LCA Tejas Mk1 & Mk1A - News and discussions

[rone]

Am sorry to say this, most of detection and engagement zone prediction u guys done is wrong,

1: LCA with aesa can detect f16 block 52 at 200 km range
An: yes it's possible by theoretical part but u have to consider practical irregularities, like if u have to detect a f16 flying at 20k feet LCA must be in much higher altitude than them but going that altitude make LCA also possible to detect, i know the counter replay u guys thinking LCA build consist of 80% composite materials and it have very low rcs, but think they have more AWACS which can provide 24x7 cover so detecting LCA by them in ideal altitude not an issue for them , similarly we can have same detection range if we can provide 24x7 AWACS suport, also block 3 also having aesa which is LPI too

2: pl12 and pl15 over hyped

And: yes to an extended they are. pl12 actually a partially reverse engineered Italian AAm ( if u guys don't know that story mention it i will explain ) but firing them in a defensive manner force us to go defensive and they can clsoe gap and fire pl15 which also have better NEZ, as a counter we will have Astra mk1 ( ordered only 50 nos roughly for 3 suq and only in mki now ), derby er ( yep very gud but still low in numbers only in LCA which foc squ not yet fully operational) , meteor ( very effective and our silver bullet for next 5 to 7 years but still only in upcoming French rafale )

So for a better evaluation of situation will be done under max 1to 2 year forecasting and with respect to current ji z inventory, as of now we don't have to think abt blck3 and pl15 but we have to fill out gaps in AWACS strength and LCA numbers ( still we playing red tape butchery ) , underestimating our enemy won't do any gud for us

Ps: if I made any mistakes my apologies in advance and correct me with facts

 

[Nikhil]

Actually no. Link 16 as available with PAF can actually do the above.

Problem with data-link is that they do not provide high fidelity (target track) at longer ranges and provide advantage only in shorter ranges. They basically help a defender which give PAF advantage on home turf.
120c5 range is limited to 105km thus longer range engagement is out of question. This may change in future though. No wonder PAF tried to ambush IAF on 27th Feb last year and succeeded to some extent.

For point #1 - how?

Better kinematic performance, LOAL/LOBL capability...latter giving it WVR capability also. Two way data link absent in both c5 and SD 10a... Smokeless propulsion to name a few.

 

[Vicky]

Probably yes. Tejas MK1a with its Elta- ELM - 2052 AESA can see a clean BLK 52 at a distance of 200 km. with BLK 52 carrying weapons it will be even more.... around 250 km .
it will see F 16 first and fire first.
AN/APG-68(V)9 will only see a clean Tejas at 60 km and a loaded Tejas no more than 100km at best case scenario.
since ELM-2052 is an AESA with LPI compare to AN/APG - 68(v)9 PDR it has a least chance of getting jammed among two and better chance of detecting its adversary.
Coming to Jf-17 BLK 3. it will be detected at upward of 200km in clean configuration and upwards of 250 km loaded same as F -16 BLK 52.
kLJ - 7A AESA has a stated range of 170km against a 3m2 target.... it will see clean Tejas at 110km and loaded Tejas at 160km at best. It's performance will degrade at higher altitude since it's air cooled and I don't think it can utilize full potential of claimed range of PL -15 which itself a very hyped up BVRAAM.
Tejas will see first shoot first. if Pakistan dont upgrade there BLK 52 in coming years it's basically game over for them.

You talk like a video game. Elta for Tejas st best will have a range of around 150km.
Second amraam is a tested battle weapon and has 100km range. They fired at the max range to keep Indian fighters out of the main arena. Even if Tejas detects first it has to get within firing range of 80km of Astra. Amraam would have been fired away at Tejas by then.

This FOC has only MMR radar and you are talking of mk1A variant which still hasn't been even signed!!!

All this talk of other radars seeing Tejas at particular range is all classified. It depends on lot of factors, range, altitude, speed, angle etc.

 

[Nikhil]

You talk like a video game. Elta for Tejas st best will have a range of around 150km.


This FOC has only MMR radar and you are talking of mk1A variant which still hasn't been even signed!!!

All this talk of other radars seeing Tejas at particular range is all classified. It depends on lot of factors, range, altitude, speed, angle etc.

150km against what RCS ? Let's take your 150km range against 1m2 target... that's only 15km more than DRDO Uttam AESA which has a range of 135km against 1m2 target officially.... yet IAF went with Elta-ELM-2052 why ? range and power probably played a huge role there.
2052 is a scalable radar..... given antenna diameter is between 600 and 650mm for Uttam with 736 TRM count. 2052 probably has some what in a ballpark of 1000 for Tejas. with 10kw of peak power same as Uttam I bet it's range is far higher than 150 km for 1m2 target. I did my calculation assuming 180 km range against 1m2 target. I might be way off here though..... senior member can shed more light on this subject @Falcon @vstol Jockey

Second amraam is a tested battle weapon and has 100km range. They fired at the max range to keep Indian fighters out of the main arena. Even if Tejas detects first it has to get within firing range of 80km of Astra. Amraam would have been fired away at Tejas by then.

So what if it is battle tested ? law of physics work same for everyone. AIM 120 c5, SD 10 are old BVRAAM . Astra is sleeker. has 2 way data link , better range, greater NEZ , higher SSKP.....probably better seeker to.
PL-12 is still using AGAT's 9B-1348E X band active RF seeker same as one on R -77 while Astra has move on to KU band RF seeker giving it better resolution thus better target discrimination and engagement capability.

All this talk of other radars seeing Tejas at particular range is all classified. It depends on lot of factors, range, altitude, speed, angle etc.

Agree.

 

[Hellfire]

Problem with data-link is that they do not provide high fidelity (target track) at longer ranges and provide advantage only in shorter ranges.

The issue is that you do not have an asymmetry in terms of BVR capabilities today as was quite glaring in 1999 due to two reasons:

a. Availability of BVR capability with the opposite side.
b. Existence of potent jamming platforms/counter measures with the opponent.

In such a situation, your BVR becomes rather of no added advantage when you fail to achieve a 'tactical surprise' to negate the defensive countermeasures available to the opponent and do need to achieve a 'burn through' in order to ensure a hit, significantly reducing the distance of engagement.

Better kinematic performance, LOAL/LOBL capability...latter giving it WVR capability also. Two way data link absent in both c5 and SD 10a... Smokeless propulsion to name a few.

Absence of two way data link does not impose restrictions on a third party control to provide midcourse correction to the missile if it is tracking the missile, isn't it?

Rest are good points albeit for the theoretical domain.

 

[Nikhil]

In such a situation, your BVR becomes rather of no added advantage when you fail to achieve a 'tactical surprise' to negate the defensive countermeasures available to the opponent and do need to achieve a 'burn through' in order to ensure a hit, significantly reducing the distance of engagement.

So how to overcome this? could higher speed using better propellent grain or propulsion system like ramjet + higher frequency AESA seeker or something like dual seeker we see on stunner system using both high frequency AESA mmr + FPA IIR seeker? along with third party target engagement capability will do the job?

 

[Kane]

Big day for IAF, HAL as new Tejas Squadron takes off today

 

[Hydra]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1265520552376242185

https://twitter.com/x/status/1265520552376242185

 

[vstol Jockey]

150km against what RCS ? Let's take your 150km range against 1m2 target... that's only 15km more than DRDO Uttam AESA which has a range of 135km against 1m2 target officially.... yet IAF went with Elta-ELM-2052 why ? range and power probably played a huge role there.
2052 is a scalable radar..... given antenna diameter is between 600 and 650mm for Uttam with 736 TRM count. 2052 probably has some what in a ballpark of 1000 for Tejas. with 10kw of peak power same as Uttam I bet it's range is far higher than 150 km for 1m2 target. I did my calculation assuming 180 km range against 1m2 target. I might be way off here though..... senior member can shed more light on this subject @Falcon @vstol Jockey

If you readthe radar equation, you will know that one of the factors for range calculation is also the transmitted power. for some unknown reason, most members here have pegged the range of an AESA to number of T/R modules. But they have completely forgotten about the transmitting power of each module. Yoy can have less number of modules with much higher transmission power and yet achieve same range as an AESA with larger number of modules which have lower transmitting power. Antenna size is relevent only w.r.t the number of modules that can be fitted. Take the case of a GaN AESA, which have much higher transmitting power compared to GaA modules and it is precisely for this reason that they have longer range with every other aspect like pulse length, PRF and frequency being same.
Heat and dust are the two biggest enemies of any electronic device and GaN modules have much higher tolerance for heating.

 

[Hydra]

If you readthe radar equation, you will know that one of the factors for range calculation is also the transmitted power. for some unknown reason, most members here have pegged the range of an AESA to number of T/R modules. But they have completely forgotten about the transmitting power of each module. Yoy can have less number of modules with much higher transmission power and yet achieve same range as an AESA with larger number of modules which have lower transmitting power. Antenna size is relevent only w.r.t the number of modules that can be fitted. Take the case of a GaN AESA, which have much higher transmitting power compared to GaA modules and it is precisely for this reason that they have longer range with every other aspect like pulse length, PRF and frequency being same.
Heat and dust are the two biggest enemies of any electronic device and GaN modules have much higher tolerance for heating.

I think the power will be consumed by trms, high density trm will need higher power to get the same range ofba radar with less trms.
Correct me if i am.wring

 

[vstol Jockey]

I think the power will be consumed by trms, high density trm will need higher power to get the same range ofba radar with less trms.
Correct me if i am.wring

Not exactly true but somewhat. The most important factor is the power transmitted by each TRM. so if you have a radar with 4W 1000TRM you get a peak power of 4KW and if you have a radar with 10W 600TRM you get a peak power of 6KW.

 

[Hellfire]

So how to overcome this? could higher speed using better propellent grain or propulsion system like ramjet + higher frequency AESA seeker or something like dual seeker we see on stunner system using both high frequency AESA mmr + FPA IIR seeker? along with third party target engagement capability will do the job?

Technology and counters to it, are fielded at roughly the same time nowadays. Am not in to research and indeed am found looking around for views where technical stuff comes into play, more informed members are here, am hardly the person to answer this.

However, the parameters above, prima facie, again remain an interesting 'play off' in relative abilities and technological break throughs. Personally, it shall always be the ability to achieve tactical surprise & maintain momentum of attack that shall enable an attacking force to overcome an equally technically enabled opposition in the highly evolving battle space.

The core of operations, in my personal opinion, needs to shift from information gathering (of enemy) exclusively to information denial (own) primarily, as your ability to deny the enemy an opportunity to detect, track & target you earlier, will be the most decisive factor determining the outcome of an engagement.

 

[Nikhil]

If you readthe radar equation, you will know that one of the factors for range calculation is also the transmitted power. for some unknown reason, most members here have pegged the range of an AESA to number of T/R modules. But they have completely forgotten about the transmitting power of each module. Yoy can have less number of modules with much higher transmission power and yet achieve same range as an AESA with larger number of modules which have lower transmitting power. Antenna size is relevent only w.r.t the number of modules that can be fitted. Take the case of a GaN AESA, which have much higher transmitting power compared to GaA modules and it is precisely for this reason that they have longer range with every other aspect like pulse length, PRF and frequency being same.
Heat and dust are the two biggest enemies of any electronic device and GaN modules have much higher tolerance for heating.

Yes you are right but given that for same antenna size if one AESA radar has 736 GaN TRM while other around 1000 assuming better packaging technology and around same peak power for both than the one with higher TRM count offer higher number of operating frequency giving it better jamming resistance capability thus better LPI characteristics. higher TRM count will provide better performance for multi task operation simultaneously. Better resolution giving higher tracking + engagement capability and SAR capability. now there are rumours that latest iteration of 2052 AESA is GaN based than it will have significant advantage over GaAs based Uttam AESA on range and power consumption....probably the reason IAF opted for 2052 over Uttam for Tejas mk1A.

 

[Kane]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1265568462992261127

 

[vstol Jockey]

Yes you are right but given that for same antenna size if one AESA radar has 736 GaN TRM while other around 1000 assuming better packaging technology and around same peak power for both than the one with higher TRM count offer higher number of operating frequency giving it better jamming resistance capability thus better LPI characteristics. higher TRM count will provide better performance for multi task operation simultaneously. Better resolution giving higher tracking + engagement capability and SAR capability. now there are rumours that latest iteration of 2052 AESA is GaN based than it will have significant advantage over GaAs based Uttam AESA on range and power consumption....probably the reason IAF opted for 2052 over Uttam for Tejas mk1A.

One more thing you missed out was the size of TRMs. The French and the Japs have come out with one of the smallest TRMs and therefore the antenna size notwithstanding, you can put more TRMs within any antenna size compared to Uttam AESA.

 

[STEPHEN COHEN]

I think in the present Situation
We must send Few LCAs on CAP duty on
Pakistan border

 

[Nikhil]

In my opinion IAF should not buy more than 83mk1a. If it's up to me I won't even buy one and use existing one for training purpose only and I will give my reasons why.....
Problem with Tejas is that it's way underpowered.
...now pundits say its main role is replacing MIG 21 as an interceptor and for point defence. Point defence against what ? JF -17 lol.
it doesn't provide IAF any major advantage here other than stalemate. Interception against BLK 52 then..... probably will help but if PAF upgrade them to BLK 70/72 standard with AESA it's basically game over for Tejas.
a better fighter jet for interception purpose will not be underpowered like Tejas it's basically a suicide in modern air combat.
MWF could be a better alternative here but a F -16 with AESA will outgunned it even than.
problem with Indian planner is that they do not want to think big and being decisive. They are still bogged down by thing happening on our western border. Pakistan inducting JF-17 doesn't mean we need to induct Tejas for d**k measuring contest... Despite later offering far superior performance. you need something which shatter enemy moral like large number of rafale, F-21, F 35 etc.
Tejas is to late for party.

One more thing you missed out was the size of TRMs. The French and the Japs have come out with one of the smallest TRMs and therefore the antenna size notwithstanding, you can put more TRMs within any antenna size compared to Uttam AESA.

That's what I mean by packaging technology. West is way ahead of everyone.

 

[Gautam]

 

[Gautam]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1265528382613262338

https://twitter.com/x/status/1265570903611584512

 

[Sathya]

In my opinion IAF should not buy more than 83mk1a. If it's up to me I won't even buy one and use existing one for training purpose only and I will give my reasons why.....
Problem with Tejas is that it's way underpowered.
...now pundits say its main role is replacing MIG 21 as an interceptor and for point defence. Point defence against what ? JF -17 lol.
it doesn't provide IAF any major advantage here other than stalemate. Interception against BLK 52 then..... probably will help but if PAF upgrade them to BLK 70/72 standard with AESA it's basically game over for Tejas.
a better fighter jet for interception purpose will not be underpowered like Tejas it's basically a suicide in modern air combat.
MWF could be a better alternative here but a F -16 with AESA will outgunned it even than.
problem with Indian planner is that they do not want to think big and being decisive. They are still bogged down by thing happening on our western border. Pakistan inducting JF-17 doesn't mean we need to induct Tejas for d**k measuring contest... Despite later offering far superior performance. you need something which shatter enemy moral like large number of rafale, F-21, F 35 etc.
Tejas is to late for party.


That's what I mean by packaging technology. West is way ahead of everyone.

Ho i want to mk1A to fill up squadron s, until the next update is available.

Let's have the allocated fighters first,
With this we ll achieve many other things in aero industry, teir 1,2,3 suppliers , testing bench etc..

In case we catch up with better aircraft s, we can always retire or upgrade whatever is suitable to us.