Why we need F-16 planes when we have Tejas LCA?

[Kamikaze Pilot]

This is not a flame thread. There are valid doubts about technological capabilities of Indian organizations. Let there be debate.

We have a right to know because these organizations are using the name of our country on international platform and they are playing with our emotions by creating a sense of pride - real or false.

So why do we need F-16 planes when we have Tejas LCA?

I can think of TWO explanations.

Explanation 1:

It is reminiscent of past. You notice the pattern?

Faking a technological capability so that USA doesn't deny the genuine technology because we have pretended that we have that technology anyways. Indians did that with the computer technology. Faked building of supercomputer PARAM which paved way to Americans allowing the export of personal computers to India.

Abdul Kalam had said, "West offers technology only if the recipient country is on the verge of perfecting that technology." It should be added that there's no need to perfect the technology. Feigning the technological capability by bribing Western media houses would suffice.

Explanation 2:

Industrial espionage: Producing F-16s on Indian soil will facilitate the copying of Western technology. HAL and DRDO engineers disguised as workers and staff of TATA will take employment in the manufacturing units of Lockheed Martin located in India. These HAL and DRDO spies will make covert observations of production of F-16 planes. When they go home after working hours are over, they will document all the technology and production techniques learnt by spying in Lockheed Martin-TATA factories. Is this practice called as industrial espionage? Technology transfer in a cost effective but hook or crook way.

@Stephen Cohen

 

[aakash_2410]

@abcxyz0000

HAL doesn't wanna privatise LCA manufacturing and they can barely produce 12 planes in a year, or 24 even after opening another manufacturing line.

India is retiring Mig-21 (245) and Mig-27s (87) in a next year or two. So, they'll retire over 300 planes in next 2 years without any replacements. This means Indian fighter squadron strength will be SERIOUSLY depleted and DANGEROUSLY low.

Hence, the tender for another single engine multi-role aircraft under Make in India.

 

[LeGenD]

@abcxyz0000
The real reason why F-16 is being sought from the US is unknown.
From the news I've read in the past, we are looking for the most advanced F-16 Blk 70. Which may be better than Tejas. Tejas is good for dogfight, you can see from the high maneuverability design of the jet.

F-16 is battle proven fighters. While Tejas has yet to have one.
Block 70 has AESA radars, Ground Collision Avoidance System, better targeting pods, and a wider Battle space awareness, with high-resolution 6 x 8 screen. Can carry more armaments

Coming to Tejas it has coherent pulse Doppler Multi Mode Radar, Uses a Digital Fly by wire system, which is common in F-16 too. F-17 Blk 70 m=would cost $60+million while Tejas would cost at around $25 million.

You guys are comparing Tejas with F-16? Like seriously?

 

[Chhatrapati]

You guys are comparing Tejas with F-16? Like seriously?

Can't understand what is being spoken in the thread? Seriously? I answered a question, why India select F-16 when we already have Tejas.

 

[Penguin]

Can you afford F35? If you can afford and they are offering it, seriously why not F-35?

That's why I suggested it as tribute. (we're having more, yay!)

 

[randomradio]

(why not F-35 then?)



Perhaps because F16 is bigger/heavier aircraft, that is capable of carrying twice the Tejas' ordnance load, over twice the Tejas' range?

Actually the F-16 is not all that great. Most of its payload goes into carrying fuel. Its only advantage is it can carry 2000Kg bombs, otherwise it's not all that great compared to the LCA considering the cost.

Can you afford F35? If you can afford and they are offering it, seriously why not F-35?

F-35 is a better option for the IN.

It will not have good performance over mountains. The IAF requires high performance jets.

 

[Stephen Cohen]

Actually the F-16 is not all that great. Most of its payload goes into carrying fuel. Its only advantage is it can carry 2000Kg bombs, otherwise it's not all that great compared to the LCA considering the cost.

What about Range ; Avionics ; Radar ; ITR ; STR

 

[randomradio]

What about Range ; Avionics ; Radar ; ITR ; STR

If you take internal fuel alone, LCA has better range. With external fuel, the LCA has lower range. But the LCA doesn't have need for more range than 3000Km. So it's good enough.

Both ITR and STR are superior to the F-16.

Avionics are dependent on how the development goes. For example, the Mk1A does not have enough space for an internal independent electronic attack capability. But it can more than make up for that with an external pod and a GaN radar. The F-16's radar is not the best there is, but the LCA's radar will be better than what's on the F-35. Both the Israelis and Swedes have offered GaN.

LCA has two less hardpoints, which is a drawback.

 

[Penguin]

Actually the F-16 is not all that great. Most of its payload goes into carrying fuel. Its only advantage is it can carry 2000Kg bombs, otherwise it's not all that great compared to the LCA considering the cost.

F-16:
11 hardpoints: 2 × wing-tip air-to-air missile launch rails, 6 × under-wing, and 3 × under-fuselage pylon (2 of 3 for sensors) stations with a capacity of up to 17,000 lb (7,700 kg) of stores.
Combat radius: 550 km (340 mi, 295 nmi) on a hi-lo-hi mission with four 1,000 lb (450 kg) bombs
Ferry range: 4,220 km (2,620 mi; 2,280 nmi) with drop tanks

Tejas
8 hardpoints: 1× beneath the port-side intake trunk for targeting pods, 6× wing, and 1× fuselage, with a capacity of 3,500 kg external fuel and ordnance
Combat radius: up to 500 km (311 mi, 270 nmi), depending upon the nature and duration of actual combat. With typical load 300-350 km
Ferry range: 1,700 km (1,056 mi)

I didn't say F16 was great. But if it isn't, then what does that tell you about LCA?

 

[randomradio]

F-16:
11 hardpoints: 2 × wing-tip air-to-air missile launch rails, 6 × under-wing, and 3 × under-fuselage pylon (2 of 3 for sensors) stations with a capacity of up to 17,000 lb (7,700 kg) of stores.
Combat radius: 550 km (340 mi, 295 nmi) on a hi-lo-hi mission with four 1,000 lb (450 kg) bombs
Ferry range: 4,220 km (2,620 mi; 2,280 nmi) with drop tanks

Tejas
8 hardpoints: 1× beneath the port-side intake trunk for targeting pods, 6× wing, and 1× fuselage, with a capacity of 3,500 kg external fuel and ordnance
Combat radius: up to 500 km (311 mi, 270 nmi), depending upon the nature and duration of actual combat. With typical load 300-350 km
Ferry range: 1,700 km (1,056 mi)

I didn't say F16 was great. But if it isn't, then what does that tell you about LCA?

Yeah, I pointed out the advantage of the extra hardpoints. But that's about it.

The F-16 has been heavily criticized within the IAF. One of our ex-air marshals has called the version offered a 3rd gen aircraft.

http://www.financialexpress.com/ind...-potential-for-india-say-iaf-veterans/747705/
According to Air Marshal M Matheswaran (retd), former deputy chief Integrated Defence Staff, “F-16’s airframe is a third generation design that has outlived its utility. It cannot measure up to even 4th generation aircraft any more, despite all the avionics upgrades. Its components, aggregates, fuel efficiency, life cycle costs, will all be in the 3rd generation.”

The LCA is in fact rated higher in some respects, the upcoming version. The new variant is going to see a massive weight decrease, and if we are lucky a variable cycle engine as well. So the range, endurance and performance figures will see an upgrade. You can imagine what the aircraft will be with a GaN radar and sensor fused avionics as well.

 

[Han Patriot]

That's why I suggested it as tribute. (we're having more, yay!)

Tht would have been a better tribute to the Empire, at least it's worth something.