Not practical. Not being exactly built to same specifications will mean a nightmare for the people trying to maintain them. Its better if the test and development aircrafts are left alone.
LCA Tejas Mk1 & Mk1A - News and discussions
- Thread starter Ashwin
- Start date
-
- Tags
- indian defence forum
There is one country that is literally trying to do this. Look at the recent purchases of Qatar air force:
36 Rafale
24 Eurofighter Typhoon
36 F15 Strike Eagle
9 Mirages already in inventory
The IN will be joining that list.
45 Mig-29K
57 Rafale/SH
45 TEDBF
XX next gen fighter
The prototypes and LSPs cannot be used operationally. All have been built with different specifications and require a nightmarish logistics chain. So they can only be used regularly from HAL Bangalore. Anywhere else, they will get grounded quite quickly.
Even SP-1 and SP-2 are different from SP-3 to SP-16. Only SP-3 onwards are considered true IOC aircraft. Rather one can say LSP-8, SP-1 and SP-2 are the true LSPs.
Anyway, some of the PVs and LSPs are still being used for R&D, which will last for a very, very long time.
Even SP-1 and SP-2 are different from SP-3 to SP-16. Only SP-3 onwards are considered true IOC aircraft. Rather one can say LSP-8, SP-1 and SP-2 are the true LSPs.
Anyway, some of the PVs and LSPs are still being used for R&D, which will last for a very, very long time.
Read somewhere Lsp 8 is getting modified to Mk1A anlong with some SP s..
Probably it ll serve as testing aitcrafts through out it's life..
This is unlikely to happen. One of the two requirements (MRCBF or TEDBF) will be shelved if the third aircraft carrier is cancelled. XX next gen fighter is a fantasy and will not happen anytime soon (may be a replacement for Mig 29K some 20 - 25 years down the line). At max I see Navy operating 2 types of aircrafts at any given point of time.
I don't think the navy is backing out of their 3rd carrier plans. And MRCBF is necessary for the third carrier.
Whatever the case, what I posted is the current plan. Whether it works out or not, that's up to time to answer.
Home
Latest News Updates from Onmanorama. Breaking News from Kerala, India, and World. Lifestyle, Entertainment and Sports News from English Manorama.Todays News Headlines . Latest News Today . Kerala News Today in English . English News Headlines . Breaking News Headlines . India News . World News...
english.manoramaonline.com
3rd AC won't be cancelled. Its to be delayed untill we have the economics to actually support it.
Hopefully they delay the carrier enough to allow upgrading it to above 80kT with nuclear propulsion, followed by building 2 more of the type.
I wonder what would happen to all these grand paper plans once navies across the world start deploying anti ship hypersonic cruise missiles. It would be real fun, wouldn't it with the design bureau of the IN drawing up plans for a N powered EMALS CATOBAR 80k tonnes AC with two more in the pipeline. Not to mention the larger capacity railguns & lasers destined to go aboard these ships in the 30's & 40's.
Defences against hypersonic cruise missiles should become active on ships by 2030.
But hey, if supercarriers are no longer the future, then delaying the current carrier would give time to decide whether that will be true or not. So it works out either way. All we have to do is look at what the USN plans on doing. They are currently studying the viability of a supercarrier fleet for a post-2030 world. It's possible that instead of 100-110kT carriers, they would rather go in for 75-80kT carriers, which suits perfectly well for us, which is what I'm suggesting.
Nevertheless, even if carriers are no longer important after 2030 or 2040, all major navies will still retain some carriers since their ability for force projection will still be unmatched. So 3 carriers, allowing 24/7 presence at sea, will still be important for India.
Anyway, the fact is if you want to control oceans, you need carriers. So carriers are still going to be relevant even after 2050. Only the future size of the carriers are suspect, and 80kT is a sweetspot for our needs. The French are also going for an 80kT carrier as well.
For all you know just as exclusive high payload bombers are becoming a rare commodity given the advance in missile technologies, I suspect the same would be true for naval AC given that we may see ranges of fighter aircrafts being extended , introduction of unmanned / manned hypersonic aircrafts & drone technologies.
I wouldn't bet much on aircraft carriers. They're about as useful as elephants who once were prized assault platforms in ancient times but were increasingly out of place in the medieval & late medieval era.
Actually high payload bombers are still very important. Russia just started work on their heavy bomber and it will carry 30T, the US will start work on one after the B-21 becomes ready, and the Chinese started long ago, expected to become operational in 2025.
We are yet to enter the medieval era when it comes to carriers. Long ways away from it, and it's still unclear when that will happen.
Hope so. But unlikely, if my information is correct.
There are still some issues that need ironing out in mk1.
Very weird post. Very weird indeed.
Can you tell me the reason(s) why imports take place for IAF?
What are your views on ALH Mk IV program? Why is it still without an ATGM?
.......
Are you really asking why they integrated Mistral first (which was IAF priority requirement), and not ATGM (which was army priority requirement)? Even though HAL Rudra was meant to be the main attack helicopter for Army?
Seriously why they did so? Is it because they hated the army so much? And why most of members in R&D and testing of Dhruv/Rudra program is from IAF or retd personnel from IAF, and not the army? Or even Navy?
Just to clarify, nobody saying MoD is do things logically.
But neither any service is holier than thou. Their hands are soaked in blood as much as anyone else.
Tejas Mk1A definitely will survive (against J-10 J-20 or anything else), and further if we go like Mk1B with pylon based MAWS and Legion pod, the survivability skyrocket, we can even do this in Mk1A.
Furthur about your question, CAP missions, and multirole aircraft are as much as important as anything else. Not everything is about air superiority. I think this should be our first lesson from 27th Feb.
And believe it or not, but IAF not going to fly Rafale for CAP, we are not Europeans. Whatever the air chief said that if we had Rafale or whatnot, we not going to fly Rafale for doing general CAP missions and wasting precious flying hours.
The two jets are in the same class as the F-16 Block 60 and Typhoon.
The MWF is slightly less capable than the SE design due to the engine choice whereas the AMCA is much superior to the TE design, even with the same engine choice.
Right now, we do not need anything better than the MWF. The KFX-E will only increase the price while doing pretty much the same thing as the MWF. In fact, in terms of endurance, the MWF will fare much better, which is much more important to us than other features that are an advantage on the KFX-E.
Overall, Korea's next gen ambitions are less than India's. So the "what if" question doesn't arise here.
