Why's IAF unhappy about Tejas' Thrust to Weight while ok with Mirage-2000s?

[Safriz]

..:: India Strategic ::.. Kaveri engine’s naval version doing fine

Ok found the article.. Good going..

 

[Safriz]

12 MW shaft power which is about 16000 horse power..
Thats more than enough to propel a large navy ship...

 

[KRAIT]

12 MW shaft power which is about 16000 horse power..
Thats more than enough to propel a large navy ship...

Kaveri has taught us a lot of things and its application in UCAV program will be worth the effort. We will get many benefits from this project, which people think is a "Failed" one.

Thanks for the article.

 

[sancho]

The IAFs double standards on Tejas is glaring to say the least. One of the primary IAF's criticism of Tejas was that it is heavy and its thrust to weight is low.

The thrust to weight ratio of Mirage-2000, the fighter which they adore, is more or less equal to Tejas, but they still insist on better engines for Tejas? Why this obsession with only Tejas? They are perfectly Happy with Mirage-2000's T/W which is more or less the same as Tejas.

The TWR might only be one problem, but don't forget that there seems to be a drag problem as well. Even with similar TWRs, the speed of the Mirage 2000 is much higher than what Tejas has achieved so far and from what was the development goal.

Tejas took too long to develop,and now that it has finally matured,IAF has better options to go for.

Tejas was always meant to be the low end of IAF, but that just mean that it was meant to be a very capable low end fighter.

The Tejas should be seen as an opportunity for the IAF to get significantly closer to the Army than has been possible ever before, largely due to the lack of adequate numbers of aircraft. This is the chance to get there, therefore.

But CAS is not the prime role for IAF, air defence is! To increas CAS capability IA now gets the armed combat helicopters and with the addition of new multi role fighters and modernisations of Mig 29 and M2K, IAF will automatically have more fighters to do CAS, they they did before anyway.

The Navy may be the one that actually adopts the Tejas as its own and the N-LCA has a much better potential than the AF version...
...The IN on the other hand, may have a gem in the Tejas as it gets a reasonable strike asset which is small enough to be stored in enough numbers on its carriers.

Not at all! They even admited that they develop it only because the industry needs experience in navalising a fighter, not because they think N-LCA will be a good carrier fighter.
For strikes it's hardly useable as well, because it lacks the payload will be limited and more fuel has to be carried, not to mention that it will carry only IR missiles for self defence. In any case, the Mig will be INs prime fighter for anti ship and A2G roles, while N-LCA will be used for air defence only, so IN will have the same interest in increasing it's A2A performance as IAF has.

 

[Armstrong]

The TWR might only be one problem, but don't forget that there seems to be a drag problem as well. Even with similar TWRs, the speed of the Mirage 2000 is much higher than what Tejas has achieved so far and from what was the development goal.

Tejas was always meant to be the low end of IAF, but that just mean that it was meant to be a very capable low end fighter.

But CAS is not the prime role for IAF, air defence is! To increas CAS capability IA now gets the armed combat helicopters and with the addition of new multi role fighters and modernisations of Mig 29 and M2K, IAF will automatically have more fighters to do CAS, they they did before anyway.

Not at all! They even admited that they develop it only because the industry needs experience in navalising a fighter, not because they think N-LCA will be a good carrier fighter.
For strikes it's hardly useable as well, because it lacks the payload will be limited and more fuel has to be carried, not to mention that it will carry only IR missiles for self defence. In any case, the Mig will be INs prime fighter for anti ship and A2G roles, while N-LCA will be used for air defence only, so IN will have the same interest in increasing it's A2A performance as IAF has.

So dude what are you essentially saying ? That it was started as more of a stepping stone for the military aviation industry & that the project itself evolved over the years till a point that these demands & counter-demands, designs & their approvals, requirements & their projected availability etc. are what kept setting the project back !

P.S If the Tejas is inducted...what role does it play ? As in if it was supposed to be a 'low-end' fighter for the IAF (in much the same way the JF-17 is supposed to be for us) & the MKIs the high-end of the mix (in much the same way the F-16s or possibly the FC-20s are for us) where do the Rafaels & the Mirages fall ? Is their a mid-tier in the mix too or is it going to be more of a Tejas+Rafaels+Mirages = Low End, with a possible high-low mixture of its own within that the 'overall low-end' category ?

 

[sancho]

What started off as a MiG 21 replacement is now being compared to the Mirage! That is insane.

No it's not, it's just logical because Tejas was not meant to be a new 3rd gen fighte, but a 4th gen with good future potential. Even some of the Mig 21s were used for CAS roles with rockets and some dumb bombs, Tejas was meant to replace them, but higher capabilities than the Mig 21s, as a 4th gen light weight fighter and therefor logically more comparable to Mirage 2000.

For this, too, the Tejas was the right answer. It just means more sorties with less ordnance on each sortie, but the end result in terms of ordnance delivered will remain the same.

Actually, that depends on what kind of load we talk. The Mirage used 1 x fuel tank, 2 x 1000lb LGBs in Kargil, Tejas MK1 can carry the same weapon load but can carry up to 3 x fuel tanks at the same time, although the payload on paper is much lower. That will remain the same even when the M2Ks are upgraded, because they only add missile stations, not heavy stations. The difference then will be, that the M2K will be able to carry up to 6 x AAMs at the same time, while even Tejas MK2 will only have 2 x IR missiles.

 

[SQ8]

Not at all! They even admited that they develop it only because the industry needs experience in navalising a fighter, not because they think N-LCA will be a good carrier fighter.
For strikes it's hardly useable as well, because it lacks the payload will be limited and more fuel has to be carried, not to mention that it will carry only IR missiles for self defence. In any case, the Mig will be INs prime fighter for anti ship and A2G roles, while N-LCA will be used for air defence only, so IN will have the same interest in increasing it's A2A performance as IAF has.

But its small size makes it fairly good for low key power projections.
I suppose a study of the N-LCA would be better in revealing its performance data .

 

[sancho]

So dude what are you essentially saying?...

Sorry, will reply later, have to go now.

 

[Armstrong]

But its small size makes it fairly good for low key power projections.
I suppose a study of the N-LCA would be better in revealing its performance data .

Wouldn't that advantage be off-set by a smaller range as well when compared with a bigger aircraft ?

 

[IND151]

@ post no. 12> very logical explanation.

 

[SQ8]

Wouldn't that advantage be off-set by a smaller range as well when compared with a bigger aircraft ?

Its a case of what Sancho said.. in an effort to boost indigenous usage..the IN will settle for something that offers lesser range.. but gives the ability to keep in numbers.

 

[rockstarIN]

Wouldn't that advantage be off-set by a smaller range as well when compared with a bigger aircraft ?

it should be a good combination. Like chess, more pawns wont help you to win the game. You need other bigger players indeed.

 

[arp2041]

it should be a good combination. Like chess, more pawns wont help you to win the game. You need other bigger players indeed.

Don't neglect the potential of pawns mate, if they reach the last square they can be converted to any piece u like

 

[sexy gun]

it should be a good combination. Like chess, more pawns wont help you to win the game. You need other bigger players indeed.

carefully positioned pawns can break enemy knights/Queen's advances severely !! + if it goes down fighting, in most certainty it will go down with a bigger piece if you are getting the drift..

 

[Thorough Pro]

Kickbacks?