What's new

LCA will not be able to penetrate enemy lines

Based on december 13 IOC in which aircrafts used were LSP3, LSP5 and LSP 7.
Not the LSP 8 which is the production variant with reshaped APU and telemetry and dead weights removed.

2.3 Shortfall in compliance of ASR (Delay in manufacture and supply of LSP aircraft).JPG


No they are not they are based on the gate review for the LSP3,5,and 7 not the SP1 or LSP 8. the 2014 Dec date review stands because the SPJ was not tested on the SP8, because test platform for the SPJ was deemed to be the two seat variant.

2.3 Shortfall in compliance of ASR (LSP7&8).JPG
 
Last edited:
.
it can perform prcission strike roles aswell but its range doesnt lets it become a true strike platform

Range has no importance in being a strike platform, since not all strike missions are deep strikes. The priority for light class multi role fighters such as Tejas are short to medium range / endurance A2A and A2G missions. The latter is why, IAF already is integrating A2G weapons for CAS on it and testing it in cold weather condition, to use it (if necessary) in the northern areas in strike roles too.

LCA MK1 and the upgraded Jaguars will both have...

...the EL 2032 radar with the same specialised A2G modes
...the same Litening targeting pod
...the same Griffin, Paveway and hopefully sudarshan LGBs
...the same number of hardpoints to carry pods, weapons and fuel tanks in strike roles
...IFR capability to extend range and endurance
...HMS and HOBS missiles for self defence
...a modern integrated EWS (which however seems to be the issue now)

As you can see, there is nothing that would make LCA to be less of a strike fighter in CAS, than the Jaguar would be. The range with IFR and the larger external fuel tanks can be extended by far too, if that would be needed, which however is pretty pointless in a fleet like the IAF, where this is the capability benchmark of the LOW END!
Also in the current day, you have to factor in operational costs and maintenance, where the single engined LCA, will even have clear advantages over the twin engined Jaguar, to perform the same CAS missions, as effective if not even better, but at a more cost-effective rate.

And yet it's internal fuel capacity and increased weight are shortcomings!

Compared to the ASR of the project, not on general terms! That's an important point you should not forget, because it means, that the 6500Kg it now weighs are not meeting the ASR, while the weight is comparable, if not even better than of other fighters in it's class. So CAG is complaining about DRDO not living up to the projected specs and the promises they made, but not that LCA is a bad fighter in general.

Present internal fuel capacity is ample for a point defense aircraft
No it's not, since even basic interception missions are done with at least a centerline fuel tank and not a single missions requires the internal fuel tank alone. So once again, if there is an issue with the "internal" fuel capacity (not the general fuel capacity), it probably is not meeting the ASR requirements.
The fact that IAF seems to go for a lesser modified MK2 and lesser internal fuel capacity even suggest, that IAF's requirements can easily be met, with the MK2 changes + IFR which is part of FOC anyway.
 
.
In your own images you posted original PDC for RWR and CMDS is date Dec 2010 and May 2010 respectively today except SPS both RWR which Tarang 1B and CMDS is shortcomings were addressed

I posted an article please go through it.

What's your point sir? What does PDC has to do with the release date of this report which indeed is the point of @HRK?

PDC - Probable date of completion/commission. Original PDC/revised PDC column says that those identified items were scheduled to be completed or commissioned by that mentioned date. Next column states present status of items & last column makes a comment on the impaction on Tejas caused by present status of those items.

SPJ should have been completed and mounted by 2014, now because of space constraint it can't be fitted therefore the birds now has to fly without it. A fully operational RWR was to be fitted by 2010, the fitted RWR has issues the bird now has a deficient PWR. CMDS should have been mounted and made completely functional by lately revised PDC, ie, 2010 - now the bird carries an under functioning CMDS.

If you read executive summary of this report, under Ministry of Defence (R&D)/ADA/Air HQ response heading it clearly says that this report issued to Ministry of Defence, ADA and Air HQ in December 2014. The report was submitted in parliament January this year. This means the report covers the state of affairs existed till December last year.

As you're saying the issues pertaining CMDS and PWR have been fixed if that's the case then this fixation must have been done anytime during past 5 months, great speed I must say. One thing is for sure this report ain't two years old.

@sancho, I completely agree with your post. In fact whole time I tried to convince Guru that don't demean your aircraft by making it barely a point defense aircraft. I just read the report, it's not undermining the aircraft. It complains about the promises and repromises of the developing authorities. Thanks for that information pertaining fuel capacity.
 
.
Based on december 13 IOC in which aircrafts used were LSP3, LSP5 and LSP 7.
Not the LSP 8 which is the production variant with reshaped APU and telemetry and dead weights removed.

Which doesn't make much difference, since it seems to factor the results of the FOC attempt last year with the LSP8 as well, otherwise they couldn't evaluate the shortcomings of the RWR or jammers. It basically tells us some new reasons, why FOC wasn't achieved and it still stands at IOC2 level. And that's actually the sad part, not that new issues keeps coming up and that although IOC1 was done a long time ago and still they couldn't solve the issues.

Other than that, as I said to @Emmie, the context is important to understand, since it's mainly about not meeting the ASR and not about being not capable. A fighter with RWR that has issues, is still better than fighters without RWR at all. A fighter that can't fit the planned jammers for size issues (not technical once), will either fit smaller once, or stick to external self protection pods which are in use in IAF (indigenous and Israeli once). Not to mention that external SPJs are still pretty common in the region, so even that wouldn't make it bad at all, just not as good as initially planned and therefor a problem that needs to be fixed.
Btw, the ASR were not changed without reasons, but to counter thedevelopment delays. It's just plain logic, that an ASR from 1985 can't include the same capabilities that are standard today, therefor moving on from basic SP capabilities with external pods, to modern internal systems for was a necessity. Same goes for the trust issue, which is based on an empty weight that is 1t above the planned weight, which then requires more thrust to counter the shortcomings. So IAF didn't changed anything just because they wanted more, like many believe, but because they wanted what they ordered and what was promised to them. And as the MK2 upgrade shows, IAF is actually ok with much less changes than IN is and would even be ok with less thrust, than the GE 414 will deliever.
 
. .
It´s an Light Combat Aircraft !

What did you all expect ? If they need something that penetrates the Enemy Linke then they would develop something like a MiG-27 + and not an Delta Canard Indian Mirage.
 
. .
well sir CAG is right to some extend even LCA is bieng tested and is already integrated and tested many times with paveway, griffin LGBs and Lightning 3 LPDs and also vast range of smart and dump boms and in all kinds of terrain it has the same EL/M-2032 fire control radar as jags which specialises in ground attack and in air to air mode it can track 8 targets and engage 4 at range of 80Km with a RCS of 2 sq meters so it is a multi role while already in process of getting IFR on its FOC which is just round the corner we shal talk on this report and issue after LCA gets FOC OK :)
 
.
I don't know whether in my lifetime this LCA will be done or no :cray::argh::blah:
 
.
I don't know whether in my lifetime this LCA will be done or no :cray::argh::blah:
Lca is in serial production the following short falls can be adressed using israels ones

Eventually mod revealed to buy unown number of EW suits from ESira Israel For LCA prototypes

Basically these shortcomings are not permanent ones but can be adressed.
 
.
your right TT sir LCA is not meant for fisrt strike/SEAD/DEAD kinda missions nor is JF 17as LCA is point defnce with limited stike capability while JF 17 is like second in line fighter but F 16s are capable of first strike no matter which block

CAG is right that LCA is late and still not 100% ready but sir thing is we dont have so much extra money that we can fulfill all whims of IAF

Guru,

Can some of the whims of the air force be fulfilled---like if it can take off---it can land---it can move up and down---right and left----I am just kidding.
 
.
Lca is in serial production the following short falls can be adressed using israels ones

Eventually mod revealed to buy unown number of EW suits from ESira Israel For LCA prototypes

Basically these shortcomings are not permanent ones but can be adressed.
Hopefully they will be addressed:cheers::pop:
 
.
you got it sir LCA is apoint defnce fighter with alimited strike capabilty .. thanks

now we have just upgraded owr jags and we wont be retiring them foratleast a decade andowr AMCA & AURA projects is already running and will replace Jags

well MKIs wont be the first to strike you or face your F16s rather it will be ig 29s and M2Ks

as for future dals are already done for FGFA and rafalesso we have already been doing whats required for owr future
Hmm so bottom line is Jaguars and Mig27 are not going anytime soon.
 
. . .

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom