TeerIts usually the country that fears about getting overwhelmed quickly by a larger enemy which practices flights from motorways, quick turn arounds etc. For Eg. Sweden against the Soviet Union. This is to a lesser degree similar in the India Pakistan context.
If India is ever going to do the same it would be with respect to the Chinese.
Good points. TAT though is a key factor even for regular ops.
Versus the PRC, the limiting factor has been how many fighters they can deploy in theater, and second, early warning.
The first is being addressed by deploying Su-30 MKIs to the NE, and the second via new sensor inductions. IMHO, we are unlikely to see all these motorway stunts by the IAF in the NE.
They simply dont give us a tactical advantage. We’d rather defend our infra/AFB and build them up to handle large scale attacks.
TeerIf you divide the array by 6, you are dividing the average power/ six and range will be drastically curtailed or am I missing something?
TeerReally clutching at straws there..
He addressed what AFs regard as the key metric, the strip length and width for ops. It matters because in wartime, damaged strips are often the norm and ops need to be run even as the runway repair crews get to work.
The rest is really not that big a deal vis a vis this aspect.
Now if the PAF manages to compress the take off distance/use smaller feeder roads etc to take off/recover aircraft, that may actually count for something.
TeerMisraji
Hope you are suitably impressed – note clear absence of anything re: countering the IAF guys basic point though.
TeerNice!
How much is the Kaveri enable to put out these days?
In Bangalore on a static level test bed, reheat thrust of 72 Kn demonstrated. Expected to go up in actual flight conditions at altitude.
TeerGreat find Kramer.
I had raised this road takeoff business once with an IAF person, after seeing clips of Singaporean fighters doing something similar..he wasnt that interested in the concept. According to him, India had enough AFB already and really didn’t need this method for dispersed operation. The above numbers put that conversation in further perspective.
TeerKramer, I’ve been following the JF-17 since the past few years, and it is a decent 4th gen. fighter, even with the Chinese avionics (I think the KLJ-7 radar on it is likely to be a phased array radar).
No evidence of it being anything but a MSA..
You do know that all it’s avionics etc. are derived from J-10, right ? It has a good enough MAWs, HMS (albeit a Chinese one), RWR and a laser-designator/ target pod. It has one MORE weapon-station than the Tejas. IAF would definitely not treat it on par with a MiG-21 bis.
The JF-17 as it stands today is more advanced than PAF’s 20-year old F-16 Cs. And if Pak manages to get French or western avionics/weapons for JF-17, it will become a very lethal fighter in the class of Tejas, which should worry the IAF.
Only if they get the IR Mica and a French IRST to use it with…RF threats, well lets just say there is something in hand to deal with those. 😀
You may also end your debate with vikasrehman over the generation of the JF-17. The queries on the current or future BVR-capability of the JF-17, and other such small issues were also unnecessary. It IS a BVR-capable jet. Period.
Sure..when you end your MRCA and PAKFA sidetrack in every thread. :p
And being BVR capable ain’t the same as BVR operational..
Teer^^^ Well with weapons and Pylons hanging externally it really does not matter what they managed to achieve with RAM , its practically usless.
Every bit of reduction matters for a fighter the size of a Fulcrum. Going from 5 Sq Mtr to 1 means that the figure with a loadout is correspondingly reduced, with a direct impact at BVR (frontal). An average missile + pylon, if taken as a contribution of around 0.1 Sq Mtr, would translate to another Sq Mtr for around 8 pylons. A range of X km vs a 6 Sq Mtr fighter would go to 0.75 X against a 2 Sq Mtr (frontal, X-Band) fighter.
Remember, the Fulcrum carries a 120-150 km class MSA, so the RCS reduction has an impact both on detection/tracking range advantage versus a representative threat, plus jammer efficacy (the more the RCS, the more power the jammer needs to put out to compensate and vice versa).
To achieve the same advantage gained by the RCS reduction, ie 25% advantage in terms of “detection” versus a representative threat, ie the radar detects the opponent at 25% more range, the transmitter power would have to be increased by 4 times, or the receiver sensitivity improved. Which means further expensive work on a radar design especially if it is already mature and said improvements may not even be possible in a design without significant re-engineering! In contrast, the RCS reduction approach can work out to be more cost effective.
TeerThe imports have hovered around the 70% mark for years…the no of systems made in house has increased but so has the size of the defense forces.
Good thing is that in the coming years, the % of local contribution will steadily increase: The w/referring to import or licensed
eg SAGW systems – Akash, MRSAM, SRSAM w/SpyDer (import)
Radars: DRDO AEW&C, MPR, LLTR, LLLWR w/ imported equivalents – procurement is being split between local and imports, plus additional local systems eg Rohini
C3I- Local (IACCS) w/some import (ODL & comms hardware)
Transports: MRTA, NAL 100 seater planned + upg AN-32s, IL-76, C-130, C-17s
At least the An-32s will be out.
Choppers: ALH, LCH, Cheetal, LOH, MLH w/ Mi-17 Upg, Chinooks, Mi-26 (unless scrapped)
Fighters: LCA, MCA, FGFA w/MRCA, Su-30 MKI, MiG-29, Mirage 2000, Jags (MiG-27s will be the first to go)
..
Things arent perfect, but are on a much steadier rate of improvement. Basically, its all about money and effort. The effort put in over the past 2 decades and the coming one, will pay off in the years thence, whereas a growing economy will allow India to finally fund its ambitions of 70% local sourcing, which otherwise was just a pie in the sky projection, with no funding to back it up.
TeerIt is just frustrating…sorry for the rant.
I understand.
I do wish there was some nodal MOD agency which would answer all queries ASAP, but our folks simply haven’t woken up to the fact that there are people like you who are even aware there is a LCA or XCA and are even interested in it. The key thing for ADA is to keep the IAF happy.
If you can, make your way to Aero India 2011 next year, you will have the LCA team there including the IAF, and they are very forthcoming about the details. It will give you a very good overview of the program, and where it stands, user perception, all those things.
TeerRelax dude, they know what they have to.
You make me remember about my childhood when all the teachers, my parents would just keep on saying about my low scores and say that I need to study well or will be taken out to some low school. One thing that they never said was “How to study well?”.
There is no point in keep on complaining unless you take ownership and lead the way. And if that is not going to happen just keep praying so that God would send someone who will lead.
Being able to take the blame when things go bad, and pass the credit to the team when things go well – that’s leadership. How many have it?
However, its always easiest to create a scene, make a fuss, pass the buck and generally find a scapegoat to fix the problem on. Gives the impression of change, makes sure everyone leaves, and the next patsy who comes in gets set up for failure.
Its probably like a Dilbert strip, but it happens everywhere..
TeerLeaving aside Sukhoi which is another govt supported organization…Boeing.LM etc come out with reasons and explanations when late. Plus people if responsible get punished. The head of the F-35 program was humiliated and fired for delays and cost overruns. Compare this to the head of the ADA…he gives out a specific date August 2008 for the LSP3. That date has come and gone and it is nearly 2 years. Did he come out and tell why. If you can’t meet deadlines don’t give any. If you can’t meet it at least have the decency to tell why.
Re: deadlines, What makes you sure that the head of ADA has not told the IAF why LSP is not out yet? Are you aware of how frequent the reviews are. As things stand, the IAF knows all the details of the LCA and are ok with the program. This business about LSP3 is a bit of a red herring for the IOC.
Coming to people getting punished and that being a big thing, that’s a good joke. Which head of the F-35 program got punished. A general got shuffled out. Chances are after some time, he’ll end up with some other program. But the actual guy in charge, the head of LM is sitting pretty, with Gates acknowledging he cant do much there. This when the price of the JSF has ballooned to the level that it will breach Congressional tripwire limits and may rise even more. Talk about a dog and pony show.
The Boeing 787 has had delay after delay, the A400M is delayed, costs have ballooned, much punishment going on with the heads of respective Govts sitting and discussing with Airbus how to fund the program lest Airbus drop the program..
Do inform, how much punishment has been dealt out here:
“German Military Frustrated with EADS”
http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/aug2009/gb2009086_977202.htm
And all this in nations with funding, infrastructure and capabilities that are ahead of Indias. Seriously, you are either absolutely unaware of how these things are, worldwide, or are just venting.
In India, all this “drama” of humiliation, firing, all that bunk, will do little to improve the LCA. The real challenges will remain, and have to be fixed by the same people whom you wish to “humiliate”, “fire” or whatever, most of whom are key specialists and in short supply as is. When the Agni rocket motor failed, that too in front of Rajiv Gandhi, Kalam did not call in the lead designer to humiliate him, fire him. He called him, asked him to fix the problem, and took the entire blame. Thats leadership, not playing a silly blame game when things dont go your way.
As things stand, PS has led the LCA program to the cusp of success, with a consistent track record of managing critical requirements, including moving the entire avionics architecture from a bespoke architecture to a modern one within 3 years, meeting the IAF’s ever rising expectations, making sure that the LCA’s key challenges are met one by one, and instead of utilizing his experience to the utmost and get the job done, you’d rather do something which worsens the situation.
Yeah, makes a lot of sense.
There is something however, to be said about regular updates & PR gigs so that you can feel that you are aware of whats going on with the LCA. But the frank fact of life is that the primary customer, namely the IAF, is kept informed, and they too don’t care much about ADA informing everyone about whats going on with details of systems, challenges etc.
That’s the way things are.
Nine out of ten folks dont even know there are people like you on the internet who even know that there is a LSP3. If you are indeed that concerned, write to your MP, and he can raise it in Parliament and Antony will answer it.
He may absolutely muck up the answer as he did with Naval Tejas, but at least you’ll have your answer.
TeerWith respect, if you say you are going to get LSP3 into the air in 2008 and you don’t do so by 2010, you have failed.
With even more respect, you are arguing about a topic you are clearly not much informed about. The deadline for LSP3 is a problem if the IAF complains about it. Thats about it. Not who complains about it on the internet.
I guess there is something in your comment about joining ADA – kicking the plodders out and replacing them with more dynamic people conscious of deadlines might get things done a little more ASAP. Kicking out the people in other organisations who hold things up for ADA would help, too. Kicking people out of government who hold things up for those organisations would help, too.
Yeah sure, let me ask you on behalf of India to make your way over to Israel and kick out everyone at Elta, as they are not dynamic and conscious of deadlines. After all, it was they who are the specialists brought in and paid for to get the MMR up and running. While at that, you might want to kick out everyone in the IAF as well, since it was they who insisted on a full A2G MMR set up when as matter of fact, production is actually intended to shift to another set..
When we’re done with those guys, lets find more guys to kick out..
Seriously all this “kick people out” business is amateur fire and brimstone which has little relation and does not solve any of the challenges being faced.
TeerWe have seen almost every project in the world related to high tech airplanes going over budget and surely delayed. As you said. Economy makes the difference. And with no electricity for the major part of the day you can write down that there is hardly an economy possible. JF17 was delayed 2 years. Atleast India has many offers but you must understand that both nations are an example of mismanagement. It is unrealistic to blaim just one side.
Hmm, well my point was not to bring India into the debate at all, we know where that ends.
Back on topic:
What other options are available to the JF-17 team?
KLJ-7 w/SD-10 + Chinese systems
Grifo-S w/Derby + South African/Italian systems
IMHO, the first will be cheaper and less of a hassle than the second, but will still be fairly expensive..
TeerYa…he said the LSP3 will fly in August 2008. It is April 2010.When was this interview done,sometime in early 2008?..he said the trainer jet is “around the corner”. It came out in the end of 2009. This is what I am talking about…don’t give timelines you cannot meet. In any other industry you will get fired if you tell your customer you will get something in this timeline and then keep screwing up.
The customer doesnt seem to be too cut up about it, namely the IAF, so why are you venting? Do you seriously think if there was an insurmountable problem caused due to ADA incompetence, the IAF would not have been vocal about it?
That apart, the radar issue will involve methodical time consuming work. The MMR as it stands is a hybrid Indo-Israeli set chosen to enable A2G functionality. Testing and debugging will take time.
Look, the LCA program is reviewed every couple of months with the IAF. If the radar integration is delayed and yet theres no brouhaha about it, that means its being done with IAF knowledge and acquiescence. Its fairly straightforward.
The point is to get some perspective. Go through the links I gave you, and you’ll realise that there is not a single program out there which has not missed some deadline, faced some problem.
Understanding the topic will help, ranting about it is of no use.
Sign In
