The Tejas fighter’s role in war

[faithfulguy]

Employing the Tejas for the tactical battle would
allow the IAF’s heavy, multi-role fighters like the
Su-30MKI and Rafale to be focused on targets
deep inside enemy territory, which are beyond the
range of the Tejas --- such as major air bases,
military headquarters and strategic infrastructure.
These fighters, which carry far more fuel and
weapons, can take off from bases deep inside
India, bomb targets deep inside enemy territory,
and also shoot down enemy fighters.
Yet, heavy fighters have their downsides.
Maintenance is complex, with half the Su-30MKI
fleet usually unavailable for operations. Enemy
radar picks up the heavy fighters more easily;
the Tejas is smaller, and also stealthier, being
largely fabricated from composite materials.
Moreover, the loss of a Sukhoi-30 is a Rs 400
crore blow; a Tejas will probably costs one-third
of that.

In another word, its ok for pilots flying Tejas to die.

If the LCA is so good does the IAF still need the Rafale?

LCA is the best for parades.

 

[dbc]

Surely you know better than to ask such a question?

And I do, but surely the Aam Aadmi in India does not. So when Indian journalist exaggerate and start equating the LCA to the Block 52 F-16 it will cause many in India to question the Rafale acquisition.
Given India's current financial situation a 20 billion $ plus spend is hard enough to justify as it is.

Aam Aadmi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Kurama]

In another word, its ok for pilots flying Tejas to die.



LCA is the best for parades.

Come on Man, You desperately do want others to laugh on your jokes.
but you know what, you ain't so funny, Buddy..

 

[janon]

And I do, but surely the Aam Aadmi in India does not. So when Indian journalist exaggerate and start equating the LCA to the Block 52 F-16 it will cause many in India to question the Rafale acquisition.
Given India's current financial situation a 20 billion $ plus spend is hard enough to justify as it is.

Aam Aadmi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Well then you know precious little about the aam aadmi in India, barring the translation of that term. The aam aadmi does not care two hoots for defence, or defence deals, and doesn't know anything about it. Most of them will never hear of the word Rafale or Tejas in their lives, and cannot name the service chiefs if their lives depend on it. Nobody reads these articles except defence enthusiasts, and they know better than to take such comparisons seriously.

As for the last line, I disagree. That figure is spread out over a few years, and therefore not that much compared to our defence expenditure, which by the way is a very small percentage of our GDP - lower than the global average, and much lower than the neighbours.

That being said, I would have preferred an aircraft with more bang for the buck, if it was available. The only one I can think of is the super hornet, and it is doubtful how much ToT we could have got for critical tech.

 

[HariPrasad]

categories? Please elaborate.

Light- tejas

Medium- MMRCA

Heavy-Su 30 MKI, PAKFA etc.

Time for high school.

@sreekumar

Its good industrial experiance for India. After FOC it still would need time to mature. I'm just amused at the 'overblown' capability analysis by Indian folks.

You still have a small a/c with one of the world's most powerful/gas guzzler engine. Even with IFR it would have to carry EFTs, compromising its performance.

And JF 17 is Mature prior to receiving FOC?

 

[MilSpec]

If the LCA is so good does the IAF still need the Rafale?

That is funny indeed

 

[SQ8]

Tejas even prior to IOC can complete vertical loop in just 20 second which JF 17 can not. 360* roll of Tejas is much faster than JF 17 (Comperative Videos are available on net.). Tejas in its IOC has achieved a 24* AOA where JF 17 has not exceeded 17*. JF. It can not exceed 1.6 mach and Maximum take off weight is laser by 1 ton gives it a very limited capability. It can not fly longer than Tejas is Fuel capacity is lesser by 260 KG comare to tejas and engine being a guttler consumes a lots of fuel. JF 17 is not fit for dogfight against any new 4th generation plane.

I suggest you read on the basics of aircraft design and performance and back up your BS..or keep quiet when you cannot come up with actual proof. Otherwise you will be locked out these threads and can sit and watch while others post.

 

[MilSpec]

It can fly a lot longer than the Tejas without refueling, which means that Tejas would have to disengage to refuel or eject.

Then by the same logic are the Jf17's and F16's disengage/eject everytime they encounter a MKI??

 

[MilSpec]

Time for high school.

@sreekumar

Its good industrial experiance for India. After FOC it still would need time to mature. I'm just amused at the 'overblown' capability analysis by Indian folks.

You still have a small a/c with one of the world's most powerful/gas guzzler engine. Even with IFR it would have to carry EFTs, compromising its performance.

no one takes shukla seriously....

 

[SQ8]

Whatever I have stated is a statement of facts widely available on net published in last one week. Saying my post BS doesn't make you more knowledgeable. you are free to prove me wrong by citing a reliable reference.

You havent proved a thing that has to be proved wrong. Show the publication or retract it.

 

[MilSpec]

And I do, but surely the Aam Aadmi in India does not. So when Indian journalist exaggerate and start equating the LCA to the Block 52 F-16 it will cause many in India to question the Rafale acquisition.
Given India's current financial situation a 20 billion $ plus spend is hard enough to justify as it is.

Aam Aadmi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Is that a indication of you believing Blk52 at par or better than Rafale ?

 

[Kompromat]

Then by the same logic are the Jf17's and F16's disengage/eject everytime they encounter a MKI??

You cannot refuel in the enemy's territory.

 

[MilSpec]

You cannot refuel in the enemy's territory.

As I said, by your dialogue (in bollywood style), everytime paf jf17 or f16 encounter a MKI, it either ends up disengaging or ejecting... (same logic MKI will keep flying much longer than both, maybe even both combined)

 

[Kompromat]

@sandy_3126

Depends on too many variables. If you have an F-16 with CFTs carrying more fuel, engaged in battle over either enemy territory or 'Air Denied Area' (SAMs), it has limited time to finish off the mission. The time is called the 'loiter time'. LT depends on variables like the extended period of flight in a target area + the tactics used to deal with ,multiple threats.

Now if you are MKI, yes you do carry a lot of gas but it won't last much longer than an F-16 because you also have two one of the most powerful and fuel hungry engines in the world. In other words, you'd burn twice as much gas as a viper during 'reheats' and Afterburns.

Now you should understand why 'supercruise' is so important.

 

[SQ8]

you din't produce anything to prove my post BS. You are even refraining from providing figures without reference.

You are wasting my time.. and posting parroted arguments without backup. You are banned from posting in this thread.