LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Post Reply
eklavya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2159
Joined: 16 Nov 2004 23:57

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by eklavya »

^^^^
IAF did not propose an IAF officer (serving or ex) for the role. The focus should be on the plane and not the individual.
chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32283
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by chetak »

eklavya wrote:^^^^
IAF did not propose an IAF officer (serving or ex) for the role. The focus should be on the plane and not the individual.
they probably think that they avoided stepping on a landmine. At least the IN will have it's carrier borne LCAs.

Also, they may not have anyone with the requisite experience to head a program like this.
eklavya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2159
Joined: 16 Nov 2004 23:57

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by eklavya »

Chetak, IAF is not a design and development organisation. IAF does not aspire to control ADA for the sake of control.

Navy LCA and IAF LCA will either both work or both fail; in fact, being heavier, the Navy LCA faces a greater technological challenge. PAF F-16 Blk 52 will not make allowances for which version they are up against.
vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6046
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by vina »

Navy LCA and IAF LCA will either both work or both fail;
Perfect. Navy is willing to put it's money where it's mouth is, willing to share both the glory and the blame.
So, if IAF version of LCA fails, the Air Force will hang it on the ADA and walk away from it all "blameless" and look for a new toy.
member_23694
BRFite
Posts: 732
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by member_23694 »

one thing is for sure , LCA prg. failure(though it will not) will be a bigger setback to the overall planning of IAF than IN.
Tejas urgency for IAF is same as Scorpene (though imported, TOT prd. ) urgency for IN and not NLCA.
Most of the IN Mig 29 K are still at INS Hansa
chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32283
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by chetak »

dhiraj wrote:one thing is for sure , LCA prg. failure(though it will not) will be a bigger setback to the overall planning of IAF than IN.
Tejas urgency for IAF is same as Scorpene (though imported, TOT prd. ) urgency for IN and not NLCA.
Most of the IN Mig 29 K are still at INS Hansa
and more in the pipeline
chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32283
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by chetak »

eklavya wrote:Chetak, IAF is not a design and development organisation. IAF does not aspire to control ADA for the sake of control.

Navy LCA and IAF LCA will either both work or both fail; in fact, being heavier, the Navy LCA faces a greater technological challenge. PAF F-16 Blk 52 will not make allowances for which version they are up against.
one was talking program management onlee.
chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32283
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by chetak »

dhiraj wrote:one thing is for sure , LCA prg. failure(though it will not) will be a bigger setback to the overall planning of IAF than IN.
Tejas urgency for IAF is same as Scorpene (though imported, TOT prd. ) urgency for IN and not NLCA.
Most of the IN Mig 29 K are still at INS Hansa
dhiraj saab, please do not use not standard abbreviations like prg and prd. Would it really trouble you so much just to type a few letters more??. :)
eklavya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2159
Joined: 16 Nov 2004 23:57

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by eklavya »

vina wrote:
Navy LCA and IAF LCA will either both work or both fail;
Perfect. Navy is willing to put it's money where it's mouth is, willing to share both the glory and the blame.
So, if IAF version of LCA fails, the Air Force will hang it on the ADA and walk away from it all "blameless" and look for a new toy.
Toy? Blameless? Defending the country is not a child's game. If LCA fails, country's defence wil be compromised and if a war happens, many people, some of them IAF and IN pilots, will die. You are quite mistaken if you think IAF is engaging in some corporate style or political blame game. No one needs the LCA to work more than the IAF. But the IAF does not have the magic wand to solve the LCAs problems; it's downright ridiculous that this forum has got into a mindset where making grotesque attacks on the Indian armed forces is an accepted pastime.
member_23694
BRFite
Posts: 732
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by member_23694 »

chetak wrote:please do not use not standard abbreviations like prg and prd. Would it really trouble you so much just to type a few letters more??.
Sure Sir, will take care in future. :)
chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32283
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by chetak »

eklavya wrote:
vina wrote:{quote}Navy LCA and IAF LCA will either both work or both fail;{/quote}
Perfect. Navy is willing to put it's money where it's mouth is, willing to share both the glory and the blame.
So, if IAF version of LCA fails, the Air Force will hang it on the ADA and walk away from it all "blameless" and look for a new toy.
Toy? Blameless? Defending the country is not a child's game. If LCA fails, country's defence wil be compromised and if a war happens, many people, some of them IAF and IN pilots, will die. You are quite mistaken if you think IAF is engaging in some corporate style or political blame game. No one needs the LCA to work more than the IAF. But the IAF does not have the magic wand to solve the LCAs problems; it's downright ridiculous that this forum has got into a mindset where making grotesque attacks on the Indian armed forces is an accepted pastime.
THE LCA WILL NOT FAIL. Some delay, yes, failure, NO!!

It is already flying, maybe not with ideal specs, but flying nevertheless.

Folks attacking the Armed Forces is a national pass time. :)
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by ramana »

ekalavya you can have last say here.

Folks a new head of ADA has come. Wish him well that he clears the hurdles and takes LCA to FOC and squadron service.

Means no more IAF-DRDO posts.
srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5247
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by srai »

eklavya wrote:Chetak, IAF is not a design and development organisation. IAF does not aspire to control ADA for the sake of control.

Navy LCA and IAF LCA will either both work or both fail; in fact, being heavier, the Navy LCA faces a greater technological challenge. PAF F-16 Blk 52 will not make allowances for which version they are up against.
The IAF may not be a R&D org but it needs to understand R&D.

Does the PAF's F-16 Blk 52 make allowance for MiG-21/27s? How about 200+ Su-30MKIs?
Picklu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2128
Joined: 25 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by Picklu »

As forum mod has suggested, I will not venture into IAF asking for HAL head position despite not being in manufacturing/production either.

This IAF - IN fight is way more juicy instead :mrgreen:

So Commander Mao is now the head of NTFC as well :twisted:
suryag
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4041
Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by suryag »

Is is commander or commodore Mao?
eklavya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2159
Joined: 16 Nov 2004 23:57

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by eklavya »

^^^^
Where is the IAF-IN fight? Are you hoping for one?

His rank is Commodore, why have you demoted him by 2 ranks? Looking for a fight?
eklavya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2159
Joined: 16 Nov 2004 23:57

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by eklavya »

srai wrote:
eklavya wrote:Chetak, IAF is not a design and development organisation. IAF does not aspire to control ADA for the sake of control.

Navy LCA and IAF LCA will either both work or both fail; in fact, being heavier, the Navy LCA faces a greater technological challenge. PAF F-16 Blk 52 will not make allowances for which version they are up against.
The IAF may not be a R&D org but it needs to understand R&D.

Does the PAF's F-16 Blk 52 make allowance for MiG-21/27s? How about 200+ Su-30MKIs?
How do you measure "understand R&D"? Or should we start another pointless argument?

Mig 21 should have been phased out 20 years ago; it's not the benchmark for the LCA, it's a very poor argument to make for the induction of any aircraft that it's better than something that first joined the IAF in 1963.
Picklu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2128
Joined: 25 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by Picklu »

It is Commodore Jaideep Maolankar now with proper honorific. However, BRF came to know about him as Commander Mao from Karthik's post eon's ago and cheerleading for him since then. 8)

Wish the similar could have been said about AVM Matheswaran though as prospective HAL head candidate from IAF.
eklavya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2159
Joined: 16 Nov 2004 23:57

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by eklavya »

^^^^
Another cheap shot at the IAF. Hope it was satisfying
Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2931
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by Vivek K »

Truth hurts right Eklavya (
eklavya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2159
Joined: 16 Nov 2004 23:57

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by eklavya »

^^^^
So many wise creatures posting today
Vipul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3727
Joined: 15 Jan 2005 03:30

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by Vipul »

First F-414 engine to arrive in September.

The plan to develop a more powerful, modernised version of the current Tejas fighter is getting a welcome boost. In September, US engine-maker General Electric (GE) plans to deliver the first F-414INS6 engine (hereafter F-414), which will power the Tejas Mark II.

The F-414 engine's maximum power output of 98 kiloNewtons (kN) will make the Tejas Mark II faster and nimbler than the current Mark I fighter, which gets just 84 kN of peak power from its GE F-404IN engine. The F-414 will also provide the burst of power needed for the Naval Tejas to take off from an aircraft carrier deck on 200 metres of runway.

In 2010, the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA), which manages the Tejas programme, chose GE over Eurojet to supply 99 engines for the Tejas Mark II. Of these, 16 are being delivered fully-built, so that ADA can build prototypes of the Mark II fighter for ground and flight test programmes.

Meanwhile, Hindustan Aeronautics (HAL) will establish a facility to manufacture the remaining 83 engines in Bengaluru. With the Indian Air Force (IAF) and navy likely to order at least 160 Tejas Mark II fighters, the HAL facility could eventually build about 700 engines (assuming a fighter uses 3.5 engines in its service life).

For now, ADA is welcoming the arrival of the first F-414 engines. This will allow it to start building the first Mark II prototype, which it plans to fly within three years, that is, by 2018-19. ADA says it will hand over the first production fighter to the IAF within six years, that is, by 2021-22. HAL Bengaluru is building the first 20 Tejas Mark I fighters, which were contracted in 2007. In 2010, the IAF committed itself to another 20 Mark I fighters, which will be contracted when the Tejas gets final operational clearance, probably by March 2016. These 40 fighters will use the F-404 engine.

Not everyone believes the Tejas Mark II, powered by the F-414, is a good idea.

Aerospace experts like Pushpinder Singh of Vayu Magazine say the benefits of the more powerful F-414 would be negated by its additional weight and the re-design of the Tejas that they say will be needed to accommodate the engine.

Experts also argue the Tejas' constricted air intake will prevent the F-414 from sucking in the air it requires, even with extensive redesign. In that case, the engine would not deliver its rated 98 kN thrust.

Rejecting this view, GE and ADA officials say they will accommodate the F-414 without problem or extensive redesign, and that it will perform to its designed potential.

Their claim is supported by the engine data on the GE website (see graphic), which indicates the F-414 is no larger than the F-404. Nor is it significantly heavier, says ADA.

While GE has bagged the deal to supply India the F-414, an even bigger prize could prove elusive - the supply of a more powerful version of the F-414 for the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA), a fifth-generation medium fighter that ADA plans to develop, with the IAF standing ready to buy 200.

As Business Standard reported (June 1, "Carter to face Indian demand for engine technology") the defence ministry has asked the United States to let the Defence Research and Development Organisation work with GE in jointly upgrading the F-414 to a rating of 110 KN of peak power. ADA believes the AMCA needs 220 kN of peak power from its twin engines.

This is welcomed by GE, which had earlier worked for the US Navy on upgrading the F-414 to a 116 kN engine designated F-414 enhanced engine.

With that project now shelved, GE would like to see it revived with Indian partnership, funding and a large assured market.

Yet, Washington is stonewalling the Indian request, even though the two countries had established a "joint working group" to explore cooperation in engine design during President Obama's visit to India in January.

A disappointed Indian defence ministry is now issuing a global tender, inviting aero engine firms to co-develop a suitable engine with the DRDO.

Senior defence ministry sources say that Eurojet, the European consortium whose EJ200 engine lost out to GE's F-414 in the contest to power the Tejas Mark II, has satisfied the DRDO it can uprate the EJ200 to 110 kN.

Snecma, the French company that builds the Rafale's M-88 engine, will also be issued a tender. However the M-88, which currently generates 75 kN of thrust, cannot be uprated beyond 105 kN.

"Fighters are designed around a pre-selected engine. We will issue the tender quickly and select an engine for the AMCA so that the programme does not get delayed. If Washington chooses to deny India engine technology by preventing GE from working with the DRDO, that will have its own implications," a top defence ministry official says.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by NRao »

First Tejas Mark II engine to arrive in September
The plan to develop a more powerful, modernised version of the current Tejas fighter is getting a welcome boost. In September, US engine-maker General Electric (GE) plans to deliver the first F-414INS6 engine (hereafter F-414), which will power the Tejas Mark II.

The F-414 engine's maximum power output of 98 kiloNewtons (kN) will make the Tejas Mark II faster and nimbler than the current Mark I fighter, which gets just 84 kN of peak power from its GE F-404IN engine. The F-414 will also provide the burst of power needed for the Naval Tejas to take off from an aircraft carrier deck on 200 metres of runway.

In 2010, the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA), which manages the Tejas programme, chose GE over Eurojet to supply 99 engines for the Tejas Mark II. Of these, 16 are being delivered fully-built, so that ADA can build prototypes of the Mark II fighter for ground and flight test programmes.

Meanwhile, Hindustan Aeronautics (HAL) will establish a facility to manufacture the remaining 83 engines in Bengaluru. With the Indian Air Force (IAF) and navy likely to order at least 160 Tejas Mark II fighters, the HAL facility could eventually build about 700 engines (assuming a fighter uses 3.5 engines in its service life).

For now, ADA is welcoming the arrival of the first F-414 engines. This will allow it to start building the first Mark II prototype, which it plans to fly within three years, that is, by 2018-19. ADA says it will hand over the first production fighter to the IAF within six years, that is, by 2021-22. HAL Bengaluru is building the first 20 Tejas Mark I fighters, which were contracted in 2007. In 2010, the IAF committed itself to another 20 Mark I fighters, which will be contracted when the Tejas gets final operational clearance, probably by March 2016. These 40 fighters will use the F-404 engine.

Not everyone believes the Tejas Mark II, powered by the F-414, is a good idea.

Aerospace experts like Pushpinder Singh of Vayu Magazine say the benefits of the more powerful F-414 would be negated by its additional weight and the re-design of the Tejas that they say will be needed to accommodate the engine.

Experts also argue the Tejas' constricted air intake will prevent the F-414 from sucking in the air it requires, even with extensive redesign. In that case, the engine would not deliver its rated 98 kN thrust.

Rejecting this view, GE and ADA officials say they will accommodate the F-414 without problem or extensive redesign, and that it will perform to its designed potential.

Their claim is supported by the engine data on the GE website (see graphic), which indicates the F-414 is no larger than the F-404. Nor is it significantly heavier, says ADA.

While GE has bagged the deal to supply India the F-414, an even bigger prize could prove elusive - the supply of a more powerful version of the F-414 for the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA), a fifth-generation medium fighter that ADA plans to develop, with the IAF standing ready to buy 200.

As Business Standard reported (June 1, "Carter to face Indian demand for engine technology") the defence ministry has asked the United States to let the Defence Research and Development Organisation work with GE in jointly upgrading the F-414 to a rating of 110 KN of peak power. ADA believes the AMCA needs 220 kN of peak power from its twin engines.

This is welcomed by GE, which had earlier worked for the US Navy on upgrading the F-414 to a 116 kN engine designated F-414 enhanced engine.

With that project now shelved, GE would like to see it revived with Indian partnership, funding and a large assured market.

Yet, Washington is stonewalling the Indian request, even though the two countries had established a "joint working group" to explore cooperation in engine design during President Obama's visit to India in January.

A disappointed Indian defence ministry is now issuing a global tender, inviting aero engine firms to co-develop a suitable engine with the DRDO.

Senior defence ministry sources say that Eurojet, the European consortium whose EJ200 engine lost out to GE's F-414 in the contest to power the Tejas Mark II, has satisfied the DRDO it can uprate the EJ200 to 110 kN.

Snecma, the French company that builds the Rafale's M-88 engine, will also be issued a tender. However the M-88, which currently generates 75 kN of thrust, cannot be uprated beyond 105 kN.

"Fighters are designed around a pre-selected engine. We will issue the tender quickly and select an engine for the AMCA so that the programme does not get delayed. If Washington chooses to deny India engine technology by preventing GE from working with the DRDO, that will have its own implications," a top defence ministry official says
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by SaiK »

as I pointed some years back that EJ200 losing out to GE by a fist full of $ is bad for DRDO. We should have gone with EJ200 for Mk2.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by NRao »

Issuing a tender and EJ stating it can uprate their engine does not mean much. EJ could opt not to share trade secrets too - which would be very normal and should be expected.

Need to wait a few more months to see details.
Bade
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7212
Joined: 23 May 2002 11:31
Location: badenberg in US administered part of America

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by Bade »

Out of the 160 LCA MkII, how many are for the Navy ?
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20773
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by Karan M »

IAF wants 83 Mk2. Rest would be Navy or Navy+AF if Shukla is correct! Prior reports put NLCA Mk2 at around 50+ airframes.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20773
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by Karan M »

>>
Senior defence ministry sources say that Eurojet, the European consortium whose EJ200 engine lost out to GE's F-414 in the contest to power the Tejas Mark II, has satisfied the DRDO it can uprate the EJ200 to 110 kN.

Excellent news.
Bade
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7212
Joined: 23 May 2002 11:31
Location: badenberg in US administered part of America

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by Bade »

That is close to twice that for NLCA-Mk1...good news ! Vishal++ or do I see a second Vikrant in there.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by NRao »

OT: Vishal is the second Vikrant Class.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by shiv »

chetak wrote:
If it is a clean pass, through only flesh, at a high energy level, the entry and exit wounds may even be the same size.
Sorry to go OT. I just saw this. You've got it the other way around.

Low velocity (low kinetic energy) wounds through soft tissues can cause an exit would that is the same size (almost) as the entry wound

High kinetic energy (High velocity - >600 m/sec/rifle/shrapnel) wounds cause instant cavitation and the bullet exits before the cavity collapses taking with it a high speed spray of pulverised flesh that tears open the exit track. Each body cell that receives bullet energy becomes a nano-bullet that moves in the general direction of the bullet ripping and tearing tissues as it moves. This is followed by a collapse of the cavity that blows out more atomized blood and body tissues via the exit wound leaving a huge exit wound and massive internal damage.
Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5352
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by Cain Marko »

Truly insipid leadership by all concerned here. First we have the ADA running after US maal after repeated rebucfs by the latter. Then we have an MOD that resolutely delays any action and pinches every possible penny n so as to stifle surplus stocks or any homegrown effort. A GOI with politicians that seem to have treasonous motives and finally an AF that insits on ridiculous performance.
chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32283
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by chetak »

shiv wrote:
chetak wrote:
If it is a clean pass, through only flesh, at a high energy level, the entry and exit wounds may even be the same size.
Sorry to go OT. I just saw this. You've got it the other way around.

Low velocity (low kinetic energy) wounds through soft tissues can cause an exit would that is the same size (almost) as the entry wound

High kinetic energy (High velocity - >600 m/sec/rifle/shrapnel) wounds cause instant cavitation and the bullet exits before the cavity collapses taking with it a high speed spray of pulverised flesh that tears open the exit track. Each body cell that receives bullet energy becomes a nano-bullet that moves in the general direction of the bullet ripping and tearing tissues as it moves. This is followed by a collapse of the cavity that blows out more atomized blood and body tissues via the exit wound leaving a huge exit wound and massive internal damage.
Stand corrected, saar. Thank you.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by Singha »

Cain Marko wrote:Truly insipid leadership by all concerned here. First we have the ADA running after US maal after repeated rebucfs by the latter. Then we have an MOD that resolutely delays any action and pinches every possible penny n so as to stifle surplus stocks or any homegrown effort. A GOI with politicians that seem to have treasonous motives and finally an AF that insits on ridiculous performance.
the GE414-EDE++ would have been easiest to integrate (prior exp) and logical follow on option. one cannot blame ADA for whichever deep state network in the GOTUS blocks GE from doing this.

now we have to start from scratch on a whole new vendor relationship and parts chain.
Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5352
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by Cain Marko »

Singha wrote:the GE414-EDE++ would have been easiest to integrate (prior exp) and logical follow on option. one cannot blame ADA for whichever deep state network in the GOTUS blocks GE from doing this. now we have to start from scratch on a whole new vendor relationship and parts chain.
For a program with strategic implications, one expects leaders with more foresight, especially after being traumatized on earlier occasions.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by Singha »

^^
the 414 family is a mid 90s level of tech for GE. even in early 90s they had developed 5th gen on the raptor F120.

I suspect the roadblock is because we are just not asking for sale of product but technology sharing.

there is no guarantee that EJ will agree to share the same, though they surely can meet the thrust spec

if EJ is also not sharing tech, we have no options left assuming we do not want to go the AL41 route!

in that case might be better to just buy the 414-EDE and work on a new engine domestically with no foreign help, cloning and copying whatever we can
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by SaiK »

NRao wrote:Issuing a tender and EJ stating it can uprate their engine does not mean much. EJ could opt not to share trade secrets too - which would be very normal and should be expected.

Need to wait a few more months to see details.
Sure.. but they have never said they will not share nor they will openly.

so are the massans. so, given a toss, either direction of getting screwed by engine walas is high.. however, I'd weigh Eu to be less punitive during war times than the khaans.

they have repeatedly shown this., btw, even during pok-2 the sanctions never affected us as the dependencies were low.
now comes the larger deals and dependencies.. we got to be careful.

ideally, kaveri should have been redesigned for 110kN
chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32283
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by chetak »

SaiK wrote:
NRao wrote:Issuing a tender and EJ stating it can uprate their engine does not mean much. EJ could opt not to share trade secrets too - which would be very normal and should be expected.

Need to wait a few more months to see details.
Sure.. but they have never said they will not share nor they will openly.

so are the massans. so, given a toss, either direction of getting screwed by engine walas is high.. however, I'd weigh Eu to be less punitive during war times than the khaans.

they have repeatedly shown this., btw, even during pok-2 the sanctions never affected us as the dependencies were low.
now comes the larger deals and dependencies.. we got to be careful.

ideally, kaveri should have been redesigned for 110kN
The IN got raped by these b@stards as the seaking gearboxes were badly affected by the sanctions.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20773
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by Karan M »

CAG report only touches on some of the aspects and completely bypasses many other items. Here is OFFICIAL confirmation of the degree of change over the past decade (TD to PV) from the horses' mouth confirming what I had said, while some of these were driven by test observations, usual fixing, many were late changes because the TD systems were revised completely once IAF came on board in 2006!!

http://sajeevpearlj.blogspot.in/2015/07 ... h-p-s.html

Your tenure will probably go down in the history of Indian military aviation as the most challenging one. Isn't it an irony that you had to leave the project just months ahead of its Final Operational Clearance (FOC)?

A: The Mk-1 configuration aircraft started coming after I took over in 2005. The challenge started with PV-2, which is the present Initial Operational Clearance (IOC) configuration aircraft. In the last 10 years there were major transformation in the aircraft and systems. I would say 80 per cent changes took place in the last 10 years in terms of design and systems. Now, FOC is on track and I am happy that it will be achieved in the next six to nine months. Remember that projects are bigger than people. There are capable hands to take the programme forward. I am not running away and will be always available to offer any help.



Q: So what are the major changes to Tejas in the last 10 years?

A: Well, there are many. There were changes to the front fuselage, cockpit layout, radome, windshield and canopy. Almost 80 per cent avionics changed and even the wings underwent modifications due to R-73 missile. The rear fuselage too had to be changed to accommodate GE404-IN20 engine. Even the MMR (Multi-Mode Radar) underwent changes after the indigenous effort to make one did not succeed. So we had to go for Israeli Elta Radar. Even the fuel system got changes for better CG (Centre of Gravity) management. New Communication systems too came in. Fourteen aircraft were built during my regime and around 2500 flights achieved in 10 years. Tejas story will inspire generations to come.

--------

Even the above doesn't take into account the number of change requests flagged by the IAF team! So many that some will be incorporated only in Mk2 after HAL put its foot down and refused to keep accomodating them. These include some of the maintainability requests and hence why Mk-2 has that in its official request. Even so Mk1 is ahead of all the MiGs we have been operating and a LRU design aircraft which simplifies maintenance.
tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3263
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by tsarkar »

^^ Karan, what you posted only corroborates that LCA TDs were science lab projects, and the process to make it a viable fighter started in the 2001-5 timeframe.
The Mk-1 configuration aircraft started coming after I took over in 2005. The challenge started with PV-2, which is the present Initial Operational Clearance (IOC) configuration aircraft.
Confirms that process from TD to Mk1 started in 2005
The rear fuselage too had to be changed to accommodate GE404-IN20 engine.
There was no Kaveri, and TDs flew with F-404F2J3 that was a temporary engine for the TDs.
Even the MMR (Multi-Mode Radar) underwent changes after the indigenous effort to make one did not succeed. So we had to go for Israeli Elta Radar.
Here is the program head saying we went for an Israeli radar.
Karan M wrote:many were late changes because the TD systems were revised completely once IAF came on board in 2006!!
Correction. TD's did not have any combat capable systems.

TD's did not have any radar. Initially it was provisioned for MMR, thereafter Elta 2032
TD's did not have any production standard engine. It flew with GE F-404F2J3, was was provisioned for Kaveri, finally required GE F-404IN20
TD's did not have any LDP.
TD's did not have any HMDS.
TD's did not have any MFD.
TD's did not have any RWR.
TD's did not have any CMDS.
TD's did not have instrumentation like VOR, DME & ILS
TD's did not have any stores capability, so to develop Mk1, stores separation trails were required.
TD's did not have any missiles.
TD's did not have any guns.

So which specific TD systems were revised completely are you referring to?

IAF goalposts did not change, except for weapons. CAG is clear on that.

The work referred to by PS is the work that went in to make a combat capable aircraft from TD to Mk1.

Or are you saying that IAF should've inducted LCA TDs in squadron service, that did not have radar or a production engine and was completely unfit for combat service?
Post Reply