TeerMaybe that HAL is not able to produce Hawk? So eryone gets one ride in the Hawk end goes to the (yet to be developed) LCA?
Absolutely, HAL should tie up with PAC Kamra which makes screws, rubber stuff etc for the ultra modern Mirage-3 and taught China how to make the K-8, to learn how to make the Hawk.
After that, India should adopt the PAF training regimen, where everyone gets four hundred rides in the K-8 and only one ride in the super duper, already operational JF-17, one of which is equal to 10 Su-30 MKIs.
Anything else?
TeerMaybe I am just dumb and need points explaining to me. If disagreeing with things I am told sometimes makes me dumb, maybe it is not such a bad thing.
You have STILL not answered my question of HAWK/LCA yet indulged in a personal attack.
Shall we stick to the topic in hand or do you now realise you cannot back up your argument on the HAWK/LCA/OCU training claim you were making?
Or maybe, I already explained my point that as things stand the OCUs have a fairly extensive syllabus which includes basic concepts not addressed at the Hawk level, and which consumes expensive flight hour and resources especially for heavier aircraft (eg MKI) and also for those whose spares come from outside (eg Mirage 2000) and that pooling LIFT and exposing pilots to these concepts earlier would help. And it is upto the IAF to do a cost benefit analysis to determine whether this would work and prior reports suggest they are seriously looking at it.
And it was not a personal attack to clearly point out that your game of one upmanship “you now realise that you cannot back up…etc” was accurately captured by RahulM earlier.
The more you behave in this manner, the more you validate his analysis.
TeerRahul, 21Ankush, USS..
Confirmation that the LUSH Sea Harriers have Derby and Magic. Did some digging:
The Navy’s force of Sea Harriers is being upgraded under the LUSH programme. Can give an overview of its enhanced capabilities?
Rear Admiral Venkat Shankar, Assistant Chief of Naval Staff (Air): The Limited Upgrade Sea Harrier (LUSH) involves the following added capabilities:
• Integration of Beyond Visual Range (BVR) missiles in addition to the already existing Magic II all aspect air to air missile. The Harrier’s combat engagement range will be significantly enhanced with the availability of the missile.
• The Elta pulse Doppler multi-mode radar has replaced the older Blue Fox pulse monopulse radar. The search and detection capabilities of this modern radar are excellent.
• The combat Manoeuvre Monitor and Flight Recorder (CMMFR) System which essentially is a datalink between aircraft has been added to the Sea Harrier. This capability of datalink was not there on the earlier aircraft and will greatly improve the situational awareness of a group of aircraft when they operate together.[/quote]
and:
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/Harrier.html
This upgrade, codenamed LUSH (Limited Upgrade Sea Harrier), has retrofitted the aircraft with state-of-the-art avionics & weaponry and was performed by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) in Bangalore. The Elta EL/M-2032 radar, the Derby BVRAAM, combat manoeuvring flight recorders and digital cockpit voice recorders were among the equipment that were retrofitted.
Defence Minister Pranab Mukherjee stated that the aircraft were upgraded at a cost of Rs 476.69 crore. A formal contract, worth $25 million, was signed with Rafael in February 2005 for the Derby BVRAAM and includes an initial batch of 20 missiles and six training rounds. Under the proposed contract, officials from Rafael will be stationed at the Sea Harrier base in Goa to train Navy personnel on the operation & maintenance of the missiles and will also supply trolleys and racks to load & handle the missiles. Delivery of the missiles were expected to begin 30 months after the signing of the contract and were to be completed within one year thereafter. To date, there have been no confirmed reports from the Indian Navy indicating that deliveries have taken place. As of late 2008, four aircraft have completed the upgrade and the remaining are expected to be done in 2009.
So its 2 Derby and 2 Magic II using the DRDO developed dual rails for the SHar (Harry) plus 2 fuel tanks.
I guess they would have put in a MFD and done some HOTAS work also.
TeerIn a massive reply you managed to cover eberything bar answering the main question.
Please explain (consideing you are th eone suggesting it), how a HAWK/LCA/OCU training programme will be better then a HAWK/OCU programme. If you cannot answer this one question, you entire argument falls flat on its feet.
I have already explained it. Its up to you to even attempt to understand.
What I stated was understood by 21Ankush & RahulM – but clearly you wont even attempt to understand.
In fact your tactics are rather obvious and covered well by Rahul here – its a bit of a pity I hadn’t read them earlier but now.
RahulM writes:
rimmer, spare me the appeals to conscience and such. I am now quite educated about your method of argument and am not going to spend time unnecessarily engaging it.
all you do is
a) make an unfounded statement, not based on facts or any discernible logic but on ‘feelings’
b) dumb down whatever statement the other person makes so that one tiny point agrees with your peculiar statement, losing all nuances and aspects of the argument in the process and then claim that the person has agreed with your asinine point.
you did this with me, now you are applying same tactics with USS.this means either,
a) you are unable to grasp a point unless you dumb it down to your level
or
b) which is more likely, you deliberately pretend to misunderstand or ignore any counter-arguments.whichever it is, it is unlikely that anyone will be able to convince you anything other than what you want to believe, irrespective of the truth or logic.
that said, I do believe(you don’t have to agree, in fact I know you won’t ! ) that I have managed to convey my stand to any rational reader who read this exchange. in that way, my job is done. goodbye.
Unless of course, as you hint. India has been sold duff Hawks.
Another statement not even worth a reply, and incidentally falls fair and square with what the other poster said above.
TeerGood you bring up the T50. The Koreans admitted it is overpriced, a bit to good for the role and that is the reason it is not selling.
The T-50 is in the running for even the IAF’s next AJT program and others.
And as regards it being overpriced and not selling, the customer who really needs it will pay for it. The arguement of being overpriced has been made against a long list of aircraft- the EF, the JSF – its a very subjective debate and not really objective.
Good to know that RAF is wrong that it uses the Hawk as AJT. Same goes for US Goshawk.
How amusing that you have to hide behind the RAF or any other AF when you simply cannot counter the fact that programs like the T-50 exist with a very similar aim as what we were discussing? Since you even brought up the on paper Sea Gripen (quite bizarrely), then even the MAKO is germane which quite clearly mentions its HEAT and LCA concepts.
So much for your analogies.
Seems to me that you are obsessed with an id. It reminds me of Mufassa mufassa… But in your case it is Munir Munir… 😉 I hope you do enjoy Pakdef. You have the knowledge to post there or is it only reading? I can pull a lot of defaming quotes on BRF about others. Pakdef is horrible correct.
Why would I even bother posting there.
The point was & is that your behaviour on Pakdef & general hatred for the India, and inveterate jingoism is quite indicative of your intent here & your general behaviour on India related threads.
Its sad really, that you dont even make a basic attempt to have a discussion and only flame bait all the time. A google search shows that even a Pakistani forum kicked you out for this same behaviour (Defense.pk) – just goes to show that its a general trait, which really impedes any constructive discussion on your part.
About your quality. Again it is your personal opinion. I do have a different idea.
I’d take that opinion as worth something, if 90% of your posts were not flamebaits, and not atrociously spelled, grammatically tortured attempts to troll. No contributions to any discussion worth even a mention, sad really.
O gosh, now you add AESA on LCA. Already integrated and operational on a prototype?
Again, is this is your imagination about anyone saying an integrated AESA operational on any LCA prototype?
What is with this behaviour, Munir? Cant you just stick to the facts and have a constructive discussion instead of making things up, all the time. Its bizarre, seriously.
As I said, you hardly need testing on LCA while you ask technical data and battles against the best if it is about others. seem to me the same sens is doing when it comes to engines of China. 😉
Again, yet another example of your twisting and spinning, and flame baiting.
Who said that the LCA “hardly needs testing”- care to point out where I or anyone else has said this?
First, what relation does Sens have to this topic?
Why are you flaming Sens on an India related topic and trying to drag your irrelevant flamewars on another thread into this one?
Ridiculous.
If you lack the courage to debate Sens about his opinions, then dont trash this thread with your trash talk.
TeerA little knowledge is a dangerous thing hey!? 😉
Absolutely, your post demonstrates it.
Do you know what OCUs do? Am assuiming you do.
Good assumption, for once on your part.
Hawk can actually similuate BVR,
A Hawk can simulate BVR, a Tejas will be BVR capable, theres a difference.
but before I go into that let me tell you a few things
1) Not all IAF pilots will go on to BVR. Some will go on to ground attack. You are actually suggesting the HAWK performs the role traditionally performed by OCUs.
Apparently reading comprehension is not your strong point. I quite clearly mentioned a bunch of multirole fighters of which BVR is one component and also mentioned the A2G aspect.
And yes, I am saying some of the load that is currently at the OCU doing the basics can be transferred to the LIFT as it wastes resources at the OCU level.
2) Going from basic BVR training on Hawk, to BVR on LCA then learning BVR AGAIN in an OCU will be a massive waste of time and resources.
Your opinion, which I would gladly take with a nice lump of salt, given that the IAF may consider having a pool of fully combat capable trainers across the spectrum more effective than just trainers with limited combat capability.
Second, the IAF has seriously considered this move this very year, as part of its initial plans for the LCA MK-Is second squadron, till operational needs changed this to a standard squadron. I’d take them far more seriously than your opinion, I’m afraid.
3) Have you seen the Hawk cockpit? Do you actually know what you are talking about here?
Saw one intended for the IAF as recent as Jan ’09 and yes, unfortunately for you I do know what I am talking about.
I daresay thats more than what experience you have in either arena.
4) The comments on the Hawk show a lack of knowledge on this product. India is not just the only new customer. South Africa, RAAF and RAF have all ordered the new versions of the Hawk to train pilots to go straight to Gripen/F-35/Typhoon. These jets have cockpits more advanced then anything in the IAF.
Grow up will you. Playing word games again.
First, comparing India to these AF’s is futile – Indias needs are different, its inventory more varied, its priorities are different. Second, you torpedo your own claims by stating that these Hawks have cockpits more advanced than India’s – only goes to show the capabilities you assume for India’s Hawks may well not be there. Third, again more hyperbole from your end as I really dont see how all three have cockpits more advanced than anything in the IAF as the Su-30 MKI cockpit quite decently compares with what is on the Gripen for eg, and what the IAF is inducting in the coming years may well be the Gripen or the Typhoon, plus it has its FGFA program.
All in all, yet another example of ridiculous overblown rhetoric from your end.
Again, what we have here is another classic example of posters trying to twist things to fit the way they want to see the world…..
Absolutely, your twisting and turning is quite bizarre and tiresome.
Heres another bit of news for you:
Only goes to show India is NOT completely happy with its current Hawks and is looking at alternatives which include alternatives like the T-50 which is quite similar to what is being discussed here.
If you were more focused on the topic rather than engaging in puffery (“have you seen a Hawk cockpit, do you know what you are talking of ) etc. and similar ridiculous chest beating, you would have known this already.
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/04/02/324704/india-issues-advanced-trainer-rfi.html
“There is a perception in the Indian air force that its model of the Hawk may not be suitable for the fighters that the service hopes to buy in the coming decades,” says a New Delhi-based analyst, who is also a former Indian air force pilot.
“Of course, part of the problem is that the air force took such a long time to select the Hawk that there always was the danger that the aircraft might become obsolete sooner rather than later. This is especially so when we compare the Hawk 132 to aircraft such as the M-346 and T-50. The Hawk has a role to play in the foreseeable future, but the air force will require more modern advanced jet trainers later on,” the analyst says.
The Hawk has fallen behind the M-346 and T-50 in recent AJT competitions. The M-346 won the United Arab Emirates’ tender in February, edging out the T-50 after a lengthy competition. Both types are still in contention for Singapore’s closely watched tender, with the Hawk having already been eliminated. BAE, however, has consistently reiterated that the Hawk still has a future in several overseas markets, including India.
TeerSo will India develop the radar on her own (as I thought they were doing) or use a foreign AESA radar? And what will be on the LSP-3?
Develop the radar on her own. The program was formally sanctioned in Nov 2008. But they will tie up with an established house as need be to get upto scratch in specific subsystems and/or consultancy to speed things up. Companies which have so far offered their entire systems or codevelopment include EADS, Phazatron (via the MRCA) and Elta. Thats what the article refers to, ie EADS’s pitch. They got to know what ADA/HAL/MK2 wanted an AESA for the MK-II and quickly stepped in with an offer.
But it will not be a radar bought outright as I noted above.
This time around the program is being led by LRDE and not HAL, which makes ample sense as the LRDE is focused on radars and has a good knowledge base on radars and has been increasing its airborne radar footprint (SV-2000, VX-2004 and the AEW&C primary radar).
This decision makes sense from the technology and economics point of view as well. Currently, LRDE has a range of systems for ground use & a couple of X Band MSA for airborne (helicopters and light transports) in production, but this will be a system with wide potential for fighter and other applications.
The LRDE is now establishing itself firmly in AESAs – it designed the LRTR and MFCR long range multifunction AESAs for the BMD program with Elta & Thales respectively, and now has its own programs for Medium powered AESAs for air surveillance for the IAF.
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/News/Politics/Nation/Indian-Defence-to-outsource-radar-work-and-battle-management-system/articleshow/5292420.cms
In the airborne segment, the LRDE has the AEW&C program and the LSTAR (scaled down AESA demonstrator array for the primary radar) has now cleared its ground based tests and is ready to be fitted for airborne tests as well.
http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl2625/stories/20091218262510200.htm
So the X Band AESA will round out LRDE’s portfolio. What this offers India is (finally) the chance to replicate the success it has had in other avionics. Currently via the LCA and other programs, India is now self sufficient in Mission computers, display map generators, Radar warners, Mission planning systems etc. These are all very expensive items and end up constituting a substantial chunk of the cost of any kitted out airframe.
But there was a crucial lack of a FCR – which means that any future upgrades and development programs would continue to be hampered. This program will address that.
On the LSP-3, original aim was to have an ELTA EL/M-2032 as the MMR got ready. But given current program achievements (as of early 2009), its probable that they might go with the MMR itself (the revised one with Elta 2032 tech ported into it). The MMR hybrid was functioning pretty ok and ASTE pilots were happy with it.
TeerAbandoned a few years ago, when the UAE withdrew support for development. Nobody else was willing to pay.
EADS is still pushing the Mako at air fairs, so the program is not abandoned I guess.
As of March 2009 (website update date) EADS still had this on their site:
http://www.eads.com/1024/en/businet/defence/mas/projects/mako_family_concept/mako_family_concept.html
Interestingly, it notes: “Light Combat Aircraft/LCA und Mako HEAT”
They go on to say:
EADS Military Aircraft defined the Mako concept to fill this market gap, a family concept for a High Energy Advanced Trainer (HEAT) and Light Combat Aircraft (LCA). This family concept is well-balanced because it is based on a common platform and provides technical, logistic and commercial advantages. This concept enables technology and equipment to be used equally for Mako HEAT and the LCA, thus opening up growth potentials for the coming decades.
Clearly paralleling the discussion on this thread, where we were talking of taking the Indian LCA into something similar.
But I do agree the program has had the rug yanked out from under its feet vis a vis the KA-50.
BTW what happened to the AT-2000 program? Is it still alive? I thought the Mako was competing for it.
From what I can remember, there are 3-4 new advanced LIFT in the market:
The T-50 & variants, the Yak-130 & variants, the M-346 (which I guess is basically the M-346) and then theres the Chinese L-15.
Of these, the T-50 seems to be the most advanced of the bunch with the most fitted out kit, whereas the M-346 offers more capabilities for simulation. The Yak-130 seems similar (same program heritage after all) but NIIP & Phaza have both long offer light radars & ROE also has new lightweight avionics which could be incorporated as well.
This is apart from older more established airframes like the Hawk etc.
I might have missed a few recent programs so please feel free to add.
TeerThis image is from AERO INDIA 2009….
It says, ‘AESA radar for Light Combat Aircraft.‘ This is probably from a European company Now which radar it is? CAESAR? NORA/Vixen?
Credit: yaswanth, BR
It is in all likelihood a variant of Caesar, rather Captor E.
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2008/02/tejas-lca-to-get-high-tech-aesa-radar.html
Olivier Travert, Vice President, EADS Defence and Security says, “EADS has checked and confirmed that the AESA radar can be fitted on India’s LCA. It will be a customised version of the AESA radar that is fitted on the Eurofighter. We will submit our bids to HAL soon.”
Note though that the prototype of the Captor E on the EF looks different:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_mDvQ8xYRdSI/SoVichxzo5I/AAAAAAAAADw/EU4mNhejpGw/s400/CAESAR.jpg
EADS’s sensors specialist is Selex Galileo which makes the CAPTOR.
I dont recall Thales coming out with a mockup of any AESA radar for the LCA either.
Teeryes, very clearly it exists. in the absence of a proper AJT/LIFT aircraft, IAF compromised with MOFTU.
it has the Hawk now but is clearly disappointed with it. many future air forces will be moving towards supersonic jet trainers, viz. korean T-50 (which is generating interest from many AFs including the israeli AF http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-50_Golden_Eagle#Operators), hongdu L-15 etc. I’m sure PAF would have gone for L-15 if it could afford it. who knows it may well want a few in the future. some people would have been singing a very different tune then ! :dev2:
of course, the USAF has been using supersonic jet trainers for a long time now, the T-38 which itself was derived from an aircraft of the LCA’s weight class, the F-5. the USAF fighter pilots train on the T-38 (AJT stage) and then go on to the AT-38 for weapons training (similar to LIFT stage)
so, yes I do think the need exists.
—————
coming to the IAF in particular, current fighter pilot training looks likeHPT-32 –> HJT-16 –> Hawk/MOFTU (there aren’t enough hawks AFAIK) –> Conversion training in sqdns
the future would ideally look like
HTT-40/some other turbo trainer –> HJT-36 –> Hawk/LCA derived trainer –> LCA LIFT(filling in for MOFTU) –> Conversion training in sqdns
Exactly.
I too thought of the T-50 when i posted about the LIFT part.
Unfortunately the usual characters started with the attacks, trying to piggyback on Zero’s honest questions.
Heck, the mere fact that the LCA is flying seems to send these characters into a tizzy, let alone a discussion of what else it could be used for.
Apart from the T-50, there is the EADS MAKO.
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/mako/
The trainer variant, with a stepped two-seat cockpit, is offered with and without the internal gun and multi-mode radar. In-flight weapon system simulators can be installed with a library of synthetic targets and threats.
A variant of the Tejas two seater can clearly perform roles similar to the Mako and T-50, but it seems the mere thought of it doing so sends trolls into a tizzy.
Note this was the ORIGINAL plan for the second LCA MK-I squadron
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2009/02/after-hawk-supersonic-trainer-lca.html
Which the IAF has apparently changed to a standard fighter squadron for immediate operational reasons.
Now the IAF is purchasing another trainer that could equip its pilots even better for flying the high performance fighters — the upgraded Jaguars, MiG-21s, 27s and 29s, the Mirage 2000s, the brutally powerful Su-30MKI and the MMRCA, when that is inducted — which will comprise the new IAF.
Top MoD sources have told Business Standard that the IAF will soon order from Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) twelve of the newly developed two-seater trainer version of the Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA). The DRDO chief, Dr M Natarajan confirms that the Tejas trainer is set to make its first flight within two months.
This will give IAF pilots an additional stage of training. Currently, Stage I is carried out on a basic trainer, the HPT-32; Stage II on slightly faster and more complex aircraft like the Kiran; and Stage III on the jet-engined, but sub-sonic Hawk AJT. The induction of an LCA trainer will allow IAF pilots to fly a supersonic, light fighter before graduating to the combat squadrons.
So clearly the idea exists, the concept has been evaluated and there was serious interest in it.
Now that the two seater trainer is flying, there is no reason why the IAF may not end up picking either this or the MK2 versions of the same in the future.
But even this basic level of research was not done by the aforesaid characters as they continued with snide remarks about “indiginous” and “roles”.
The manner in which these comments were made clearly indicate indicate a simmering insecurity that the LCA may end up with even more orders apart from those currently planned. Why, the mere discussion of the possibility was enough to trigger the insecurity.
TeerTeer cannot be taken serious. Let us go to RAF where the Hawk is made and used. I do not think these people do not know what they do…
http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/hawk128.cfm
Quote:
The Hawk 128 was selected as the new Advanced Jet Trainer (AJT) for the UK Armed Forces in July 2003. The Hawk 128 will be used by both RAF and RN pilots for fast-jet aircrew training and will replace the existing aircraft of Nos 19 and 208 (Reserve) Squadrons at RAF Valley. It will train aircrew for Harrier, Tornado, Typhoon and the future Joint Combat Aircraft.Now mr Teer is telling us that we are pathetic and is allowed to do so for many posts. There is a need to have “indiginous” plane in between. And he surely can tell us that it is cost effective while we have no clue when its superior alternative ever gets operational status. All I can say that mr Teer does add zero facts and is trying to “convince” (I would say intimidate with personal remarks) that his opinion is true. Maybe he thinks that quantity of posts is more important.
Munir, isnt it high time you quit whining and realized that copy pasting what the RAF etc are doing is not worth much without understanding the topic at hand.
What works for the RAF may not necessarily work for the IAF. It may not even be the only option.
Ah, lets see what Korea is doing.
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/t-50/
The T-50 Golden Eagle, formerly known as the KTX-2, jet trainer and light attack aircraft is being built for the Republic of Korea Air Force (RoKAF). The aircraft is being developed in the T-50A advanced trainer and T-50B lead in fighter trainer versions. The T-50 LIFT is called the A-50 by RoKAF. The T-50 is designed to provide pilot training for current and next-generation fighters like advanced F-16s, F-22s and the joint strike fighter.
And lets see what systems go on the T-50:
Cockpit
The aircraft has digital fly-by-wire controls and HOTAS (hands on throttle and stick). The cockpit displays include two 127mm full colour Honeywell multifunction displays, Honeywell instrumentation displays and a head-up display (HUD) supplied by BAE Systems.
“The T-50 is designed to provide pilot training for current and next-generation fighters.”The full authority digital flight control system and avionics were developed by Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Division at Fort Worth.
The flight equipment includes a navigation / attack system, a Honeywell H-764G embedded global positioning / inertial navigation system and HG9550 radar altimeter, Rockwell Collins VIR-130A integrated VOR / instrument landing system and ARN-153V advanced digital tactical aid to navigation, and Raytheon ARC-232 VHF radio.
The AN/APG-67(V)4 multi-mode radar, supplied by Lockheed Martin, is installed in the nose of the LIFT version.
The two crew, tandem stepped cockpit is fitted with an on-board oxygen generating system (OBOGS) and ejection seats supplied by Martin Baker of Uxbridge, UK.
T-50 Weapons
The aircraft has seven external hardpoints for carrying weapons, one on the centreline under the fuselage, two hardpoints under each wing and an air-to-air missile launch rail at the two wingtips.
The wingtip launch rails can carry AIM-9 Sidewinder missiles. The underwing and centreline hardpoints can carry rocket pods, air-to-surface missiles or air-to-air missiles according to the mission requirements, e.g. AGM-65 Maverick missiles or mk82/83/84 bombs or rocket launchers.
In November 2005, the A-50 successfully test-fired an AIM-9L air-to-air missile.
A 20mm General Dynamics Armaments three-barrel M61 cannon is installed internally on the A-50 LIFT version. The gun is mounted behind the cockpit and carries 205 rounds of ammunition in a linear linkless feed system. The A-50 LIFT can carry electronic warfare pods and a radar warning receiver.
Actually quite similar, even if not as powerful (eg AN/APG-67 versus the larger MMR) to whats on the LCA.
Few of these systems are on the IAF Hawk.
Nice flamebait – as usual – about the “indiginous aircraft” (its spelled indigenous btw). However, I note your reticence all this while about how the PAF calls its license assembled JF-17s jointly developed.
Perhaps if you spent less time complaining, making dubious comments about “zero facts” and “cannot be taken serious” and spent some more time making sense, then it would be better?
Also do refrain from outright falsehoods and putting words in peoples mouths, e.g.: “And he surely can tell us that it is cost effective”, since it was I who said that a cost benefit analysis would have to be done, in the first place.
Lastly, when you remark while we have no clue when its superior alternative ever gets operational status. – you would be quite correct that you have no clue. Apparently, this would remain the case, no matter what the facts are, since you dont believe in facts, merely flame baits, followed by a lot of whinging when somebody points out your comments for what they are.
Its not that hard to go to Pakdef and pull out your quotes and what your entire purpose on this thread is for.
And then..
All I can say that mr Teer does add zero facts and is trying to “convince” (I would say intimidate with personal remarks) that his opinion is true. Maybe he thinks that quantity of posts is more important
..defines irony, since all you have done above is add personal remarks (about facts and the like) and then you have the gall to complain that you are facing personal remarks. Amazing.
As regards quantity of posts Munir, I think the difference in quality of posts is also quite apparent.
TeerTeer
There is not supposed to be am big jump between Hawk and a fighter.
I can keep up very well, in fact could you outline what difficulties a trainee fighter pilot would face?
Can the Hawk as inducted by the IAF teach BVR.
Can it train pilots in advanced weapon systems delivery and practice.
Does it even have the systems to train pilots for EW techniques and advanced profiles.
Actually – it can do very little in all these areas. All these end up being taught in the respective squadrons, consuming extra time and cost.
Simulations only go so far.
The issue is that when the Hawk was first chosen as the trainer of choice (almost two decades back), the IAF of “then” was far different from the IAF of day. Only a handful of aircraft had anywhere near the capabilities the majority of the IAF fleet now possesses.
The Hawk is a very good system but it has limitations.
Hawk can simulate many fighter chracteristics as a fighter
Some not all – which is why more advanced designs like the KAi T-50 have been getting such interest in the market. What I am actually referring to, conceptually, is quite similar.
and its cockpit will be almost as advanced as the LCA.
Not really.
The LCA cockpit is far superior with several more advanced (smart MFDs) driven by a superior avionics rig (OAC & then CIP) and comes with far more complex switchology (on the HOTAS & elsewhere), a much more advanced nav attack system linked to superior sensors (eg a FCR) and with a HMCS as well (Elbit Dash).
There is little comparison between it and the Hawks as being inducted by India.
The next AJT currently tendered for may have a marginally better cockpit, but it wont match the cockpit of the Tejas either.
What you are saying is a
Hawk/LCA/Fighter training scheme is more effective then a Hawk/Fighter transition?
Absolutely.
The costs will simply outweigh the benefits.
We dont know that yet.
Many air forces more advanced then Indias wil choose the Hawk as its only LIFT.
Thats their choice to make, with their respective requirements and funding.
The IAF makes its choice based on its requirements and does not always do what other AF’s do.
Teer>>>Quite a lot of hot air there Munir.
We’ll see.
But we are already seeing.
It has the role of prototype.
Unfortunately, for your claims – no.
The 40 MK-I are operational aircraft.
If you did any proper research about the program, rather than spending time on usual one line flame baits, you would know the prototypes are actually the first technology demonstrators, the PVs (helpfully named prototype variants) and for series production demonstration – the 8 LSP.
But apparently thats too hard.
Who bothers what everyone else does? India seems to be entirely different, doesn’t it? You can compare it with Europe.
Why should I or anyone compare it with Europe? Europe is a continent, made up of different countries with often differing airspace doctrines. And now, to make some dubious claims, you compare the IAF to an entire continent? Geographically challenged, much?
Define homegrown if Engine is foreign as are weapons and probably avionics.
Learn to read sometime, I said the majority of the LRUs. LRUs are not weapons – they are line replaceable units, which are again a plus for the LCA as the majority of its modular LRUs are built locally and can be replaced, serviced at lower cost. The LCA’s avionics LRUs are also primarily designed, developed and manufactured in India bar a very few systems like the HMCS & as regards imported systems, the engine will be license manufactured in India, also directly impacting spares burn & associated costs.
Weapons are irrelevant to the topic as the IAF has a huge stockpile of weapons already & merely uses training rounds for training. And the LCA is intended for using both western and eastern systems, which again is a plus logistically. Seems like you scored another own goal there.
Compare and contrast to aircraft like the Mirage 2000 whose spares and systems are primarily supplied by the OEM, and cost more. Need more hand holding on the topic?
When will that happen? India moves on with MRCA/PAkFa etc etc. Gripen Naval might be an option and looking at the cash India has to spend a lot of sellers will be happy to offer more.
More irrelevant nonsense. India has already put its money where its mouth is both at HAL and ADA and the IAF has clearly indicated its requirement for five squadrons plus of the MK2, commencing 2012.
In contrast, the MMRCA contract is yet to even see this level of commitment in terms of expenditure.
The Gripen Naval is a concept which is not even flying yet, and is irrelevant to the MK2 discussion for the IAF, do try and keep up.
If my opinion is BS then who are you so happy to join forums and hope that everyone copies your opinions 😉 ? Atleast give some reasons so we can discuss.
Its not a question of having opinions Munir, its a question of relying on facts when in a debate. Not pulling out crazy statements and attempting to pass them off as the truth, as you have been doing in this thread.
When you cant even be bothered to admit that the IAF (and several AFs) have two (and more in some cases) attached trainers per squadron and make baseless comments without even knowing this, what exactly do you bring to the debate apart from hot air?
That is the entire idea. After advaced jet trainer going to operational squadron with the dual seaters.
Oh good, so now you admit and realise that the operational squadrons have dual seaters. Do you also now realise that the dual seaters are intensively tasked and end up consuming more airframe life when advanced tactics and equipment not available on the Hawk are required?
Do I need to write it in some advanced language so that it becomes easier to comprehend?
So what adds the LCA?
So basically, all this time, you have been just talking all sorts of rubbish without even bothering to understand or even read what was said. Yet you had to jump in with a provocative post about “funny” and the like. The classic definition of trolling.
Go back and read the posts.
Pathetic? A… God. If you are joining here just to write empty opinions where we can not ask logical questions then who is pathetic? Let us stay normal and not start becoming personal attackers? You seems to love calling others stupid.
You are judged by your statements. So far the quality of what you have written is indeed dubious. I hope it improves but looks like you intend to remain confrontational and keep spamming this thread.
You cannot handle serious discussions wthout becoming personal. If you ask me you should read your own statements before calling others not worthy.
Its hardly personal to state that you are writing absolute bilge.
Just compare and contrast how poorly written, badly researched posts you make vis a vis somebody like Vikas Rehman.
When you dont even know the fact that trainers have long been attached to operational squadrons, what the training regimen is and how it is conducted, make illogical, poorly researched claims about a well documented program – then the conclusion is fairly straightforward.
Either your posts are fundamentally devoid of merit or logic thanks to a lack of any sort of research, or you are being deliberately provocative.
Which is it.
TeerAny combat sqn of Tejas without mk2 specs is not for waging war. Technically it can though.
In that case we’d have to retire all the Jags, MiG-27s, MiG-21 Bisons – because technically, all of them will be below the MK-I Tejas specs in several respects.
The IAF now recognises that the MK-I has its uses.
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2009/11/order-for-2nd-tejas-squadron-being.html
The order for a second squadron is a vital expression of IAF confidence in the future of the long-running Tejas programme. So far, the IAF had insisted on evaluating the performance of the first squadron before ordering a second, by around 2015-2016. That would also allow the Tejas to be upgraded to the Tejas Mark II, which would have a new, more powerful, engine. But now, with its fighter fleet dwindling as the old MiG-21s are retired, the IAF is taking the Tejas as it is.
“The Tejas, even with its current GE-404 engine, is a better fighter than the MiG-21”, explains a senior IAF officer who is familiar with equipment policy
….
So far, the plan was to produce 12 twin-seater Tejas trainers after the first squadron was built. The new order will be for 18 single-seater and 2 twin-seater Tejas: exactly what equips a fighter squadron.
Teer
Ok, it has weapons.
Insig, Rahul M,
I got it looking at the picture.
Thanks anyway.
There is/was a post by Harry which I dug up using the search which showed the cutaway of the 2 seater, with a MMR. It wouldnt have a MMR unless it was combat capable.
Sign In
