LCA Tejas Mk1 & Mk1A - News and discussions

Milspec said:
F16 Blk 52 Vs LCA MK1A

For sake of simplicity, I will keep it to F16CBlk52+ which came out in 2003. (Blk50 in 1991 but at that time 50 was C, while 52 was designated to D).
So we have f16 std airframe, with Pw229, CFT's with 1.4k Litres of fuel, apg68V9 radar, and full suite of US weaponry.
VS LCA mk1A with 2015 stopgap changes; i.e external jammer, SPJ, AESA radar and GE404IN powerplant.

Right off the bat, F16C BLK52C has better range, better payload and faster than than the LCAmk1A. Given the blk52 is almost behind mk1A by 12 years, LCA's radar should be superior in technology (can't comment on range effectiveness). So if tomorrow a LCA MK1A went up against an F16Cblk52, sure there is a good chance LCAmk1A can keep up in WVR. In BVR Ai120C5 is still going to be a huge challenge for Derby.
But if I were to equip an Airforce, I'd say there is avionics upgrade options out there which will definitely beat the LCA at the technology game within the F16blk52 platform. (Sabr, F16V. Blk80, F16IN)

F16 Blk2 vs LCA MK2
I am guessing BLK2 is a typo and you meant 52. Well MK2 doesn't exist, when it does we can talk.


Lastly, my contention is quite simple, If our 43million dollar LCA was such a prolific half-price F16 beater, guess who would be lining up with an order of 800 LCA's out there > Indian Airforce. wouldn't it?
Click to expand...

Since there was some discussion already in this matter, would like to point few,

MKI1 or MKIA will feature radar-absorbing paints developed for AMCA, will this be a deciding factor who detect first and armed with I-Dery or Astra, hope an LCA will get first shot chance. How effective these paints as BLK 52 has none(?) of this kind.

As we can compare LCA MK1 (with I-Derby& Astra)to Gripen C. Thai Gripens performed really well against Chinese Flakers in BVR.
 
rockstarIN said:
Since there was some discussion already in this matter, would like to point few,

MKI1 or MKIA will feature radar-absorbing paints developed for AMCA, will this be a deciding factor who detect first and armed with I-Dery or Astra, hope an LCA will get first shot chance. How effective these paints as BLK 52 has none(?) of this kind.

As we can compare LCA MK1 (with I-Derby& Astra)to Gripen C. Thai Gripens performed really well against Chinese Flakers in BVR.
Click to expand...
hi,
my contention remains the same. If LCA Mk1A was that good of world-beater especially against a potent adversary like blk52, why isn't IAF lining up to buy these aircraft while complaining every day about squadron strength? 83 orders for these and that too after Parrikar had to arm-twist the IAF, and the most unfortunate part is this entire ADA LCA saga quagmire is IAF's doing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nikhil
There have been many instances in India where a world class desi project, Arjun saga comes to my mind immediately, has been put on the back burner for shiny foreign maal which in direct comparison had been found inferior in many aspects. So there are many reasons why IAF did not want the Tejas. I am not saying that it's the best in the world but if the IAF had rejected it before Parikar shoved it down its throat, we would have never got a MK1A, which in all fairness can keep up with most 4th gen fighters in the sun continent if not out right beat them. It's not such a hopeless situation really.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HariPrasad and Aniruddha
W
Milspec said:
Nothing against Mig29's.
They are the most potent WVR fighters in Indian arsenal at this time, but even with the upgrades, these are 40 year old airframes, and will need to be replaced. At most it has another Zhuk FGA35/50 upgrade with the K77M bvr option.
Getting more mig29's is a cheap fix, as we cannot get more M2K's at this point, Jags are useless, LCA has the love-hate relationship with IAF, Mk2 is out 5-8 years, Orca/tedbf/amca all are still paper planes. So that leaves just Mig29's which can wither be picked from Russian hangars and upgraded or even built brand new if needed, which will need minimum training for pilots, ground staff, tactics, etc, There is nothing else as we don't want to add more MKI's.

Rafale's easily fit the bill to replace Mig29's, but maybe, just maybe T50's could create an unknown threat in the immediate theater on both sides.
Click to expand...
Why buy t 50 when when we have LCA. A more capable fighter. And Mig 29 is a good enough fighter. The design has its problem but t50 isn't the answer to it. We need the 114 deal and then IAF can go full indigenous after that. Later the fgfa deal with the Russians and IAF is good to go.
 
Milspec said:
By T50, I meant Pakfa not kai t50.
Click to expand...
Thanks for clearing it up. On the lines of the su 57 there is this feeling I get that the material used by the Russians for stealth is sub-par even compared to the Chinese. And we do have some radar absorbing material made by drdo for the amca project. If the amca comes online till 2025 in terms of prototype and the ram material is tested would the Russians allows us to use our own ram material for the su57 mki ?
Well using our research on AMCA and applying it on su 57 will only help us in the long run. It would be similar to how we have used kanchan to produce t90s
 
My point of view:

If people here really want to see LCA protecting Indian skies in next 2-5 years, IAF has to shed off a lot of IAF commodores and air vice marshals along with compromised IAF officers who sabotaged rafael deal and LCA procurement/development by misleading government and delaying the decisions and not just that, they are also responsible for introducing flawed maintenance or create shortage of resources.

A lot of Mig 21 fell off from the skies, no credible investigations to it, creating shortage of Sqn which lead to pressure on government to buy more from abroad than to spend on indigenous systems.

Some people in the ministry perhaps knew that some IAF officials, few politicians and handful of bureaucrats are looking for commission and this is why MMRCA deal wasn't given a go ahead. This would have created scam thousand times severe than Bofors. This also caused the delay of Rafael procurement as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bon Plan
Nikhil said:
@Gautam what's the antenna size of Tejas ?
Click to expand...
1587967595624.png

1587967612086.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: HariPrasad, Ashwin, Chain Smoker and 1 other person
@Gautam this is 833mm is a radome diameter... not radar antenna diameter right ? What's the size for radar antenna for Tejas and other fighter jets?.
 
Nikhil said:
Thanks. Could you give that of Jf bunder and other fighter jets like MWF, SU 30, gripen , Rafale and so on.
Click to expand...
Nope. The exact size of radomes are often hard to come by. The pics above are from a tender that the ADA issued in 2012 I think. @randomradio might know.
Nikhil said:
@Gautam this is 833mm is a radome diameter... not radar antenna diameter right ? What's the size for radar antenna for Tejas and other fighter jets?.
Click to expand...
Assume the radar dia to be 2-7 mm less than that, depending on what type of brackets were used for attaching the radome to the front fuselage.
 
Gautam said:
Nope. The exact size of radomes are often hard to come by. The pics above are from a tender that the ADA issued in 2012 I think. @randomradio might know.

Assume the radar dia to be 2-7 mm less than that, depending on what type of brackets were used for attaching the radome to the front fuselage.
Click to expand...
So what's the size of Uttam Aesa ?...any guess @randomradio.
 
Nikhil said:
So what's the size of Uttam Aesa ?...any guess @randomradio.
Click to expand...

The dimensions of Uttam radar, I do not know, an operational radar doesn't even exist, but the diameter of the current MMR is 650mm. So the Uttam can be 650mm or less. My guess is closer to 600mm, since AESA radars have less space to work with.
 
Bon Plan said:
The reduction is far more. More 5 cm than 7 mm.
Click to expand...
Probably should have worded that comment better, let me try again. I could be wrong but I think the 883.5 mm dia is the external dia of the radome at the interface. There would be a 2-7 mm reduction in internal dia at the interface once the radome is mated with the fuselage. We don't know the internal dia of the radome so the exact dimensions are left to guesswork. How thick are radomes usually ?

This interface would be the base of the radar electronics and cooling systems not the antenna array. The antenna should be smaller than that given the conical design. 650 mm seems a bit too small to me, I was expecting it to be in the 700+ mm range.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Shekhar Singh
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom