation ammunition key

The QRSAM being developed by the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) has a range of 30 km and has been a priority requirement for the Army

www.thehindu.com

What's funny is this is what the air force lives for, deep strike. This is what makes them a strategic force. Without deep strike, they just become glorified artillery. And you actually think the IAF will give up on such a capability?

Rafale, NGAD, and B-21 are the only Western jets around for deep strike. Later variants of the Felon need to step in for the Russians, like a Su-34. The Chinese are developing the JH-XX for the same role.

And if NGAD becomes single engine, they plan on developing the B-21 for self-escort when conducting deep strike.

Air Force open to greater B-21 stealth bomber role in strategy revamp

The B-21 Raider has so far avoided ballooning costs, said Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David Allvin.

www.defensenews.com

So even the Americans are not stupid enough to along with your plan.

The IAF too can't push DPS missions to the mid-2040s, especially against China. And we have just 2 squadrons today that can actually enter the Chinese airspace. Hopefully that climbs to 4 by 2030 before MRFA deliveries begin. And ultimately a healthy 8-10 squadrons suplementing AMCA, so we are at a comfortable 15-20 squadrons that can actually fly into China until the 2060s.

There is no twin-engine requirement per se for deep strike. These aircraft are not A-10s. They're not meant to survive being hit, but to not be hit in the first place. The second engine isn't for redundancy. That used to be the thinking way back when. That thinking persisted for longer in carrier aviation but now also gone as engine reliability improved drastically.

Have explained before - the main strike fighter of NATO on the Russian front (which is similar to our fight vs China in the sense that our airspace is right next door) going ahead is the single-engine F35. The reason NGAD needs two engines is because it has a certain speed & range requirement that can only be delivered by a considerably larger, heavier aircraft. Combined with the higher performance envelop of an ASF compared to a strike fighter. That's what the 2nd engine is for.

F-35 is 30T class while the NGAD is currently expected to be larger than the F-22 (which is already almost 10T over the F-35).

The reason 4th gens had twin jets was cuz the older engines couldn't provide the thrust or electrical output needed within the space they had to work with. This is not a concern for 5th gen powerplants.

 

[Ashwin]

 

[Rajput Lion]

MK2 is gonna be a kickass fighter! Why just stop at inducting 120 or 200? Why not make it our next backbone fighter by ordering more than 300/400 jets? To fight both PLAAF & PAF simultaneously, we shall need more than 1000 jets. Imports can't substitute for that. LCA MK2 could be that fighter which turns IAF fortunes forever, me thinks

 

[Lolwa]

MK2 is gonna be a kickass fighter! Why just stop at inducting 120 or 200? Why not make it our next backbone fighter by ordering more than 300/400 jets? To fight both PLAAF & PAF simultaneously, we shall need more than 1000 jets. Imports can't substitute for that. LCA MK2 could be that fighter which turns IAF fortunes forever, me thinks

I really feel the real requirement of the IAF in future is
600 mk1/1a/1b
400 mk2
350 mki super 30
250 Rafales
100 mig 29
80 mirage
120 jags DARIN 4
260 AMCA

Prospective
72-144 FGFA
36-80 F-35
160 F-15EX

 

[Rajput Lion]

I really feel the real requirement of the IAF in future is
600 mk1/1a/1b
400 mk2
350 mki super 30
250 Rafales
100 mig 29
80 mirage
120 jags DARIN 4
260 AMCA

Prospective
72-144 FGFA
36-80 F-35
160 F-15EX

MK1A won't be as capable as MK2 just because of their respective design whilst their OpEX is going to be almost same because of them both being single-engined fighters. MK2 also would be lot more effective in OCA missions because of its much higher endurance and payload.

So I don't think we'll order more MK1A after the 97 order is completed as MK2 would be ready post that. LCA MK2 makes MK1A redundant just like Astra MK2 makes MK1 redundant. MK2, because of it being almost as capable as Gripen-E and even Rafale, should be ordered much more than mere 120. We should follow the Chinese J-10C example and order over 500 of these jets. Period.

 

[Lolwa]

MK1A won't be as capable as MK2 just because of their respective design whilst their OpEX is going to be almost same because of them both being single-engined fighters. MK2 also would be lot more effective in OCA missions because of its much higher endurance and payload.

So I don't think we'll order more MK1A after the 97 order is completed as MK2 would be ready post that. LCA MK2 makes MK1A redundant just like Astra MK2 makes MK1 redundant. MK2, because of it being almost as capable as Gripen-E and even Rafale, should be ordered much more than mere 120. We should follow the Chinese J-10C example and order over 500 of these jets. Period.

Mk1 is not at all a bad airframe and killing it at the 97 is pure stupidity. The mk1 is our modern day folland gnat. Wasting it's potential is pure stupidity. The thing can be used for drone swarming, bombing, recon at a very low cost. The Kaveri needs a testbed plane and the Kaveri needs to be restarted for the mk1b. There's a lot of tech that still hasn't been indigenised for the mk1. We need atleast 600. I actually wishes that the IAF have 800 mk1's like it had mig 21's in 71 but 600 is what is acceptable. How are you supposed to face a 1000+ Flankers, 600+ j-10's on top of 400 odd pakistan jets. 600 mk1 is a very conservative number for what I'm offering. And even mk 2 need to be around 450+ tbf.

 

[marich01]

 

[Hydra]

Mk1 is not at all a bad airframe and killing it at the 97 is pure stupidity. The mk1 is our modern day folland gnat. Wasting it's potential is pure stupidity. The thing can be used for drone swarming, bombing, recon at a very low cost. The Kaveri needs a testbed plane and the Kaveri needs to be restarted for the mk1b. There's a lot of tech that still hasn't been indigenised for the mk1. We need atleast 600. I actually wishes that the IAF have 800 mk1's like it had mig 21's in 71 but 600 is what is acceptable. How are you supposed to face a 1000+ Flankers, 600+ j-10's on top of 400 odd pakistan jets. 600 mk1 is a very conservative number for what I'm offering. And even mk 2 need to be around 450+ tbf.

When MK2 is a better aircraft,and is on par with Gripen in many ways why would we place order for more mediocre aircraft like MK1a?

 

[Parthu]

MK2 is gonna be a kickass fighter! Why just stop at inducting 120 or 200? Why not make it our next backbone fighter by ordering more than 300/400 jets? To fight both PLAAF & PAF simultaneously, we shall need more than 1000 jets. Imports can't substitute for that. LCA MK2 could be that fighter which turns IAF fortunes forever, me thinks

The beauty of the Mk2 program is the incredibly high indigenous content - even 80% of the engine will be built in India.

So yes, we can literally build as many of them as we want. It will also be incredibly affordable because we'll just be paying our own companies, in Rupees. All that money stays in the Indian aerospace ecosystem.

Every Rupee we spend on Mk2 will basically translate into atleast 80-90p invested back into expanding our industry's capacity to build other things as well.

The successful completion of Mk2 is of utmost importance. And it's a supremely capable fighter in its own right...so it's not like we're just buying it to subsidize the industry.

 

[Sathya]

MK1A won't be as capable as MK2 just because of their respective design whilst their OpEX is going to be almost same because of them both being single-engined fighters. MK2 also would be lot more effective in OCA missions because of its much higher endurance and payload.

So I don't think we'll order more MK1A after the 97 order is completed as MK2 would be ready post that. LCA MK2 makes MK1A redundant just like Astra MK2 makes MK1 redundant. MK2, because of it being almost as capable as Gripen-E and even Rafale, should be ordered much more than mere 120. We should follow the Chinese J-10C example and order over 500 of these jets. Period.

Forward base Shelter built for Mig 21 can be used by Mk1A ..
will Mk2 fit in ?

 

[Lolwa]

When MK2 is a better aircraft,and is on par with Gripen in many ways why would we place order for more mediocre aircraft like MK1a?

Because it would be cheaper. It would act as our low cost omnirole aircraft. Things like CAP, anti-drone/cruise missiles, CAS, recon, drone swarming can be done by the mk1 while mk2 can focus on air interdiction, interception and dps. The rest of the aircrafts are basically for combat Chinese and Pakistani aircrafts and for EW, air superiority and specialised mission roles when the mk2 and mk1 cannot fit.
We need an aircraft for attrition warfare and ukraine has been a good indicator that we will will fall in a situation of attrition warfare. The mk2 is bigger, more advanced and will be more expensive to operate than the mk1. That's a simple fact because it has the more powerful engine and more fuel as well as more parts to be maintained.
We need a plane that does low cost missions and supports the army while the airforce can use it's more superior assets to tackle opponent aircrafts and high risk missions.
The mk1 was meant to replace mig 21 but it actually has replaced the mig 27 and mig 23 too.
India had a total of 874 mig 21's, 100 mig23's and 165 mig 27's. That's around 1100 odd aircrafts that the tejas mk1/1a is truly meant to replace. 600 is a small number
The mk2 will only be ready by early 2030's. The production will only kick around 2032 realistically. Provided we have 7 years and if we take hal estimate of proposed production rate at peak will be 32 in a optimistic case. Which makes a total of 224 aircrafts st its most efficient and best scenario. Which is never going to happen. Leaving the mk1 at mk1a will keep the tejas still born. It still has a lot of potential. It still doesnt have a maws, towed decoy and gan radar. Those are places the mk1 can pushed. The Kaveri can still be restarted using the mk1 airframe.
Leaving it at 240 odd aircrafts when the mk1 will literally be the base of our airforce. The mk2 is in a different dimension capability wise compared to mk1. There's simply in no comparison. The mk2 will only be surpassed by Rafale when it comes in capability and that is also doubtful.
The rafale is needed to actually deal with the upper Flankers and j-10's, j-20's and j-31's. Same for the f-35 and su-57. Su-57 will more be aircover for Rafales, mk2's and f-15EX to bomb. While the f-35 and later amca will become tip of our spear. The mk1/1a is for quick air support and assisting us in attrition warfare. The difference between the mk1 and mk2 in capability is far bigger than the gripen C and GripenE.

 

[randomradio]

Explained in Post 2120.

LCA Tejas Mk2 (Medium Weight Fighter) - News and discussions

Tejas Mk1 Elta 2032 has best clarity in IAF before Rafale got inducted.. Tejas nose cone diameter was as big as Rafales! How can it be compared to Mig 21 nose cone ? ( Maybe certification with Astra missile is yet to be done ? Like ATGM for LCH ) Currently Elta 2052 in Mk1A, from 41 st...

www.strategicfront.org

"They want to make it seem like an LCA upgrade cuz IAF is already invested into LCA. Makes matters easier in the MoD. If you emphasize the fact that you cannot just take a Mk1/1A and upgrade it into a Mk2 (like you can with F-16A>>F16V). it would make it seem like it was ADA's failure for not making the product upgradable."

The IAF must be a bunch of fools who can't tell apart a** from elbow. You should educate them.

But no. That wasn't the reason.

That was before they did the detailed design (which is done in the run-up to CDR). There was never any space in the old Mk2 that could accommodate all the new capabilities IAF wanted (like internal jammer, nose-mounted IRST, retractable IFR probe etc.)

The old Mk2 came with IRST, IFR, and internal jammer.

Cuz we could've gone for ~400+ of the same airframe otherwise. So much time & money would've been saved.

That doesn't even come close to answering my question. It's a Mig-21++. You say it was a mistake. Then why did the IAF go for 220 Mig-21++? Even though the ASR was set up in 1985, why is the IAF willing to make this mistake in 2025?

That's all we could realistically aim for back then considering we had very little domestic industry. We had to import everything from tank shells to artillery ammo. It wasn't feasible to spend forex to buy scores of reserves that could supply a long war. Our strategic focus was almost entirely on Pakistan - which also had the same problems, so a long war was never gonna happen.

But this can't be the thinking going ahead if war with an industrialized China is a possibility. Thankfully, we've already formed the base for these long-war capabilities as far as air power was concerned. Knowingly or unknowingly, since we decided to follow Western standards in engine & airframe for our domestic projects.

Army will follow later. They know that emergency procurement whenever things heat up isn't a workable solution in the long term. They're already working on it with long term procurement plans:

Aatmanirbharta in Ammunition Manufacturing: MoD inks Rs 5,336.25 crore contract with BEL for procurement of Electronic Fuzes for Indian Army for 10 years

The Ministry of Defence, on December 15, 2023, signed a landmark contract with Bharat Electronics Li

pib.gov.in

We're also going for long-term storage of perishables like explosives & solid fuel charges in underground climate-controlled facilities (like US & China already do).

It's got nothing to do with the domestic industry. All nations have enough weapons only for a few weeks of war. It's been that way since 1991.

The IAF is designed to fight for a few weeks, maybe a few months, lose enough to still maintain numbers for a second war.

The IA's been designed to fight the PA only for 10+ days, by which time they need to win. That's why Gaganshakti saw the IAF fighting for a week along Pakistan and switching to the Chinese front in 48 hours to fight another week against China. That's with 30+ squadrons. To do both simultaneously, they need 40+. And if war takes out 10 squadrons, they will still have 30 for a second war if it's fought within a matter of a few years.

Both. To varying degrees in each case.

The engine JV for example, is purely because of lack of tech. Cuz the goal of the program is simply to acquire technology, we could care less where it's from. And there won't be a second tech acquisition after this, so there's just one egg to place.

Nope. The Russians were a risk we were not willing to take. We get numbers and buy production tech from the Russians. We buy R&D tech from the West. That's how we function.

We count a squadron as 18 jets, not 21+. Of course a real squadron is never exactly 18, could be 16 or could be 22. But the norm for calculation is 18.

Our currently authorized strength is for 42 squadrons under that norm - so 750 jets rounded off.

The jets currently planned for long-term operation, minus the ones they'll replace, already get us to that figure (if you count the +97 Mk1A).

If you want 114 MRFA on top of this, first they'll need to revise the squadron requirement upwards. Otherwise between the 114 MRFA or +97 Mk-1A, only one deal can be authorized for purchase. The LCA follow-on appears to be close to signing, so unless IAF conducts a deep review of its requirements, MRFA isn't happening (this would be on top of the tender review they're already doing, in which it'll be explored if the basis for the requirement has changed and if an indigenous solution like Tejas Mk2 can't fulfill at least a part of this role).

We calculate 21 to a squadron. An exception was made for Rafale, 16+1+1, But the normal number is 18+2+1. That's 18 single-seaters, 2 single-seat reserves, and 1 twin-seat reserve. This is to ensure 16 jets are always available. The MKI is 16/18 + 2, depending on the squadron. MRFA will be 16+2+1, continuing the exception made for Rafale due to its higher availability.

Mk2 will be 19, but we are not sure if Mk1 trainers will be added to the squadrons 'cause Mk2 will be single-seat only. So it could stay at 19 single-seats or 19+2.

And what, did you forget IOC and FOC jets are 20 each for both LCA Mk1 and AMCA?

A standard squadron in the USAF is 24. So number of jets per squadron can be increased anytime if necessary if a higher reserve is required. At 24, it's 1000+.

The highest we can go at 21 is 882. The lowest is still 800+. And then we will keep buying more numbers due to attrition.

There was no SEF-TEF. The MiG-29 was a political purchase to appease the USSR. The IAF wanted more M2Ks instead.

This is well-documented history.

Lol. They wanted both.

It's the politician that ultimately is the decision-maker. And he made the right decisions & deserves credit for the same.

A politician can only work with what he has, not what he wishes he had.

They're always optimistic about testing schedules.

The reason we could cut down on Mk2 testing requirements was cuz we made & tested the original Mk1 aerostructures so well that a lot of data could be reliably scaled & extrapolated when modifying it, further proved by simulations (as you said yourself). But that doesn't mean they are the same aircraft, or that they're in the same weight class.

You can keep saying that, but it still remains the same design.

The tender requirements are often aimed at extracting useful information from vendors (which subsequently can feed into setting goals for indigenous programs).

What the frig are you talking about?

Another example of your inability to relate anything to anything else.

What's DPS requiring 2 engines got to do with a tender?

There is no twin-engine requirement per se for deep strike. These aircraft are not A-10s. They're not meant to survive being hit, but to not be hit in the first place. The second engine isn't for redundancy. That used to be the thinking way back when. That thinking persisted for longer in carrier aviation but now also gone as engine reliability improved drastically.

Have explained before - the main strike fighter of NATO on the Russian front (which is similar to our fight vs China in the sense that our airspace is right next door) going ahead is the single-engine F35. The reason NGAD needs two engines is because it has a certain speed & range requirement that can only be delivered by a considerably larger, heavier aircraft. Combined with the higher performance envelop of an ASF compared to a strike fighter. That's what the 2nd engine is for.

F-35 is 30T class while the NGAD is currently expected to be larger than the F-22 (which is already almost 10T over the F-35).

The reason 4th gens had twin jets was cuz the older engines couldn't provide the thrust or electrical output needed within the space they had to work with. This is not a concern for 5th gen powerplants.

All DPS fighters are twin-engine. That was the reason given by the IAF when Jaguar was chosen. That's why even HF-24 was twin-engine. MKI is not suitable for DPS. So our next jet after Jaguar is Rafale.

Sending a SEF deep into enemy territory is only done if a pilot volunteers for a suicide mission. Or they stay within 50-100 km of friendly forces so they can be rescued by helicopters in 15 min or less, the time it would take the enemy to close in on a downed pilot. There is no rescue for DPS pilots.

DPS aircraft are exposed to enemy fire during ingress much more than SEFs. Unlike SEFs, they can't keep turning back just 'cause they were challenged. So TE helps increase survival rate when they take damage from fragmentation shells and warheads.

DPS is necessary because these jets attack the enemy's centers of gravity, like communications, HQs, assembly areas, bases, logistics in depth, civilian support infrastructure, maintenance and production lines etc. SEFs mainly target frontline troops and last mile logistics, like artillery. So what you are suggesting is giving up the former war-winning strategy to just do the pointless latter bit that even artillery and small drones can do.

That's why Mk2 doesn't meet all the requirements of the IAF no matter how many you buy.