IAF just said Tejas/LCA. It never mentioned any versions
As per Prasun K Sengupta, IAF planners are looking at LCA Navy especially the second proto as it found out
1. With levcon its much better agile
2. With full weapon load, the landing gear (naval) handles it far far better
3. It has internal more fuel as well as space to put more specs like EW suite instead of a external mounted
4. Lastly, active cancellers and very high degree EW suites are not required as its role would be limited to point defence and CAS and not heavy across the border air superiority ops or ground bombing for which IAF planers already are acquired or acquiring newer assets.
Exact wording of Prasun
Were you ever in any doubt about the eventual Rafale fleet-strength? Even today at noontime at IAF HQ the CAS of the IAF during his customary pre-Air Force day press conference had stated on-the-record that the IAF requires six squadrons of M-MRCAs, although he added that there are other M-MRCAs available. In my view, he should have been more careful with his words before babbling such soundbytes, because such remarks directly contract PM NaMo's statement in Paris about procuring Rafales directly from France ASAP. And when such contradictory statements are made, the PMO is bound to take IAF HQ to task for being careless with words.
Another remark by the CAS today was that the Tejas Mk1, Tejas Mk1A & Tejas Mk2 don't exist--only the Tejas MRCA exists. What he meant by this will now be the subject of various conspiracy theories emanating from the band of 'desi' journalists, rest assured. And no one at the press-conference even asked him to clarify, or ask if the Tejas Mk2 doesn't exist physically or in the form of an R & D project, then for what have 99 F-414 turbofans been ordered from GE & why are they now being delivered since last June? Not a single question about the future of the An-32RE upgrade project or about the future of the AW-101 VVIP helicopters.
Matters have completed changed ever since the NP-2 prototype of LCA (Navy) became available for flight-testing. It then quickly became evident that the NP-2 was not only more agile than the Tejas Mk1 version, but could also host additional internal volume for some critical mission avionics. Thus, this in many ways came closest to what the IAF wants & now the IAF will order only 40 Tejas Mk1s, while ordering 80 of the LCA (Navy) Mk1 versions (minus their tailhooks). It is for this very reason that the IAF’s CAS was extremely reticent about naming any specific version of the Tejas to be ordered, & it is also for this reason that Cmde (Ret’d) Balaji has become the ADA Chief. For the past 1 week he has given a series of presentations to IAF HQ on the positive results achieved by the NP-2’s flight-testing to date, & this has made the IAF extremely happy. Now it’s all about installing on board NP-2 some of the critical mission avionics specified by the IAF, especially the internally-mounted CW/pulse EW transmitters. AS for AAMs, as I had already stated above, the Targo HMDS/Python-5 combination & Derby will go on board. Internals are already re-arranged on the NP-2 as it is the LCA (Navy) Mk1 version. But the ‘desi bandalbaaz’ has yet to grasp all this. EVERYONE’s assuming that the IAF’s CAS was talking about the Tejas Mk1 version, whereas in reality he was referring to the LCA (Navy) Mk1 version that will be ordered for the IAF, PROVIDED HAL can assure accelerated delivery-rates. I’m already working on a dissection of the IAF CAS’ speech which will explain in far greater detail how & why the IAF is highly enthused by the LCA (Navy) Mk1/NP-2 option.
The Tejas Mk1 version suffers from having one of the lowest aspect ratios ever in any MRCA, resulting in high induced drag in combat—this being due to faulty design of the compound delta-wing. That’s why the Tejas Mk1 in weaponised modes does not fulfill the agility reqmts (especially sustained turn-rates) as mandated in the IAF’s ASQR. The LCA (Navy) Mk1, on the other hand, possesses LEVCONs that overcomes (to a great extent, but not entirely) the agility shortcomings. In addition, the landing gear of a fully weaponised Tejas Mk1 prevents the aircraft from landing with full weapons-load, whereas the LCA (Navy) Mk1’s landing gear does not suffer from this shortcoming. The ASPJ will be pod-mounted externally, just like it is on the MiG-29K.
That’s the reason why the IAF’s CAS had decided to play it safe & declare that all that the IAF wanted as TEJAS, & not Mk1 or 1A or Mk2. But he perhaps forgot that the IAF’s model of choice is not even Tejas, but LCA (Navy) M1, because the IN never uses the term ‘Tejas’ in any of its literature. Probably, even A B Vajpayee decided on the term ‘Tejas’ after seeing only the TD-1 & TD-2 all painted up in colours of the Indian Tricolour! That’s why I had a good laugh after this christening ceremony.
AESA-MMR is out of the question for any version of the LCA—be it Tejas Mk1 or LCA (Navy) Mk1. In any case, defensive counter-air/ground attack aircraft don’t require AESA-MMRs, only heavy-MRCAs & deep-penetration MMRCAs do. LCA (Navy) Mk1 being loighter than the F-16 will be more agile as well.
AESA-MMR is useful only if the MRCA is to be used for tactical interdiction inside hostile airspace, which necessitates
the adoption of terrain-hugging flight profile for ingress & that’s where terrain-avoidance mode is reqd. For close air-support for contact battles, the MRCA can safely launch lightweight, small-diameter LGBs from standoff distances, thereby staying free from SHORADS & VSHORADS threats, which in turn means no ASPJ pod is reqd. Escorting aircraft like Su-30MKI will ensure air-dominance as they will be armed with their full complement of AAMs. LEVCONS or canards cannot be employed for thrust reversing & can never substitute brake parachutes. LEVCONs add additional wing-area to the LCA (Navy) Mk1 & this in turn confers greater agility to the aircraft at slower speeds at lower altitudes (between 5,000 feet & 10,000 feet) where dogfights using cannons are fought. And by the time such engagements begin, the airborne LCA (Navy) Mk1 would have already consumed about 40% of its internal fuel capacity. Consequently, the aircraft will become lighter & therefore thrust-to-weight ratios will still be favourable when using the WVRAAM/HMDS combination. The T/W ratio figures that are always touted in brochures & catalogues all relate to the aircraft in clean configuration, & NEVER in fully weaponised/loaded configuration. One therefore must be careful before taking such figures as the gospel truth. That’s why when calculating agility metrics, manoeuvrability parameters always becomes far more important than T/W ratio.
The jury is still out about the feasibility of installing internal jammer in the bulkhead that's there on LCA (Navy) Mk1/NP-1 just aft of the cockpit (this was previously the tandem-seat on the NP-1). Only further flight-tests will be able to determine whether such a configuration is possible or not. CW jammer is reqd for countering SAMs & semi-active BVRAAMs, whereas pulse jammer is meant for use against inbound BVRAAMs using active terminal homing. Since the IAF won't be using its LCAs for tactical or deep interdiction, for for only defensive counter-air & CAS missions, they won't face any threats from SAMs of any type. Instead, only fire-and-forget BVRAAMs MAY have to be neutralised through a pulse jammer in the worst case. In addition, a dual-aperture MAWS sensor suite also needs installation near the root of the vertical tail-section for early warning against inbound WVRAAMs & BVRAAMs. It is this configuration that seems most probable for final selection by the IAF.
Only MiG-29UPGs have ELT-568 AESA-based pulse jammers. MiG-29K carries the EL/L-8222 ASPJ pod for countering SAMs.
@Abingdonboy @GURU DUTT @MilSpec @SpArK @migflug
