What's new

Modi pushes 'obsolete' Tejas on reluctant military

Cruise missile is as indigenous as your jets and drones. :P Everything got Chinese rubber stamp on back.

Just a simple question - A country cant even manufacture anything close to locomotive and they talking about cruise missile with mard-e-momin terrain hugging capability.

Yep their as indigenous as they come

Compared to a indian Turd with American engine and israeli avionics
 
.
Lol so your saviours are mopeds for moped engine which looks like living in 60s I expected something good from martial race Pakistanis and atomi kuwat.:D
But I liked to humiliate a super martial race who came here to teach about space and autiomotive sector.
So much for martial race pakistanis :D.

The atomi kuvat baniya with his parbamo bum is back... to eat our shyt.. martial shyt..:D
 
. .
I wouldn't call the MK1A obsolete,thats shoddy journalism.Its not a rafale,but enough to combat thunders and lower end chinese fighters and in point defence role with AWACS role will be able to take on higher end adversaries as well.
The crux of the matter is IAF wants 42 squadrons - budget is not there to fill all of that with 4.5 gen to 5gen fighters.Without tejas IAF can't field numbers.
On top of that the domestic orders will be big boost to our indiginisation process.
 
. .
Atleast we accept things which are foreign or JV . But then we have our neighbours who claimed CH-3 UCAV drone as Burraq with green paint. :P

If it was a JV we would have accepted as such we are not india

Is it our fault that indians burn up at Pakistan overcoming and succeeding in defending our nation against shameless enemy
 
.
@Abingdonboy


There are some reports that the LCA Navy with Levcons and minus the Landing gear
is the Actual MK 1 A
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
 
.
A dated article, none the less it reveals how much international help and input has gone into the LCA Tejas project, which the Indian members can't stop calling INDIGENOUS, it's al the more amazing that despite all this help, the Tejas has taken so long to be inducted into service.


Last month, Indian defence authorities quietly announced that India's prestigious Light Combat Aircraft, originally to have become operational in 1995, will not achieve that status before 2015. The euphoria over the first flight of the prototype a few days later, however, helped to push that stark news off the front pages.

The LCA programme was initiated in 1983 by the Defence Research and Development Organisation, with three widely publicised assertions. One, that it would be an indigenous project catapulting India into the rarefied ranks of global aviation powers. Two, the aircraft would enter frontline squadron service by 1995. And three, the project would only cost Rs 700 crores (Rs 7 billion).

What actually happened between 1983 and 2000? First, let us take the promise of indigenous development. In 1986 an agreement was quietly signed with the United States that permitted DRDO to work with four US Air force laboratories. The to-be-indigenously-developed engine for the LCA -- Kaveri -- was forgotten and the US made General Electric F-404 engine was substituted. Radar was sourced from Erricson Ferranti, carbon-fibre composite panels for wings from Alenia and fly-by-wire controls from Lockheed Martin. Design help was sought from British Aerospace, Avion Marcel Dassault and Deutsche Aerospace. Wind tunnel testing was done in the US, Russia and France. As for armaments -- missiles, guns, rockets and bombs -- every last item was to be imported.

As for operational induction, anyone who knew anything about fighter aircraft development or the capabilities of the DRDO would have known that the envisaged 12-year time frame (1983-1995) was /pure make-believe.

Yet, as late as 1990, DRDO asserted that the 1995 target would be met. It was only when 1995 drew closer that the talk shifted from operational induction to test flights. In 1998, the defence minister stated that the first test flight would take place in 1999. The first flight finally took place a few days ago, 17 years after the project started.

As for the project cost, the original budget was Rs 700 crores. It was later revised to Rs 3,000 crores (Rs 30 billion). It would easily go past Rs 10,000 crores (Rs 100 billion) before the aircraft is inducted into operational service. And that is with DRDO incurring only about a quarter of the overall development costs. Not included are the cost of the huge amounts of foreign equipment being fitted; engine, radar, electronic warfare and communication equipment, high-stress body panels, cockpit displays and the entire range of armament.

Initially it was stated that the per copy price of an LCA would be Rs 10 crores (Rs 100 million). It would be a miracle if the LCA can ever be produced at less than Rs 150 crores (Rs 1.5 billion) a copy. And if the LCA is eventually inducted in 2015, what will the Indian Air Force get? It will get an aircraft at best comparable to first generation F-16s.

One of the DRDO's favourite phrases is 'state of the art,' and according to them everything of the LCA is state of the art. In the fighter aircraft field, to be state of the art, at least from 1990, an aircraft must be designed for 'stealth', that is having virtually no radar or thermal signature. Not even DRDO has so far claimed that the LCA is a stealth aircraft, or that it is capable of being made into one. Forget stealth, the LCA is incapable of any significant upgrading at all during its lifetime. It is a very small, single-engined aircraft tightly packed with equipment. It cannot be fitted with a bigger engine or expanded avionics.

What prompted the DRDO to conceive the LCA when Israel, technologically far more advanced than India, had abandoned its Lavi fighter project after spending more than $ 2 billion on it? Aircraft development costs had mounted so much by then that far richer-countries compared to India such as Britain, France and Germany had realised that unless they formed multinational consortia it would not be possible for them to develop sophisticated, modern aircraft. That is why beginning the late 1970s we have had Eurofighters and Eurocopters, where three or four countries share costs and buying commitments.

It can be said with certainty that the LCA will never become a frontline fighter with the Indian Air Force. The Mirage 2000s and the Mig-29s that the air force has been flying from the 1980s have superior capabilities to any LCA that might be inducted in 2015, 2020 or 2025. So the most prudent thing for the government would be to immediately terminate the LCA project. National and individual egos have been satisfied after the first flight.

The Rs 3,000 crores or so that have spent so far could be put down as the price of a valuable learning experience. We would have undoubtedly gained valuable knowledge in many areas of aircraft design and engineering. But of much greater value, we would have gained the understanding that defence R&D is not a make-believe game to be played by exploiting the fascination for techno-nationalism.

The LCA ranks alongside DRDO's other monumental failures such as the Arjun tank, the Trishul and the Akash missiles, and the Kaveri engine. The time and cost overruns on these projects have been enormous. The story of the Arjun is well known.

With the induction of the T-90, there is no way the Arjun is going to spearhead India's armoured divisions. In fact there are many who believe that the T-72 inducted two decades ago is a better tank than the Arjun. The reality of Arjun seems to be finally sinking in, and it would appear that it might end up not as a battle tank, but as a platform for a 155mm howitzer.

The short-range, surface-to-air-missile Trishul was to be fitted on three Indian Navy frigates in 1992. A decade later, the missile is still carrying out "successful" tests, long after the frigates have been completed. The same story goes for the medium-range, surface-to-air missile Akash and the anti-tank missile Nag.

During the last 20 years, DRDO has fine-tuned the art of selling projects. To start with, don't be timid and aim low. In true Parkinsonian style, the more ambitious the project, greater the chance of it being sanctioned. When the presentation is made to the minister, be generous with phrases such as "state-of-the art". Also mention that we will be the third country in the world to produce the equipment. (It is always the "third" as even the minister knows that the USA and Russia already produce the same).

If a service chief demurs, make snide remarks about how the services want to import everything. And keep the estimated cost of the project absurdly low. Once the project is sanctioned, feed the media with a steady stream of unverifiable tidbits. Bring out a mock-up model and show it round at the Republic Day parade and defence exhibitions.

In recent times DRDO and India's defence services have evolved a modus vivendi. No longer does DRDO oppose imports, provided they are allowed to continue with their projects. Thus, import Su-30s and develop the LCA. Import T-90 tanks and produce Arjun. Import Israeli UAV and continue with a similar indigenous project. The only victim in this you-scratch-my-back-I-scratch-yours game is the Indian taxpayer, who unfortunately does not seem to care.

rediff.com: Admiral J G Nadkarni (retd) on the sad tale of the Light Combat Aircraft
 
.
And you Being A Completely Outsider That to a Pakistani Know What Indian Air force Chief Has Stated in his Statements
Completely Hilarious @MilSpec Listen to this Guy


Still Better option than 60 era Russian Migs IAF Currently operating
Ignore idiots.
 
.
In the end this is what we get... more kinetic vedic farts... parmanooo bum. with a negative marking :lol:


Typical chutiyapan.. :D
Time over for you to run away! As usual retard cant reply. :rofl:

:rofl: Come up with a comparable car like this one then we talk about SUVs... :rofl:

tata-nano-261794.jpg





4th gen? Why Chinese choose not to induct FC-1? :rofl: Your? lol show us a single part that is developed in pakistan.


Everyone knows Pakistan doesn't have industry, money, universities to make any technology. They dependend on gifts from China.



Running away as usual. Gooo... :rofl:

Tell me one good company or university that has capability to built sumthing for a fighter. :lol:


Someone didn't like the truth! @balixd :lol:
 
.
Time over for you to run away! As usual retard cant reply. :rofl:

You want me to reply to your ramblings? bc first try to stay on one topic before tellin others what to do... you divert from one chutiyapa to another.. as if somebody has given you a "chutki" of spices up..
 
.
A dated article, none the less it reveals how much international help and input has gone into the LCA Tejas project, which the Indian members can't stop calling INDIGENOUS, it's al the more amazing that despite all this help, the Tejas has taken so long to be inducted into service.


Last month, Indian defence authorities quietly announced that India's prestigious Light Combat Aircraft, originally to have become operational in 1995, will not achieve that status before 2015. The euphoria over the first flight of the prototype a few days later, however, helped to push that stark news off the front pages.

The LCA programme was initiated in 1983 by the Defence Research and Development Organisation, with three widely publicised assertions. One, that it would be an indigenous project catapulting India into the rarefied ranks of global aviation powers. Two, the aircraft would enter frontline squadron service by 1995. And three, the project would only cost Rs 700 crores (Rs 7 billion).

What actually happened between 1983 and 2000? First, let us take the promise of indigenous development. In 1986 an agreement was quietly signed with the United States that permitted DRDO to work with four US Air force laboratories. The to-be-indigenously-developed engine for the LCA -- Kaveri -- was forgotten and the US made General Electric F-404 engine was substituted. Radar was sourced from Erricson Ferranti, carbon-fibre composite panels for wings from Alenia and fly-by-wire controls from Lockheed Martin. Design help was sought from British Aerospace, Avion Marcel Dassault and Deutsche Aerospace. Wind tunnel testing was done in the US, Russia and France. As for armaments -- missiles, guns, rockets and bombs -- every last item was to be imported.

As for operational induction, anyone who knew anything about fighter aircraft development or the capabilities of the DRDO would have known that the envisaged 12-year time frame (1983-1995) was /pure make-believe.

Yet, as late as 1990, DRDO asserted that the 1995 target would be met. It was only when 1995 drew closer that the talk shifted from operational induction to test flights. In 1998, the defence minister stated that the first test flight would take place in 1999. The first flight finally took place a few days ago, 17 years after the project started.

As for the project cost, the original budget was Rs 700 crores. It was later revised to Rs 3,000 crores (Rs 30 billion). It would easily go past Rs 10,000 crores (Rs 100 billion) before the aircraft is inducted into operational service. And that is with DRDO incurring only about a quarter of the overall development costs. Not included are the cost of the huge amounts of foreign equipment being fitted; engine, radar, electronic warfare and communication equipment, high-stress body panels, cockpit displays and the entire range of armament.

Initially it was stated that the per copy price of an LCA would be Rs 10 crores (Rs 100 million). It would be a miracle if the LCA can ever be produced at less than Rs 150 crores (Rs 1.5 billion) a copy. And if the LCA is eventually inducted in 2015, what will the Indian Air Force get? It will get an aircraft at best comparable to first generation F-16s.

One of the DRDO's favourite phrases is 'state of the art,' and according to them everything of the LCA is state of the art. In the fighter aircraft field, to be state of the art, at least from 1990, an aircraft must be designed for 'stealth', that is having virtually no radar or thermal signature. Not even DRDO has so far claimed that the LCA is a stealth aircraft, or that it is capable of being made into one. Forget stealth, the LCA is incapable of any significant upgrading at all during its lifetime. It is a very small, single-engined aircraft tightly packed with equipment. It cannot be fitted with a bigger engine or expanded avionics.

What prompted the DRDO to conceive the LCA when Israel, technologically far more advanced than India, had abandoned its Lavi fighter project after spending more than $ 2 billion on it? Aircraft development costs had mounted so much by then that far richer-countries compared to India such as Britain, France and Germany had realised that unless they formed multinational consortia it would not be possible for them to develop sophisticated, modern aircraft. That is why beginning the late 1970s we have had Eurofighters and Eurocopters, where three or four countries share costs and buying commitments.

It can be said with certainty that the LCA will never become a frontline fighter with the Indian Air Force. The Mirage 2000s and the Mig-29s that the air force has been flying from the 1980s have superior capabilities to any LCA that might be inducted in 2015, 2020 or 2025. So the most prudent thing for the government would be to immediately terminate the LCA project. National and individual egos have been satisfied after the first flight.

The Rs 3,000 crores or so that have spent so far could be put down as the price of a valuable learning experience. We would have undoubtedly gained valuable knowledge in many areas of aircraft design and engineering. But of much greater value, we would have gained the understanding that defence R&D is not a make-believe game to be played by exploiting the fascination for techno-nationalism.

The LCA ranks alongside DRDO's other monumental failures such as the Arjun tank, the Trishul and the Akash missiles, and the Kaveri engine. The time and cost overruns on these projects have been enormous. The story of the Arjun is well known.

With the induction of the T-90, there is no way the Arjun is going to spearhead India's armoured divisions. In fact there are many who believe that the T-72 inducted two decades ago is a better tank than the Arjun. The reality of Arjun seems to be finally sinking in, and it would appear that it might end up not as a battle tank, but as a platform for a 155mm howitzer.

The short-range, surface-to-air-missile Trishul was to be fitted on three Indian Navy frigates in 1992. A decade later, the missile is still carrying out "successful" tests, long after the frigates have been completed. The same story goes for the medium-range, surface-to-air missile Akash and the anti-tank missile Nag.

During the last 20 years, DRDO has fine-tuned the art of selling projects. To start with, don't be timid and aim low. In true Parkinsonian style, the more ambitious the project, greater the chance of it being sanctioned. When the presentation is made to the minister, be generous with phrases such as "state-of-the art". Also mention that we will be the third country in the world to produce the equipment. (It is always the "third" as even the minister knows that the USA and Russia already produce the same).

If a service chief demurs, make snide remarks about how the services want to import everything. And keep the estimated cost of the project absurdly low. Once the project is sanctioned, feed the media with a steady stream of unverifiable tidbits. Bring out a mock-up model and show it round at the Republic Day parade and defence exhibitions.

In recent times DRDO and India's defence services have evolved a modus vivendi. No longer does DRDO oppose imports, provided they are allowed to continue with their projects. Thus, import Su-30s and develop the LCA. Import T-90 tanks and produce Arjun. Import Israeli UAV and continue with a similar indigenous project. The only victim in this you-scratch-my-back-I-scratch-yours game is the Indian taxpayer, who unfortunately does not seem to care.

rediff.com: Admiral J G Nadkarni (retd) on the sad tale of the Light Combat Aircraft


Isn't that still better than giving a name to a chinese fighter? This will led to our next fighter. R&D never goes in vane. Same happened with our missile tech.

You want me to reply to your ramblings? bc first try to stay on one topic before tellin others what to do... you divert from one chutiyapa to another.. as if somebody has given you a "chutki" of spices up..


Just reply with fact or run away. Dont waste your''s and my time. :mad::hitwall::devil:

Its a fact that you cannot built a car till now and you talk about Mars. So let it go, or I will reveal more of you.
 
.
Isn't that still better than giving a name to a chinese fighter? This will led to our next fighter. R&D never goes in vane. Same happened with our missile tech.




Just reply with fact or run away. Dont waste your''s and my time.

Its a fact that you cannot built a car till now and you talk about Mars. So let it go, or I will reveal more of you.

296ef059290949673d8becf2235d6439.jpg
 
. . .

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom