AbhimanyuMaybe because it is only you in your make believe world who views it as such? Maybe because the IAF, who are in a better position to decide, have a clearer understanding than you? You’re a funny guy, deluded, but funny, I love reading your posts 🙂
See, I compare specifications only. Again, I’m not more “deluded” (as you say above) than the Pakistani members on this forum and elsewhere, who think that the JF-17 is a well certified jet, when in fact, it has not reportedly been certified by Chengdu till date. It is likely that even PAC Kamra / PAF don’t know how whether it has to be certified, lest even knowing how to undertake tests to in order to certify it.
Rookh, if you have “inside info” you may let us know when the JF-17 is certified. Till then, you may comment on all other aspects of fighter jets.
AbhimanyuFirstly, the concept of a so-called Light-medium-heavy itself is flawed. No major Air Force follows this concept. The concept that they follow is : a) multi-role and b) long-range striker only.
The USAF originally had F-15 as it’s dedicated strikers (arguably, the best fighter jet globally). But war planners realized that if a jet has to takeoff and bomb a base just a couple of hundred kilometers, while fending off 2 opposing Migs on the way, an F-15 was an “overkill”. The cost of operations weren’t justified at all. In fact, all the USAF’s engagements in Vietnam, middle-east etc. had such a requirement only.
It is recognizing this requirement that the F-16 was developed, which is said to be the world’s first true multi-role fighter.
Similarly in the US Navy, the F-14 was seen as a mini-bomber on the decks, which they didn’t want. They wanted a “nimbler” fighter, which later fructified in the form of F-18.
Now the IAF is in a similar situation now. It has a good number of Su-30s, which like the F-15, is a dedicated deep striker. It’s main uses are surgical strikes, and nation-wide (read : Pakistan) air superiority. However, barring the ageing Mirages, there is NO multirole fighter in the IAF; the rest of the fleet consists only of dedicated bombers like Jags and MiG-27s, or air-superiority jets like MiG-29 or MiG-21 interceptors.
Hence, the purpose of the MRCA (not MMRCA) was to have multirole fighters, that could takeoff from, say, Jaisalmer base, bomb a PAF site across the border, cover off opposing J7s or JF-17s and return home. Su-30s flying all the way from Pune shouldn’t be pressed to do this low-intensity task. And pressing Jags escorted by MiG-21s is “inane”.
Now, in 2001 IAF realized that the Mirages were up for retirement in 10 years. Tejas had clocked just a few “baby” flights and wasn’t up for induction until many years. So, they proposed 126 multirole Mirage-2000-V jets, that would have more modern weapons & avionics.
But later on around 2005-06 when Dassault had closed it’s Mirage production line and they saw how the Tejas was growing into more than just a MiG-21 replacement, IAF and MoD in all their wisdom, added one more ‘M’ to the MRCA. They called it Medium MRCA (M-MRCA), meaning a jet in between the “light LCA” and the “heavy Su-30” (refer standing committee report 2006 or 07). Then the circus began with the 7 ton Gripen “vying” with the 14 ton F/A-18.
If the IAF sees that the Tejas Mk.1 itself is shaping to be a one-stop multirole replacement for Jags, MiG-27s as well as MiG-29s — and not just MiG-21s, why is it asking for MRCAs ? And if it is asking for a newer engine on Tejas Mk.2, what is the purpose of the MMRCA at all, given that the Tejas Mk.2 will be like Gripen-NG and F-16C in range-payload specs ?
AbhimanyuAny chance of India buying maybe a squadron size no of FC-1’s from China to use for DACT…as far as I know China does not have any embargo against selling India military equipment.
I am quite “ASTONISHED” that you are proposing quite “glibly”,military ties with a nation that has by far the largest standing territorial disputes with India (larger than Kashmir), and against whom our forces are in a state of dormant military readiness. We’ve also fought a war with China, the disputes of which are unsettled till date (much like North and S Korea).
There is also the small matter of Pakistan being a 52% investor in the FC-1 project and they’re quite unlikely to approve it’s sale to India.
And Abhimanyu, please see what FAR 23 specs it is being designed to..in case in the future you ask that this become a military trainer as well just by putting a bigger engine. It doesn’t work that way and I hope you understand that it will require a complete re-design.
Arey baba, it has been mentioned numerous times that T-3A Firefly is sold to civilian clubs as well as military trainers across the globe. The civilian version is certified FAR 23 (civil/passenger), and the military one likewise. The latter primarily differs from the civillian one in that it has to have better fuel pipelines and pumps so that there is no fuel starvation and engine choking when performing extreme (military) manouevers (however, this later proved to be wanting). Seat cushions are thinner, and there is the small matter of greater engine power. There is NO structural redesign and “going back to drawing board” needed.
The firefly has resulted in many deaths of civil cadets, whose families have successfully sued Slingsby aviation, UK. Later on even USAF, after many cadet deaths and under growing public/media pressure, retired this plane, and went to private flying clubs to screen their rookie pilots — an option foregone by the IAF for “mysterious reasons”.
References :-
1) USAF T3A Firefly certification note
2) History of the Firefly on wikipedia.
3) Management Case Study posted earlier by me as per which a new engine was added to enable it to perform more acrobats, but fuel pipelines weren’t taken care of adequately.
AbhimanyuI thought it was to heavy and needed more power? How exactly does LCA match an Mig29 or Mig27?
The above is inaccurate. Tejas Mk.1 weighs exactly the same as a Gripen C/D empty, and has infact more power than it. Though Gripen’s MTOW is 0.5 tons more.
AbhimanyuClean up
See, in the wikipedia article about MAD doctrine that you quoted yourself, Pakistan is bracketed with North Korea. If you don’t know yourself what you refer, nobody can help it.
The article says, and I quote, “The fact that nuclear proliferation has led to an increase in the number of nations in the “nuclear club”, including nations of questionable stability (Pakistan and North Korea, e.g.), and that a nuclear nation might be hijacked by a despot or other person or persons who might use nuclear weapons without sane regard for the consequences, presents a strong case for proponents of BMD who seek a policy which both protects against attack, but also does not require an escalation into what might become global nuclear war.”
Now the above is exactly what India is doing, i.e. building a BMD against Pakistani BMs.
AbhimanyuRobban, I appreciate and applaud your work on Tejas greatly.
thanks Robban..the dimensions seem to match very closely for the Tejas and the MiG-21..can clearly tell that they did a size comparison with the MiG-21 to draw up the basic dimensions that they’d look for in a MiG-21 replacement..
Actually the length of MiG-21 matches much more closely with Gripen, and not Tejas.
Though the original idea behind Tejas was to be a MiG-21 replacement only, over 2 decades it has far outgrown the MiG-21 and now matches closely with a MiG-27 or a MiG-29 now.
This is because, Tejas and Gripen use substantial composites that keep their weight low, as well as maintaining high tensile strength. So, they can carry much more weapons load and avionics and also fly longer ranges.
AbhimanyuThe J-10 got the IoC in 2005, just as the first few units had begun induction. 2006 was only the date of “public revelation” as mentioned by wikipedia and erroneously mentioned as “IOC” by sinodefence.com.
Also by IoC, one invariably means Chengdu and not PLAAF actually since the manufacturer gives the IoC — usually. FoC is given by the user Air Force. All this while, I was incorrectly referring to PLAAF granting the J-10 the IoC. I had forgotten that any IoC to J-10 should have come from Chengdu.
Now since, PAF has been flying the JF-17 since 4 years now, has it been in touch with Chengdu over IoC certification ? Since Chengdu just gave away 2 prototypes and 6 follow-on SBPs (total 8 SBPs) to PAF just months after the PT-04 first flew, how is it going to give JF-17 any IoC certification ? Can’t expect PAC Kamra to do the certification, as it is just the licence-assembler and Not the designer.
In the light of the above, has Chengdu “short-changed” the PAF ?
AbhimanyuAlmost is still in development. You do have seen fastandfurious… You can be second by one or million seconds. You still stay second. You have no data whether it is the case with JF17 nd we should not add other examples.
Note that Tejas’ flight-envelop is fully opened and it’s flown with a MMR radar yesterday. It’s IoC is only a formality and a matter of time.
In contrast, JF-17 has reportedly not got an IoC, is not fully tested and is just being flown around. What will happen to it during wartime ?
WE have seen pictures. We have seen entire operaional squadron of jf17’s. You find that less… How dubious.
Correction. Untested JF-17 squadrons.
Defending is far more easily. But since we talk about equal powerful nations there is no real winning without mutual destruction. You can have 500 MRCA or thousands of LCA1,2 or NG.
Other than it’s nukes to “brandish”, Pakistan has little else by way of conventional weapons. Nukes are its first and last line of defence. There is no other deterrent or defence for Pakistan.
This is the behavioural pattern of North Korea also.
AbhimanyuI don’t think the 04 was a drastic new fighter. DSI was part of the idea before the 01. The started as conventional as possible. Even those vertical wings on the main wing were to gradually go towards the newer design.
No the above is inaccurate. As per the 2005 news report titled Test flaws prompt rethink on China’s FC-1 light fighter look , there were various aerodynamic design flaws in the FC-1 in 2003. It was after these flaws were found that DSI and lerxes were decided to be added.
The report says :-
“Problems with the original FC-1 design began to surface after its first flight in 2003, prompting the Chengdu Aircraft Design Institute to start working on a revised version last year.“
“CAC says it will roll out a modified FC-1 prototype by year-end featuring revised air intakes, an extended strake and a larger vertical fin. The changes will be incorporated into the fourth prototype aircraft“
“The redesigned FC-1 will have a maximum take-off weight slightly above the 12,400kg (27,300lb) of the original aircraft, but its top speed will be unchanged at Mach 1.6. The first prototype of the new design is scheduled to begin test flights early next year, with another two prototypes to be completed in 2006.“
Abhi, on surface it surely does seem that CAC/PLAAF/PAF operate differently than say HAL/IAF. As tp mentioned before, may be their definition of IOC is different. To someone like myself IOC is minimal capability required for op service it is intended for, & JF taking part in recent exercises as well as live firing indicates it has. But ven if we assume that J-10 was given IOC in 2006-then we dont know what the certification in 2003/2004 was all about-by then PLAAF had 50 or so serial production models in op service with a lot of op doctorine, tactics, logistics, maintenance lines well established. All this well established & practiced stuff, I think, comes under FOC, not IOC
IoC is given by the manufacturer, and FoC is given by the user Air Force after inducting a squadron and using it for some time.
J-10 got it’s IoC a year before being “revealed” to the public and 7 years after debut flight. IoC coincides with the time when a few units are inducted in the user Air Force (like in case of F-16 where a few fighters were inducted and in case of Tejas where 8 LSPs will be inducted by Dec 2010 and it gets IoC).
So, the question remains when did JF-17 receive the IoC ? Since it is given by the manufacturer, did Chengdu give it at all ? When is PAF going to grant it FoC ?
Now here’s what I think has happened (from the “sketchy” timelines available) :-
Now PT-04 flew in late 2006, but SBP deliveries started just a few months later in early 2007 ! This was a completely new aircraft and I reckon it has not been tested fully by Chengdu (the manufacturer) at all, and was subsequently just “dumped” to the PAF. Even J-10 got IoC 7 years after it’s maiden flight. The first 2 of the total 8 SBP units were prototypes (PT-04 and 06) as we’ve seen.
yeah, but when did sinodefence become an official source? I’m saying this as a super moderator at its forum.
Other than sinodefence, there is NO other source, and I don’t understand nor follow Chinese internet. That’s
all we’ve got. Why don’t you have it changed then (if what you claim is true) ?
but yeah, by 2006, J-10 already had 2 full regiments of 28 planes + 10+ planes with FTTC in service. I don’t see how you can say it’s not fully in service. J-10 had it’s initial certification and conversion of first J-10 regiment in 2004.
It received it’s certification on 3 March 2005 and was “revealed to the public a year later” according to an unreferenced source in wikipedia (presumably written by someone from Chinese internet). So, the 2006 “revelation” was not IoC as sinodefence says, but March 2005 it sure was. That’s still 7 years from debut flight.
——
About Tejas Mk.2, Eurojet officials have stated that Tejas’ fuselage will require minimal changes and they’ll integrate the engine in, and I quote, “2 years flat”, after selection. The 2014 deadline for it is quite gettable.
AbhimanyuAbhi, im glad you are learning. As for your earthtimes article, well its up to you whether you choose to believe the words of some journalist from some online news agency or those coming from a world leading authority-outside pak-on PAF/JF-17. Btw, if you do another search, you will find out that PAF’s first order was for 8 SBP machines, and not 6+2 as you keep insisting.
See, all I asked was for a confirmation (like a news report) about PAF granting IoC to JF-17. None exists and so it hasn’t got any IoC yet. That’s why I concluded that Pak could be given a concession that it’s following the PLAAF model of fighter development.
Regarding IOC, check sinodefence again (also check huitong’s site for some good info). Neither mentions anything about a 2006/07 date for IOC as you implied earlier.
No, it clearly does. Please scroll down to the end. The second-last bullet point
under “November 2006”.
if we take a leaf from J-10 book, its not too far fetched to assume that JF-17 also might have received initial certification prior to the start of serial production in 2009- approx 5.5 years after its first flight.
That’s what I said :- if you take a leaf from PLAAF’s book then PAF will grant the IoC to JF-17 a couple of years after induction. It reportedly hasn’t gotten any kind of certification till date.
If so, why do you keep insisting that LCA MK-2- God knows what modifications it would need to include a new engine, AESA radar, other improved avionics etc to become NG equivalent and in likely hood first PT to be ready in 2012 or so-will be ready for certification by 2013/2014?
In case of Tejas Mk.2, avionics will remain the same for most part with the exception of IRST addition and more sensor-fusion. A HADF pod may also be added (though not sure). Physical changes will be needed for housing the new engine and they will be far less “drastic” than DSI intakes and lerxes; in fact, PT-04 was an almost new fighter.
AbhimanyuTejas is still in development.
Correction. Tejas has almost completed development, with IoC at the end of the year. If IAF were to follow PLAAF procedures, it can begin induction even now and IoC given later on by the user. This is what PAF has done vis-a-vis JF-17, which too hasn’t reportedly been granted IoC till date.
We will have to wait and see the end product and the numbers it will be ordered.
You have already seen the end product (there are unconfirmed reports that the radar on LSP-3 is infact AESA). Firm orders have long been made for 28 units + 20 optional units. These 20 optional are to be excercised once IAF gets the first squadron operational.
And I think it is still a kind of wetdream to write about bombing inside Pakistan. India is not close to that capability if you understand both the real response power of China and Pakistan. Sweeping was maybe possible when India had Mig25 running like crazy over Islamabad but these days they cannot even cross miles over the border without meeting opponents or SAM’s.
I can’t understand what you mean by “response power of Pakistan and China“. Pakistan’s SAM inventory is well known and IAF will (or has) devise tactics to take out SAMs. Every air force has to deal with SAMs. Standoff weaponry, Brahmos fitted on Su-30s and low formation flights, all of which, if deployed well, can tactically defeat SAMs. Of course, this won’t be done in peacetime unlike MiG-25s, but in wartime only.
It only “boils down” to skills only, whether skills of the aggressor or defender.
AbhimanyuClass of Gripen C/D by who…give me one non-Indian source..(I don’t even think there is an Indian source other than you comparing the 2)
You can compare the specs from wikipedia (and articles of both are referenced by official sources from SAAB and ADA/HAL).
Range and payload is not the end all in comparing fighters. If that was the case the Flanker would have left every single western aircraft in the dust.
The above is inaccurate. The F-15 Strike Eagle has much superior range-payload specs than the Su-30 (any variant).
Now the reason why IAF intends to have MRCA is two-fold :-
a) As already mentioned, it is to have a multi-role fighter like Mirage-2000. Much of IAF’s fleet even now is only air-superiority or ground-attack.
b) To have a fighter whose cost of operation is lesser than Su-30s. If a PAF forward base is to be bombed, that is close to the border, a smaller fighter would be more cost-effective than a Su-30. Su-30s will be used in north-east to strike deep in China and to run sweep missions all over Pakistan.
Tejas is a multirole jet and has as much range and strike capability as MiG-29 or MiG-27, and much more superior than a MiG-21 (IAF’s current mainstay). The problem is that IAF still views the Tejas as a MiG-21 equivalent jet.
AbhimanyuThe nose landing gear doors changed from two to one. The intake is a lot smaller and has a second intake a la Mirage 3/5 behind the major intake. I do not think that my eyes are that bad Quadbike.
Well, then you sure are having an “optical illusion”. No changes in the intake have been made; not even the splitter intake. A couple of years back, auxillary ducts were “carved out” on the existing intake that opened when air suction was too high.
AbhimanyuLower capability relative to most, if not all, of the MRCA contenders. Remember the whole Light/Medium/Heavy argument which you yourself keep banging on about?
The above is inaccurate simply because Tejas derives nearly all it’s avionics from Su-30 MKI (in fact, they’re likely to be more advanced on the Tejas).
About the so-called light-medium-heavy argument, I’ve said that Tejas is definitely not in the “LCA” category, given that even Tejas Mk.1’s weight and range-payload specs match with the Gripen-C/D, and the future Mk.2 with a 95 kN engine, will equate Gripen-NG. So, the latter must be an MRCA contender.
AbhimanyuIt is extremely good news that LSP-3 has flown with a radar. This marks a milestone in Indian aviation now, and all “naysayers” of Tejas like Times of India and some in the IAF will be quietened.
We must see if Times of India and Indian Express even report this news item tomorrow.
I think that’s the point. Why does the IAF need to ‘get down to doing the hard work’ when it has no restrictions and limitations on buying the best kit from around the world? Why settle for the lower capability and much delayed LCA when you have the choice of the worlds leading 4/4.5 gen aircraft with manufacturers throwing themselves at the IAF? IAF is probably more interesting in getting the MCA/PAK-FA projects rolling forward than wasting anymore time on the LCA or any of its derivatives.
Rookh-rookh, your basic premise itself is flawed, that Tejas is a “low-capability fighter”. Pointed out numerous times before (and even in the previous post that you quoted) that it is a contemporary 4.5 gen fighter in the class of Gripen and F-16.
Sign In
