It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Anyone want an obsolete Indian fighter?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 11:31 PM
link   

Anyone want an obsolete Indian fighter?

In March the "Tejas" completed its 500th flight test. Flying at Mach 1.4 and capable of carrying weapons on seven hard points, the Tejas is the flagship in India's long struggle to develop an indigenous light fighter aircraft. But while the technology represents a major achievement for India's aviation industry, questions remain whether the effort is worth the money that is being poured into it.

It is by no means certain that even the Indian Air Force, which needs to replace its aging fleet of Russian-made MiG-21s, will buy the plane over the several other light fighters it could obtain from abroad. Nor are export prospects certain given the glut of superior US, French, Swedish and other light fighter aircraft now on the world's armaments market.

[..] New Delhi should swallow its pride and cancel the program before any more money is wasted. Cancellation should have minimal impact on the air force, as the number of aircraft that will be acquired from the recent bids should be more than enough for MiG-21 replacement. The funding and experience can be applied to India's other ambitious program, the Medium Combat Aircraft. Ultimately, it is up to the government to cut its losses before the Tejas makes its 1,000th "test" flight.

David Nguyen is a University of Hawaii alumnus with a degree in political science and Asian studies. [Independent Observer]

Atimes.com

Most of this information was collected by the oracle stealth spy.


This is for a news and comparison thread with potential competition of the LCA plane. But we need a oracle to predict when the 2+ decade project will finally end

The LCA is indias small light aircraft which has been in development since the 1980s and is still in the transitional stage of testing. The main concerns with the LCA is the date it will be entering service (which is projected to be 2010-11). There have been complanits about the viability f the project since the LCA will already been surrounded by aircraft with superior performace across the boarder which include F-16s, J-10s and Su-27/30 aircraft operated by her neighbours which she waged war on 4 occasions with. They will also be in competition with the FC-1 fighter which will be entering service at a eariler date and be more numerous at any stage of deployment

One of the greatest threats to the project is the progress of the MRCA which includes much superior aircraft like the Gripen, F-16, MiG-29, Rafale, EF among others which highlights the competition the LCA will have to beat. Currently the indian aircraft has enlisted russian help to upgrade is ailing MiG-21 fleet so it is now able to fire R-77 missiles and improvments to its engine and airframe. This has cost almost 1 billion dollars and will hopefully be retired if the LCA enters service


[..]The delay has led to criticism from many quarters, with even the Parliamentary Committee on Defence recently submitting a report warning that the aircraft could already be obsolete by the time it goes into operation.

Slow Development


Technical and cost problems stall India's LCA

India's 17-year-old Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) programme, delayed by more than a decade, continues to be plagued by serious technical uncertainties and cost overruns, according to India's Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG).

A new CAG report states that the LCA's development by the Aeronautical Development Agency, which is funded by the Defence Research and Development Organisation, is "beset with delays for almost every vital component of the aircraft".

Source BBC

Technical and cost problems stall India's LCA

India: LCA Tejas by 2010 - But Foreign Help Sought With Engine

[Indian] Fighter project beset with problems




[edit on 16-8-2006 by chinawhite]




posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 12:00 AM
link   
Main adversary


FC-1
Specifications

POWERPLANT - RD-93 turbofans, 49.4kN dry or 81.4kN with afterburning
Hardpoints - 7
Maximum Speed 1.8M,
Service Ceiling 59,055 feet.
Maximum External Stores Load 3,900kg
Combat radius 1,200km
Main armament - SD-10 missile.

Has three 8"x6" color MFD



LCA tejas

Specifications
POWERPLANT - GE F404 turbofan, 48.9 kN dry or 78.7 kN with afterburner
Hardpoints - 7
Maximum Speed Mach 1.7
Service Ceiling 50,000 feet.
Maximum External Stores Load 4000kg (8818 lbs.)
Combat radius - ??
Main armament - R-77

Has three 5"x5" color MFD

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Possible mix of the future pakistani airforce

18 Block 52 F-16s which are superior to the LCA in performace (possibly 18 more)
60 MLU F-16s which are superior to the LCA in performace
36 J-10 fighters which are superior to the LCA in performace
150-200 FC-1 fighters which are comparable to the LCA in performace

= 282 forth generation fighters which are deployed on the indian boarder. These offer a real challenge to the current indian airforce which needs more capable fighters than the LCA to combat a ever growing pakistani airforcce and a modernising chinese airforce

Chinese airforce (current, projected *)

76 - Su-27SK
76 - Su-30MK
100 - J-11 (to be upgraded to J-11B standard with PL-12 missiles)
100 - Su-27SKM*
50-100 J-10 (more to be produced later at a rate of 50 planes a year)
Unknown number of other BVR platforms in the PLAAF

= 476 known BVR platforms in service with the PLAAF. This figure does not include the J-8F planes or the JH-7A with BVR capable radars and have been seen fitted with BVR SD-10 missiles.

So the indian airforce needs to at least match or better these possible forces on its boarder. If we include MRCA aircraft this could better the future situation with pakistan and the current situation with china but in reality china will be moving in leaps and bounds in the near future. Because the LCA is a inferior aircraft, it would not make sense to put them in action when its bombload is so small and potentional roles would be filled by the Su-30MKI since the indians have moved away for point interdiction which was the LCA's intended role

Moreover, the indians already seem to want to buy more russian aircraft designs in the PAK-FA or the defuntant MiG-2000 (real designation unknown)




[edit on 16-8-2006 by chinawhite]



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 12:52 AM
link   
That must wage argue with S.S.

ChinaWhite, do you still remember what we Chinese said 五十步笑百步 that means one do something not so good but laugh at others did worse before him.



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 03:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by emile
That must wage argue with S.S


I have avoided this topic long enough. 90% of his post is to degrade chinese people, copying, stealing etc which is absolutly googled up BS. When a topic about indian poverty or education comes up, i dont say a word. SS actually thinks india is some type of superpower or important country with lots of technical capabilities. Trying to mock china to make india look like a the better country when in reality its all make believe. While china activly tries to imporve the indian media gloats about "projects" and "projections". I do not hold SS to anything because his under the influence of this media so there no much point about a big deal about it

I'll tell you now, china has come a much longer way than india has.


五十步笑百步


Take for example this, he belittles the chinese arms industry while indias arms industry is full of imported material and "consultants"



[edit on 16-8-2006 by chinawhite]



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 07:04 AM
link   
The bait has been laid, i see. A quick referral to one of Marcel Floch's quotes : ""Never argue with an idiot, they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience" tells me to keep away.

P.S: Some of the replies on what i think, my posting, etc made for entertaining reading to say the least



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 07:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stealth Spy
""Never argue with an idiot, they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience"


I was the one who firsted quoted that to you


Seems like i was the one which keep from temptation


P.S: Some of the replies on what i think, my posting, etc made for entertaining reading to say the least


Can you rephase this?



posted on Nov, 12 2006 @ 02:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite

I'll tell you now, china has come a much longer way than india has.



Well lets see the 'Rich' chinese partying in the following links:

This link here shows hows the people 'thrive' in a 'developing' china.

This girl does have money too





"Golden Future" ? I doubt it


And worst than Indians, these 'developed' communists sell their citizen's organs to other countries can been seen here

Warning, heavily gored graphic image


I admire Indians as a democratic society and their honesty in admitting that they have poverty. But I see chinese here with attitude up their butts. I dont see a reason why you guys should be proud of yourself when you have so much filth in your country.


[edit on 12-11-2006 by nawkturn]



posted on Nov, 12 2006 @ 03:53 AM
link   
I have seen the plane, up close. Its surprising how small it is. This plane, if it has been operational on schedule, say early to mid 90s, would be fine. However, it is way overschedule and overcost, and should be cancelled, and the money saved could go into buying other aircraft, or into designing the MCA.

India's aircraft manufactures like Hindustan, are government run, and extremely inefficient because of that. Maybe if it was private sector there, it may be different.



posted on Nov, 12 2006 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite
Main adversary


FC-1
Specifications

POWERPLANT - RD-93 turbofans, 49.4kN dry or 81.4kN with afterburning
Hardpoints - 7
Maximum Speed 1.8M,
Service Ceiling 59,055 feet.
Maximum External Stores Load 3,900kg
Combat radius 1,200km
Main armament - SD-10 missile.

Has three 8"x6" color MFD



LCA tejas

Specifications
POWERPLANT - GE F404 turbofan, 48.9 kN dry or 78.7 kN with afterburner
Hardpoints - 7
Maximum Speed Mach 1.7
Service Ceiling 50,000 feet.
Maximum External Stores Load 4000kg (8818 lbs.)
Combat radius - ??
Main armament - R-77

Has three 5"x5" color MFD

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Possible mix of the future pakistani airforce

18 Block 52 F-16s which are superior to the LCA in performace (possibly 18 more)
60 MLU F-16s which are superior to the LCA in performace
36 J-10 fighters which are superior to the LCA in performace
150-200 FC-1 fighters which are comparable to the LCA in performace

= 282 forth generation fighters which are deployed on the indian boarder. These offer a real challenge to the current indian airforce which needs more capable fighters than the LCA to combat a ever growing pakistani airforcce and a modernising chinese airforce

Chinese airforce (current, projected *)

76 - Su-27SK
76 - Su-30MK
100 - J-11 (to be upgraded to J-11B standard with PL-12 missiles)
100 - Su-27SKM*
50-100 J-10 (more to be produced later at a rate of 50 planes a year)
Unknown number of other BVR platforms in the PLAAF

= 476 known BVR platforms in service with the PLAAF. This figure does not include the J-8F planes or the JH-7A with BVR capable radars and have been seen fitted with BVR SD-10 missiles.

So the indian airforce needs to at least match or better these possible forces on its boarder. If we include MRCA aircraft this could better the future situation with pakistan and the current situation with china but in reality china will be moving in leaps and bounds in the near future. Because the LCA is a inferior aircraft, it would not make sense to put them in action when its bombload is so small and potentional roles would be filled by the Su-30MKI since the indians have moved away for point interdiction which was the LCA's intended role

Moreover, the indians already seem to want to buy more russian aircraft designs in the PAK-FA or the defuntant MiG-2000 (real designation unknown)




[edit on 16-8-2006 by chinawhite]



You can say that the main adversary of that LCA is the Chinese fighter, FC-1, you're so right about that because that FC-1 just simply can't even compare to F-16, Mirage 2000 and I could say that rookie pilot in MiG-21 can beat FC-1. LCA is probably more than decade obsoleted already. Hope China can find a way to get up there with F-22 and Typhoon.



[edit on 12-11-2006 by OneMyrmidon]



posted on Nov, 12 2006 @ 07:54 PM
link   
nawkturn,

If your going to troll around these forums, at least make it enjoyable to read.



posted on Nov, 12 2006 @ 11:35 PM
link   
I don't know if this is a bait of sorts or what ever, but I'd REALLLLY like to know on which defence organisation's payroll Mr Nyugden is!

IS it Lockheed? Saab? Boeing? Or maybe even the Russians are getting into the RFP bit.

This article is NOTHING but a media sensationalization of the LCA.
This rididculous article compares the LCA to the likes of the Gripen and the F-35 and then labels it as a failure in that aspect!


The India MRCA deal is in no way connected to the success or failure od the LCA.
The success of the LCA does NOT depend on the success of the Kaveri engine.
The designed payload and structure of the LCA is INTENTIONAL and not a mistake.
The LCA can carry a weapons payload almost equivalent to its clean weight.
It has a decent T/W ratio.
Though its internal fuel range is limited to around 850-950km it is capable of inflight refueling and we are intelligent enough to gauge the range implications of that.
The LCA is meant to be a MiG21 replacement and thats it. Not a topline MRCA fighter.
Nevertheless, it has an avionics suite that any 4th gen fighter would be proud of.

The MiG21Bison upgrades are again independant of the LCA program.
The IAF is slated to have a squadron strength of 40 while it is diminshing to around 26-30 at this time. This would not have been addressed with a faster LCA program in any case.

Hec if we wanted, we could have easily put the damn RD-93 on the LCA and have ben done with that.. The Kaveri is an investment and India is committed to it.

The LCA is not a long distance heavy fighter. Hence it cannot be compared to other fighters in the same category in parameters like internal fuel range etc etc..

The assesment that the LCA is equivalent to the older Gripen is a veiled comment.
Whats more, the LCA is being configured for a naval version destined for a indigenous carrier due in 2012-15.




18 Block 52 F-16s which are superior to the LCA in performace (possibly 18 more)
60 MLU F-16s which are superior to the LCA in performace
36 J-10 fighters which are superior to the LCA in performace
150-200 FC-1 fighters which are comparable to the LCA in performace


The 18 block 52 F-16s are superior to the LCA in what aspects? other than the fact that they are operational (I doubt they have a servicability of 60%+). As of today they could be shot down by operational BVR capable MiG-21s.
What is this 'performance' criteria you're basing your conclusions on?

the 60 MLU F-16s are a big force multiplier for the PAF. They should be superior to the LCA in 'performance' as long as they are AESA equipped. But are they?

Are we sure that the PAF deal is inclusive of 60 MLUs AND 36 J-10s?
Anyways, what is the T/W ratio of the J-10?

150-200 FC-1s..
Wasn't it 150?

Anyways lets take a look at the IAF air superiority and MRCA(not fighter-bombers)sqdrn strength in accordance with the same timelines:

70 MiG29s (with a servicibility of 90%+) also to undergo engine and radar updgrades.
Lifetime Lifetime extension
Upgrades

50+(60?) Mirage 2000s(with a servicibility of 90%+) to be upgraded to M2005 or even possibly M2009 status


In a related development, the IAF last week opened negotiations here with a delegation from Dassault to upgrade its 48 Mirage 2000's to Mirage 2000-9 standards.
Source


90+MiG21 Bison(servicibility 60%+) AA-12 capable (125 to be upgraded in all)

190 Su30MKI (95%+ servicibility) with AESA upgrades salted for 2010(Irbis possibly)

40 MiG29K(servicibility 80%+? I'm assuming)
Link
Global Sec

LCA (AF + Naval)
Minimum 40? (servicibility 80%+)

This is gives around 650 air superiority/MRCA aircraft with an average servicibility of 75-80%; i.e. at any time around 500 a/c ready-to-fly.
Keeping 400 or so(including the western fleet) in NAC,WAC and SWAC will give a numerical advantage ~ 2:1.

The remaining can be maintained for the chinese to maintain a precautional parity.


China on the other hand cannot afford to even think about maintaining more than 50-100 fighters dedicated to the Indian theater because of :

1)PACCOM (Note this is a F-22/F-35 boosted PACCOM) with all forward AFBs and carrier groups
2)JASDF (Note that the JASDF getting F-22 is not an impossibility)
3)ROC AF
4)South Korea AF (calculating and deducting a numerical advantage of 2:1 against the North; inclusive of Japan)
5)Australia?

The above 4 points(maybe 5?) constitute a BVR force of a little less than 1000 4th gen BVR air superiority fighters.

It is not wise to prod India too much into a pincer flanking deployment(Pakistan/China) as the changing strategic alignments may cause China to see itself in the same position not too far down the line.

Notably the PAK-FA/Mig2000i/MCA angle can be considered as inevitable eventualities along with this

We will get a clearer picture by 2015. India is not in a position in which it would have ideally liked to be in; but its not as badly off as you perceive it to be.



posted on Nov, 12 2006 @ 11:41 PM
link   
Note the KEY factor is the servicibility here
(esp for the PAF and I really have abs no idea about China).
The infrastructural capabilities possessed by the PAF have prevented them in achieving a servicibility of 60%+ for all their a/c INCLUDING the F-16s.
a/c attrition and cannibalism are very high.
Note they're pretty bad in the IAF as well but on an average the topline fighters are 80-95% and the others are around 60-70%.
The issue is whether Pakistan can improve on this.
What are the Chinese figures?



posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 10:34 AM
link   
And another thing:
Your mood swings and ridiculous bickerings can be conducted elsewhere.
If you bring India into the equation then the topic is up for scrutiny.. by anybody..
just as his posts are.



posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 11:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3
Your mood swings and ridiculous bickerings can be conducted elsewhere.


Mood swings?. Have i ever conducted myself any different?. But you do realise that this thread is almost three months old and was recently pushed up by one of the recent posts



posted on Nov, 14 2006 @ 12:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3
I'd REALLLLY like to know on which defence organisation's payroll Mr Nyugden is!


You know better than to make accusations. Are you implying that Mr Nguyen was paided to share his independent view on the LCA's progress?. Making speculation is fine but you should class you speculation as just that, speculation. From the information we know, his opinion was independent from defense industries while Atimes.com is definatly independent from the defence industry



The India MRCA deal is in no way connected to the success or failure od the LCA.


From open sourced material. The MRCA was formulated as a stop-gap solution because the LCA was taking so long to develop. The LCA was meet to be inducted in the 90's which was pushed into the 21st century while the MRCA had a comparable date to the LCAs original induction date. Both these programs were delayed by governemtn indecision and lobbying from both sides.

Now the MRCA seems to have taken a new role because of these delays and has replaced the LCA as the main replacment aircraft. I think it was about 400 MiG-21s originally but minus the crashes and the retirement of the older airframes.

On that note, Mr Nguyen was more about noting the place of a MiG-21 replacment in the modern battlefield


The 18 block 52 F-16s are superior to the LCA in what aspects?


I have always thought and still believed that the F-16Block 52 employ better avonics and ECM suite. I am not talking about MFDs or what you see on the outside, but what you get on the inside. I have been under the impression that countries who have brought the F-16 did so because they offered better performance than other systems found on the Gripen or Russian fighters.

But are we going to make this the Block 52 againest the LCA or are you going to use the stealth spy argument that the LCA can get the most advanced equipment in the world because countries have offered india?


Targeting and Weapon Systems
For air/air missions, the aircraft is equipped with medium range missiles such as the AIM-120A AMRAAM. For close range combat, the aircraft can support the AIM-9X, IRIS-T, Python 4 and Python 5. The aircraft also retains the capability to use the six barrel 20mm Gatling gun. Block 52 configurations are also equipped with an advanced version of the APG-68 radar - the (V)9, while F-16E/F is fitted with the new APG-80 Active Electronic Scanning Array (AESA) system. These new radars have improved performance, higher processing speed and memory capacities and improved high-resolution synthetic aperture radar mode which allows the pilot to locate and recognize tactical ground targets from considerable distances. In conjunction with inertial aided weapons, the advanced F-16 gains an enhanced capability for all-weather precision strike from standoff distances. Modern F-16s of the advanced Block 50/52 can accommodate various targeting systems, including the Lockheed Martin Sniper XR/Pantera, and Northrop Grumman/RAFAEL Litening. These pods are used for target identification, acquisition and designation for smart, GPS guided munitions or laser guided bombs such as GBU-31 Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM), the AGM-154 Joint Standoff Weapon (JSOW), SPICE guided weapon, and CBU-103/104/105 Wind Corrected Munitions Dispenser (WCMD). The later can also be cued by target data provided directly from the radar, in low visibility conditions. On recce missions, advanced F-16s can also carry autonomous reconnaissance pods on the centerline, on intelligence gathering penetration or standoff sorties.


- APG-68 radar V9
- HMD
- Strike capability
- ALE-50 Towed Decoy System(?)

All of this depends on what the Pakistani versions contain. But a standard Block 52 has more capability than the LCA (the version of indian components)



Wasn't it 150?


From different accounts there are different numbers, 150 was the contract deal and 50 more seems to have been the optional piece


Anyways lets take a look at the IAF air superiority and MRCA(not fighter-bombers)sqdrn strength in accordance with the same timelines:


I had these figures for the IAF in 2020, the PAF figures are for 2015

190 MKI
55-65 Mirage
73 MiG-29
140 Jaguars (?)
150-200 LCA
126 MRCA

Give or take some more MKI/Mirage or the LCA figures which leaves you with 794 aircraft or almost 40 SQN which is the perfect number of SQN the indian airforce needs

Although there has been talk of the Bison serving towards 2020-2025 and 70 MiG-27/23 being upgraded so the number can jump from different directions


China on the other hand cannot afford to even think about maintaining more than 50-100 fighters dedicated to the Indian theater because of


That is a oxymoron because the PLAAF already stations more than 100 planes in the indian region/s and had done so since the 1960s. Lhasa airbase is the primary base and is located close to Lhasa. Then there is Golmud which is lower down the region in Qinghai, kashi airbase in Lanzhou military region in Xingjiang. Then the Chengdu airbase ,Kunming Airbase or Mengzi airbase, each of these are regimental size but these figures dont reflect the amount of deployable forces the area is able to sustain


1)PACCOM (Note this is a F-22/F-35 boosted PACCOM) with all forward AFBs and carrier groups
2)JASDF (Note that the JASDF getting F-22 is not an impossibility)
3)ROC AF
4)South Korea AF (calculating and deducting a numerical advantage of 2:1 against the North; inclusive of Japan)
5)Australia?


1) Even with Forward deployed airbases, these are extremely far away to be helpful. The main obstacle is the aircraft carrier which has been assigned a large contingent of aircraft already based on chinas east coast. These include the JH-7, Su-30MK2, H-6M bombers armed with stand off cruise missiles which in total number more than 100 aircraft. Add this to the Future Su-33 and J-10s being produced by the time in 2015 and china has a lot of aircraft + their SAMs and navy

2) The JSDF is FAR FAR AWAY and wouldn't be able to deploy a lot of fighters. Thats if they were ever in the battle to begin with. The Japanese are not obliged to help the americans

3) Unless they get some real offensive power, they will be restricted to their own airspace which will be flooding with chinese aircraft and their assoicated munitions.

4) Unless you have anything to suggest otherwise, South Korea and the PRC are on very friendly terms and are more in agreement involving the 6 party talks than them and the Americans. They are the same with the South Koreans, they are not obliged to help the americans and would be unlikey to even allow american fighters to be stationed at south korean airfields

5) Your talking about a country almost half away around the world. How exactly are they going to reach china with their aircraft. 5 inflight re-fuelings?

76 - Su-27SK
76 - Su-30MK
100 - J-11 (to be upgraded to J-11B standard with PL-12 missiles)
100 - Su-27SKM*
200-300 J-10 (more to be produced later at a rate of 50 planes a year)
100-300 J-8II modifed into the J-8H/F variants. They are still in production as well
24 Su-30MK2
48 Su-33

Maximum force(the 300 figure) projected for 2010 of BVR craft - 1024. Minimum force - 624.

These are just BVR craft which does not include the JH-7/MiG-21/H-6M aircraft which are quite numerous


Notably the PAK-FA/Mig2000i/MCA angle can be considered as inevitable eventualities along with this


A recent comment(Zhuhai 2006) by the chieft designer of the J-10 has stated that a new prototype aircraft will be first flown in five more years. As you might have known, he is refering to the improved J-10 with internal bomb bays. That is in 2011. As you know, china is also developing UACVs for her forces as well


Yang wei, who is the chief engineer of Chengdu aircraft design and research institute(611), said that a new important prototype will start its maiden flight within five years.

According to several insiders, this prototype is a twin-engine stealth fighter with internal weapon bays.

Engines will be size reduced WS-10 modification with smaller by-pass ratio, thrust 110KN and t/w ratio 9.0



posted on Nov, 15 2006 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by nawkturn


so you think you can summarize china with those pictures?

well then I guess the so called the rich united states of america can be summerized by the following pictures:

miross.ru...
www.apk2000.dk...
www.thestreetspirit.org...
revart.blogs.com...



posted on Nov, 16 2006 @ 07:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite
You know better than to make accusations. Are you implying that Mr Nguyen was paided to share his independent view on the LCA's progress?. Making speculation is fine but you should class you speculation as just that, speculation. From the information we know, his opinion was independent from defense industries while Atimes.com is definatly independent from the defence industry..


I was voicing my opinion; an opinion based on my own experiences.. It was obviously not an accusation..
And yes I am implying just that..



From open sourced material. The MRCA was formulated as a stop-gap solution because the LCA was taking so long to develop. The LCA was meet to be inducted in the 90's which was pushed into the 21st century while the MRCA had a comparable date to the LCAs original induction date. Both these programs were delayed by governemtn indecision and lobbying from both sides.

You're talking about the idealistic objectives set for the LCA program in the late 80s and the early 90s. The 90s saw a lot of events, that forever realigned the direction of the LCA program. These events saw the birth of the MRCA as well. So, yes both have grown from the same changing strategic arena, but are completely unrelated programs as of today.(and have been that way for most of the naughties)
The only thing that possibly links the two, is the increase of the MRCA deal from ~130 to ~200.



On that note, Mr Nguyen was more about noting the place of a MiG-21 replacment in the modern battlefield

He is still comparing the LCA to the likes of the F35 and Grippen; as a potential export competitor. THAT is preposterous.



I have always thought and still believed that the F-16Block 52 employ better avonics and ECM suite. I am not talking about MFDs or what you see on the outside, but what you get on the inside. I have been under the impression that countries who have brought the F-16 did so because they offered better performance than other systems found on the Gripen or Russian fighters.

You know as well as I that the F-16 sale to any customer who had other options has had more political arm-twisting than any other competing fighter. But that's another topic.
Even while racking up EW/ECM capabilities against the MiG29, it has been perceived that the WVR capabilities of the MiG29 are infact superior to western counterparts, both in offenseive and defensive[read EW/ECM] roles. This has been a general conclusion and opinion of MiG 29 pilots, in the LuftWaffe and the IAF ever sine the late 80s.The F-16 does however possess other advantages that can be discussed elsewhere.
My point is that one cannot generally dismiss the EW/ECM suite of the LCA as compared to a std F-16. I am not going to go ahead a praise it to no extent, but I can safely say it is of high 4th gen std.
As for the APG-68V(9), well yes that is a definite advantage, to whatever the LCA may get as a stopgap. However note that AESA is the end objective.
The Weapons suite for the LCA can again be compared to that of the F-16 blk 50. The
flexibility in roles however is a grey area with the LCA. I'm going to have to get back on that;however note it is meant as a replacement for both intercept MiG21s and ground attack fighter bomber MiG 21s.
This ALE-50 towed decoy is also something new to me. I will check up on its role and existing counterparts, and if indeed they are to be employed on the LCA.Note that the system mentioned in the article linked below is ALE 47 for the MLUs and something entirely diffenret for the blk 52s.
I was unaware that the PAF F-16s are going to be HMD. I thought it was something only for the FC-1/JF-17. They are getting them nonetheless.
Anyways this is a good summary of the F-16s the PAF will be eventually getting.
What's strange is that, even with the JHMCS, the numerous AIM 120C5AMRAAMs and more importantly the AIM-9M, are specifically mentioned ONLY for blk 52s, thus possibly indicating the inability to mount the same on all MLUs.



All of this depends on what the Pakistani versions contain. But a standard Block 52 has more capability than the LCA (the version of indian components)


Maybe more flexibility and versitility in mission suites and roles.One-on-one? Even at least for MLUs I say.Comparable for blk 52s.
Note that when facing each other the electronic support for both a/c must also be taken into consideration.

The LCA is inexcusibly late and a bit on the expensive side.. so in terms of competing with other fighters of the same type in the timeframe of release it fails miserably..agreed.. But the F-16 upgrades offered to PAF are not exactly top of the line stuff come 2015. Not very far behoind top of the line, but not the best.

chinese deployments next thread..

[edit on 16-11-2006 by Daedalus3]



posted on Nov, 16 2006 @ 09:06 AM
link   


From different accounts there are different numbers, 150 was the contract deal and 50 more seems to have been the optional piece


Optional it is then..



I had these figures for the IAF in 2020, the PAF figures are for 2015

190 MKI
55-65 Mirage
73 MiG-29
140 Jaguars (?)
150-200 LCA
126 MRCA

Give or take some more MKI/Mirage or the LCA figures which leaves you with 794 aircraft or almost 40 SQN which is the perfect number of SQN the indian airforce needs

Although there has been talk of the Bison serving towards 2020-2025 and 70 MiG-27/23 being upgraded so the number can jump from different directions


Much to the contrary.. 2015 OrBat IAF

190MKI (Irbis AESA equipped)
50+ Mirage 2000H (upgraded to 2005/2009 std)
60+ MiG 29 (all upgraded; R77,Phaz ZhukM,new engines etc.)
Jaguars (fighter bombers; not considered as we're talking abt MR and air superiority)
50-75 LCA max (I'm combining naval ones as well)
40+ MiG29K(Naval)
~130 MRCA
125 Bison (94 already done)

The MiG23/27 are also fighter bombers so lets exclude them too. No numbers jumping anywhere.



That is a oxymoron because the PLAAF already stations more than 100 planes in the indian region/s and had done so since the 1960s. Lhasa airbase is the primary base and is located close to Lhasa. Then there is Golmud which is lower down the region in Qinghai, kashi airbase in Lanzhou military region in Xingjiang. Then the Chengdu airbase ,Kunming Airbase or Mengzi airbase, each of these are regimental size but these figures dont reflect the amount of deployable forces the area is able to sustain


True. But how many of these are air superiority and MRCA? The upgraded J-7E is at Lhasa. They aren't BVR capable are they? Are they like the Bison?
Kunming has the 44thfigher division which got some brand new J-10s(that photo you psotd somewhere?). But is the 44th division still at Kunming ?Mengzi has J-6s and J-7s.
So all in all the only real air superiority/MRCA there IMO is the J10. Also that too at Kunming, which I suspect is more of a southern buffer to american allied ASEAN states and not for India.




1) Even with Forward deployed airbases, these are extremely far away to be helpful. The main obstacle is the aircraft carrier which has been assigned a large contingent of aircraft already based on chinas east coast. These include the JH-7, Su-30MK2, H-6M bombers armed with stand off cruise missiles which in total number more than 100 aircraft. Add this to the Future Su-33 and J-10s being produced by the time in 2015 and china has a lot of aircraft + their SAMs and navy


Lets not digress from air sup and MRCA. We both know that once we do that, we'll end up with subs and what not. PACCOM also has decent SAMs and anti air stuff:
ESSM, SM-2/3 etc. etc..

Dont include the JH-7 in air sup or MRCA. I mean you can if you want, but its a fighter bomber.Lets forget about the H-6 altogether(again only air sup).
Otherwise We'll be talking B-1bs and B-2s all the way from Missouri!
btw Can the Jh-7 fire a BVRAAM?

Of course PACCOM is close! Fwd AFBs at Kadena, Atsugi are not more than 800km from the chinese coastline. Okinawa's just filled with runways!
Agana(Guam) and bases in Northern Japan are all within reach with air refuellings.

Are the Su-33s happening for sure?



2) The JSDF is FAR FAR AWAY and wouldn't be able to deploy a lot of fighters. Thats if they were ever in the battle to begin with. The Japanese are not obliged to help the americans


If you're going to put China and Pakistan on one side in any force comparision against India, you cannot possibly let me exclude Japan vis-a-vis China!!!


How far away are the Japanese? Only as far as the string of islands of the chinese coast al the way upto ishigaki. Riddled with Airfields! an then there's aireal refuelling again.



3) Unless they get some real offensive power, they will be restricted to their own airspace which will be flooding with chinese aircraft and their assoicated munitions.


The number of chinese a/c you contribute to this foe is the number, you deduct from your Orbat. Either ways, you're dedicating aircraft to this theatre, and those a/c better be capable of dealing with the Mirage 2000s and F-16s that the ROC has. Note that these are also being upgraded and revamped.



4) Unless you have anything to suggest otherwise, South Korea and the PRC are on very friendly terms and are more in agreement involving the 6 party talks than them and the Americans. They are the same with the South Koreans, they are not obliged to help the americans and would be unlikey to even allow american fighters to be stationed at south korean airfields


6 party talks have nothing to do with what we are talking about. India and Pakistan just closed on joint-anti-teror mechanism. That is also irrelevant.
The South Koreans are major US allies. It is safe to consider their forces as a complement to the US objectives in the Pacific.The USAF is deployed in South Korea.
Let us not base our discussions on political emotions, otherwise one might as well remove China as any perceivable Indian threat.



5) Your talking about a country almost half away around the world. How exactly are they going to reach china with their aircraft. 5 inflight re-fuelings?


The same way you proposed that PLAAF/PLANAF a/c can reach Australia with air refuellings. Or have you forgotten that post?Or do you presume that these a/c(esp the F-111 are restricted to operating ONLY from airbases within Australia?).
They're getting a lot of F35s soon.



76 - Su-27SK
76 - Su-30MK
100 - J-11 (to be upgraded to J-11B standard with PL-12 missiles)
100 - Su-27SKM*
200-300 J-10 (more to be produced later at a rate of 50 planes a year)
100-300 J-8II modifed into the J-8H/F variants. They are still in production as well
24 Su-30MK2
48 Su-33


Su33 confirmed? Or have negotiations just opened? This is not a certainity for sure.
I've heard that the J8F variants can fire the SD-10? Onboard radar range seems to indicate otherwise. Same with the JH-7



Maximum force(the 300 figure) projected for 2010 of BVR craft - 1024. Minimum force - 624.
These are just BVR craft which does not include the JH-7/MiG-21/H-6M aircraft which are quite numerous

How much w/o BVR capable a/c and w/o non air sup/MRCA?





A recent comment(Zhuhai 2006) by the chieft designer of the J-10 has stated that a new prototype aircraft will be first flown in five more years. As you might have known, he is refering to the improved J-10 with internal bomb bays. That is in 2011. As you know, china is also developing UACVs for her forces as well

Yang wei, who is the chief engineer of Chengdu aircraft design and research institute(611), said that a new important prototype will start its maiden flight within five years.

According to several insiders, this prototype is a twin-engine stealth fighter with internal weapon bays.

Engines will be size reduced WS-10 modification with smaller by-pass ratio, thrust 110KN and t/w ratio 9.0



Interesting..
So its a new stealh fighter AND a J-10 prototype? Or they're the same?Where does the TVC J10 come in then?

Bottomline: The force parity on the Indo-China border is not to China's advantage and it it isn't going to change in 2015.



posted on Nov, 16 2006 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite

Originally posted by Daedalus3
Your mood swings and ridiculous bickerings can be conducted elsewhere.


Mood swings?. Have i ever conducted myself any different?. But you do realise that this thread is almost three months old and was recently pushed up by one of the recent posts


still relevant though innit?



posted on Nov, 17 2006 @ 12:22 AM
link   

The only thing that possibly links the two, is the increase of the MRCA deal from ~130 to ~200.


What about the very possible event that the LCA program stalls again, would that make the MRCA more of a option. Realisticly, the LCA program has not yet reached the end of the road where it has become a feasible program. The MiG-21 was and still is a light intercetor. The article was making light of the role of a MiG-21 type fighter with limited capabilites in the 21th century the most. He summed it up best by comparing the entry dates of the Gripen, F-16 and refering to it as a MiG-21 size aircraft

He was actually hinting at the indians dropping the LCA and buying other aircraft which offer better capability. He more making a point about the MiG-21 roles as a light fighter than actually talking about how bad the LCA is. For its role as a MiG-21 replacement, it more than compensates for the MiGs lost but as a fighter for a future role to only carry such i small load for such a small distance. The MiG-29 had a larger range and was considered "light"


He is still comparing the LCA to the likes of the F35 and Grippen


He actually compared it with the F-16 and Gripen and not the F-35. But his comparision has merit since the indians are wanting to export this airplane and the planes his mentions are its potential competitors and will be much more valuable in a new role than the LCA


but I can safely say it is of high 4th gen std.


Please share some information on this ECM suite, i have heard about this Sanskrit ECM suite aswell the the tempest (spelling) pod, but nothing more than vague information about its proposed development capabilities. The things i read on forums are of it being extremely capable (Rafale class) to extremely very capable (F-22 class). But i would seriously like to have some real information instead of media hype about this system

On the note of radar, the APG-68V(9) is SAR and is not just your normal pulse-Doppler. Extremely capable for strike missions. I also have taken note about the AESA on the LCA. Its hard to tell what is being rumoured and what has been approved since indian media reports everything as truth. What i have put together is the MMR india is developing (100km, 4 simultaneous targets) and the stealth spy version of events which include the Elta ELM 2052, or Zhuk-A. the LCA has a large nose and could house a big radar


I was unaware that the PAF F-16s are going to be HMD. They are getting them nonetheless. Anyways this is a good summary of the F-16s the PAF will be eventually getting.


Thanks for the link, but i posted something similar here before and was looking at that list as reference as my inital post

MLUed F-16s

* APG-68(V)9 with Synthetic Aperture Radar or the APG-66(V)2 radar;
* Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing Systems (JHMCS);
* AN/ALE-47 Advanced Countermeasures Dispenser Systems;
* Link-16 Multifunctional Information Distribution System-Low Volume Terminals
* SNIPER (formerly known as AN/AAQ-33 PANTERA) targeting pod capability;
* 21 ALQ-131 Block II Electronic Countermeasures Pods without the Digital Radio Frequency Memory (DRFM); or ALQ-184 Electronic Countermeasures Pods without DRFM;
* 60 ALQ-213 Electronic Warfare Management Systems;


Supposed they got the APG-68(V)9 and the ALQ-131, their capabilities will almost match the Block 52 bar the countermeasures dispenser systems. Note the JHMCS system being included for the MLU




Note that when facing each other the electronic support for both a/c must also be taken into consideration.


It would at least be comparable. The pakistanis are getting the Erieye and possibly chinese systems like the Y-8 balance beam or the round top. Considering the size of pakistan, they would difinately cover more space than the indian combination of Phalcons and indias indigenious AWACS




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join