LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

[Gyan]

We should order another 20 LCA Mark 1 ie total of 60. Then go for 60 Mark 1.5 followed by 120 Mark-2 (for IAF).

[Nitesh]

Sorry, but in case if IAF orders more MK1/Mk1A, do we have agreement to get extra engines at same spec at same price, or this needs to be negotiated separately, and GE may not hold the same prices, another issue in the making.

[mody]

Shaving off 800 Kgs for LCA Mk1A, is not going to be possible. The best case scenario for the LCA in my opinion is as follows:

1). FoC latest by March 2016.
2). SP2 to SP4 flight by end December 2015.
3). 2016-17 SP5 to SP12
4). 2017-18 onwards 16 aircrafts per year.

For MK1A, the main optimizations that are possible and easily within completion before 2019 are,
1). Weight reduction by optimizing the landing gear, if it is overweight.
2). Integration of OBOGS, which reportedly is almost ready. This will help save some more weight.
3). Reducing the size and weight of some of the LRU's through miniaturizing,
4). Re-arranging of some of the LRU's for better maintenance
5). Maybe getting an internal EW suite based on what was tested with PV5 I guess. This can be the first iteration.
6). New cockpit layout by reducing the no. of MFD's to only 2 large MFDs. Some other changes in avionics if better options available.
7). Maybe just maybe getting Uttam in place of hybrid MMR, but this I very much doubt.
. Getting Astra, Paveway-II and maybe if available NG-ARM integrated with LCA.

Getting rid of the 300 Kgs of ballast weight will be very difficult in the given time frame and without any physical changes in the fuselage. This would involve making changes in the flight control laws and this would involve a whole lot of testing. This won't be possible or worthwhile for MK1A. For MK-II the fuselage is going to be lengthened by 0.5 mtrs and hence re-writing the control laws is going to be needed anyways.
at most I would assume they can reduce the weight by 100-250 Kgs for the MK-1. However, along with other improvements, its still worthwhile for MK1A.

If HAL can produce 40 MK1 by 2019, then between 2019 and 2023, the likely date of MK-II coming online, HAL can produce another 64 aircrafts at 16/yr. 40 MK1A and 24 2-seat trainers.
This would keep the assembly line buzzing.
They should also setup a second assembly line for another 16 aircrafts per year, producing with co-bonded and co-cured second gen composites, thus reducing the weight of riveting and also improving the stealth characteristics.
Between 2024 to 2030, we can produce 32 aircrafts per year. 64 for the Navy and 140 for the airforce. 16 for the airforce would come from 2023.

This I feel is the best case scenario for the LCA.

[srai]

Sorry, but in case if IAF orders more MK1/Mk1A, do we have agreement to get extra engines at same spec at same price, or this needs to be negotiated separately, and GE may not hold the same prices, another issue in the making.

That is the point of "options" in the original contract so that negotiations can take place with all sub-vendors, who in-turn can negotiate with their suppliers, for firm orders plus same (or similar) price also for options when exercised (within agreed timelines).

[srai]

...

For MK1A, the main optimizations that are possible and easily within completion before 2019 are,
...
. Getting Astra, Paveway-II and maybe if available NG-ARM integrated with LCA.

...

LCA Mk.1 is already integrated with both Griffin-3 and Paveway-II LGBs.

Tejas warms up for critical weapon trials

...
Tejas also carries Laser-Guided Bombs (LGB) Griffin and LGB Paveway II both boasting of pint-point precision-hit capabilities.
...

[Karan M]

pint-point. reminds me of the number of times one sees trails instead of trials.

wot to do we are like this wonlee.

[Cosmo_R]

Saurav Jha is lamenting that HAL can't produce more than 2 LCAs a year. If true, maybe one should rope in Saab as a production partner along with an Indian firm and let HAL charge a royalty for technical services and loan of personnel.

I was not going to respond to this but changed my mind because this suggestion, if serious, is in the same category as statements that we used to hear on BRF 10 years ago saying "Give LCA to Infosys or Tatas"

Even if we called SAAB in tomorrow - they will face the same problems that all other manufacturing concerns in India face.
1. They will have to search for partners
2. they will have to look for factory space, buy land if need be; get permissions from various agencies
3. The will have to look for skilled aerospace experienced labour which is practically non existent outside HAL
4. They will have to obtain detailed drawings and specs from HAl/ADA/GE whoever is involved
5. Funds will have to flow freely and SAAB will have to make money out of it
6. Final certification will have to be done by the usual agencies

All this could end up taking longer than simply encouraging HAL to get on with it and set up what then have been doing for 15 years.

I think we have been 'encouraging' HAL for some 60 years now but the dog doesn't want to hunt. If Saurav Jha is saying that HAL is not set up to do more than two per month, then they are in the bespoke business not manufacturing.

SAAB at least has a track record of manufacturing. The 6 points you mention are all valid and they are gantlets that everyone/anyone wanting to be involved in Make in India will have to run. If these hurdles cannot be overcome, then we can be assured that nothing will change. HAL will continue to hand build 2 a month/year and we have a surplus PSU workforce on OROP and we will continue to import.

Many of the 6 points you correctly make are the very ones used by the import lobby (including the IAF)

[deejay]

TIFWIW

-LCA SP 1 is still with NFTC.
-HAL has not started assembly of SP 2.
-HAL has asked NFTC and ADA to freeze all specs for production of LCA before they begin on SP 2 and further.
-ADA / NFTC say only minor changes required. 03 - 04 months required for the big freeze. I am not sure when these 03-04 months began, when will they end.
-HAL is one side and IAF + ADA on the other side of this debate.

P.S.:info is a little dated

[ramana]

HAL is right to ask for design freeze as any design org will tweak the design even when its in production.
Any changes should be for producibility and not for design issues.

[Shreeman]

I argue things are not that bad. At 1 per year, there would be 100 LCAs by 2120. That's a respectable number by any standards. Many great planes, say the B2 had production runs of twenties. I say 12 or 14 or whatever so far is not bad at all. Give them time, I am sure by 2050 there would be a stable production line churning out at least one, if not one and a half per year.

There is a go slow event going on, people. For whatever reason.

[Indranil]

The landing gear of LCA is designed by CVRDE, and likely to be over-designed. But what exactly is HAL's expertise in designing/optimizing landing gears?

Indranil, are you sure about the regular LCAs landing gear (not NP). My recollection is it was designed by the same LRU group which handles the Jaguar landing gear, accessories division lucknow. There is now a landing gear focused unit.
http://www.hal-india.com/Common/Uploads ... nglish.pdf
Several patents for the Undercarriage components by ASERDC at HAL but can't find the original report. I think CVRDE was roped in later for the MLG.

You could be right. I have not read that the LG-design originated in Lucknow. But it could be. Currently, CVRDE designs and builds the MLG and NLG of the LCA (mk1 and Mk2) and Rustom-II.

The LCA Navy certainly has beefier legs than it should. The problem is not so acute on LCA Tejas, but it is believed that we were overcautious there as well. It is natural, we are still learning. Optimizations will follow.

TIFWIW

-LCA SP 1 is still with NFTC.
-HAL has not started assembly of SP 2.
-HAL has asked NFTC and ADA to freeze all specs for production of LCA before they begin on SP 2 and further.
-ADA / NFTC say only minor changes required. 03 - 04 months required for the big freeze. I am not sure when these 03-04 months began, when will they end.
-HAL is one side and IAF + ADA on the other side of this debate.

P.S.:info is a little dated

-TRUE
-FALSE
-1.5 year old truth
-1.5 year old truth (Subramanya, Tamilmani and Tyagi had all spoken about the freeze)
-Don't know.

[deejay]

...

...
-HAL has not started assembly of SP 2.

...
-FALSE

Thanks for the correction. The above answer was provided to me when I asked specifically why the SP 2 is not out till now.

[suryag]

SP2 as such was ready atleast a year ago(because the parts were already ordered), the airframe was also built, my guess is that ADA/HAL want to deliver near FOC quality starting SP-2 which is why it is getting delayed.

[Shreeman]

I am starting a new rumor. There will be no SP2. Instead just SP3 onwards will be real production examples when assembly starts in real earnest in 2017. This is done to rationalise costs and let HAL focus its energies on improvements in Hawk assembly quality that has been suffering. SP2 fuselage will be used by HAL to demonstrate capabilities of Mk1A. In part this requires cutting open the wings to remove dead weight (I am told it is solid silver ballast) and the main fuselage to insert a small plug (Mk1A does not need a plug), and machining excess metal off the landing gear. Also, the LRUs will be cannibalised and the radar installed on PV5 to make it a functional trainer. This is to convince the IAF that weight can be shaved off. The landing gear will then be tested on a jaguar.

Now, I have no basis for these "facts" but stranger things have materialised.

[RKumar]

What the heck with this near FOC standard.... there is reason why 20 IOC were ordered so that all production line issues are sorted by the time FOC is gained and possibility to fix some operational issues discovered with IOC fighter.

<sorry for bad language, nothing targeted to anymore here ... just sharing my feeling>
Why everyone is using their brain to fu*k up LCA.

[member_22605]

Landing gear is designed by HAL ARDC and made at HAL Nashik. No organization can afford excess inventory and where will you keep all those aircrafts? remember you need to keep them flight worthy so the daily inspection and regular flights. Finally you need a design freeze inorder to start mass production and not even SAAB or Dassault can produce in a situation where the design hasn't been frozen yet. HAL is not always the culprit despite what many of the forum members think.

[Sid]

^^^ In the absence of light, darkness prevails. And BRF relies on chaiwala and publicly available info to arrive at a conclusion.

Hence can you shed some light on LCA issues/status and ease the pain of fellow brethren.

[Indranil]

Landing gear is designed by HAL ARDC and made at HAL Nashik. No organization can afford excess inventory and where will you keep all those aircrafts? remember you need to keep them flight worthy so the daily inspection and regular flights. Finally you need a design freeze inorder to start mass production and not even SAAB or Dassault can produce in a situation where the design hasn't been frozen yet. HAL is not always the culprit despite what many of the forum members think.

Then why is CVRDE putting out so many tenders on the landing gear of both Mk1 and Mk2. I am a little short on time here, but I will produce a few of them here, if you want. I distinctly remember posting Mk2s tender here. We were doing an Mk1 to Mk2 comparison based on that. And lets say, HAL designed and is fabricating the landing gears. Does it not make HAL more culpable of sitting on their hands for close to a decade when they think that optimizing the landing gear for Mk1A is a couple of years' job?

Either you are right, or your ex-chief was right. When Mk1 got IOC-2, Dr. Tyagi said that the design is frozen and HAL will produce 4 SPs till mid-2015, 8 SPs from next year. I even remember the picture of him in front of the new hangar built for LCA Tejas. I had fought the detractors on this very forum on behalf of HAL then, saying HAL has turned a page on Tejas. The talk was that SP-1 and SP-2's production started before the design was frozen, and hence they do not conform to the specification, but every article from SP-3 onwards would comply, and hence will be provided to IAF. Was this not what was said? If yes, what you say now is just an excuse for non-performance. If there are roadblocks, and mismatched timelines, then the management is clearly not up to the task, complicated as it might be. There is no two ways about it in my mind.

Regarding hangar space, it is another weak argument. Serial produced articles are to be passed on to IAF ASAP. IAF has been waiting FOR VERY LONG.

P.S. I don't know what they are doing with Tejas. ADE has a tender for cockpit fitments on SP1. And the list is staggering for an already built aircraft! And the number of units sought is '1'.
Cockpit Fitments for LCA SP1 Standard Aircraft

Code: Select all

List of Deliverables by the Vendor

Sl. Unit                           Sub-unit                                 Qty.
No. 
1.  HMDS                           HMS - Line of Sight Computer Unit (LCU)   1
                                   Tray Assy
                                   Cable Assy, Pilot
                                   Cable Assy, Guillotine
                                   Guillotine
                                   Cartridge
                                   Guillotine Installation Kit
                                   Mating Connector Set
                                   HMS - Magnetic Transmitter
                                   Unit (MTU) (Strike)
                                   HMS - Seat Position Sensor
                                   HMS  - Control Panel
                                   HMDS - Head Unit (Medium)
2.  LH Console - AFT                                                         1
3.  L-MIP                                                                    1
4.  R-MIP                                                                    1
5.  GCP                                                                      1
6.  EFCP                                                                     1
7.  ECS CP                                                                   1
8.  SCP                                                                      1
9.  LCP                                                                      1
10. ILCP                                                                     1
11. COCKPIT FLOODLIGHTS                                                      1
12. REMOTE CP                                                                1
13. DIMMERSTAT                                                               1
14. INVERTER CUM DIMMER                                                      1
15. AHCP                                                                     1
16. LH Console - FWD                                                         1
17. RCUH                                                                     1
18. CMDS SAFETY SWITCH                                                       1
19. REMOVABLE MASS MEMORY DEVICE                                             1
20. PARKING BRAKE SWITCH                                                     1

[Karan M]

Indranil thats clearly for the flight sim at ADE where the software and other items are tested. Note all are cockpit items. The older sim is probably built to a very different standard.

[Karan M]

AdE sim pic is on drdo website.

[Indranil]

I think you are right.

[Indranil]

I apologize for some mis-information here. I got confused with the source of tenders. LCA LGs are designed and manufactured in HAL. The tenders I spoke of were also from HAL ARDC, as Raghu had specified. But my question still stands. If HAL has been designing and manufacturing the LGs for more than a decade now, is it not more culpable of sitting on its hands if optimizing the landing gear for Mk1A is a couple of years' job?

[srai]

^^^

Maybe they have been tinkering with the LGs all this time and can say that. But who knows what HAL has been doing in this regard?

[Indranil]

It will be a cyclic question then. If HAL can fix all of Mk1's vices in 2-3 years, then what is taking mk2 10 years?

[suryag]

if HAL can really shave off 1000Kgs wont the existing 404 be good to meet the ITR/STR and the drag as mentioned in the GSQR ? why do we need a MK2 ? this looks like a deliberate attempt to muddy waters not sure if all is as innocent as it seems(core stated rationale is idling of production line)

[enaiel]

Thanks raghuk. So its true - LCA production is not going to move forward until probably FOC is achieved in mid 2016 and design is frozen by IAF/ADA. And FOC is delayed due to non-supply of new quartz radome and bolt on inflight refueling probe by Cobham. HAL had previously stated that they planned to deliver 6, 8 and finally 16 aircraft per year after the design is frozen. So first Tejas Mk1 squadron will only be established in 2019 -2020 and all 40 Tejas Mk1 will be delivered by 2020 -2021. At which point they will be able to start producing Tejas Mk2. So we definitely don't need a Tejas Mk1A. A complete mess because IAF/ADA/HAL/MoD have not been able to work together and have not been able to grasp the concept of tranche development.

Landing gear is designed by HAL ARDC and made at HAL Nashik. No organization can afford excess inventory and where will you keep all those aircrafts? remember you need to keep them flight worthy so the daily inspection and regular flights. Finally you need a design freeze inorder to start mass production and not even SAAB or Dassault can produce in a situation where the design hasn't been frozen yet. HAL is not always the culprit despite what many of the forum members think.

[Karan M]

Mk2 is not merely weight reduction from any place; it would require FBW retest and certification. Also, Mk2 has LRUs repositioned for ease of maintenance. I think HALs proposal while theoretically workable is best applied to improve Mk2 weight reduction and Mk1 should be produced as is.

[srai]

Mk2 is not merely weight reduction from any place; it would require FBW retest and certification. Also, Mk2 has LRUs repositioned for ease of maintenance. I think HALs proposal while theoretically workable is best applied to improve Mk2 weight reduction and Mk1 should be produced as is.

True! LCA Mk.1 should be produced as is and more orders should be place for it beyond mere 40 units. The whole Mk.1A is non-viable as an interim due to time constraints since it takes time to flight test the changes. Where Mk.1A makes sense is at MLU, which can include weight reduction, internal rearrangement, upgrades of LRU and avionics, AESA radar and internal EW suite.

[Cain Marko]

More orders for which std, ioc 2 or foc? If for latter, are we sure the bird will be available by mar 2016. What about hals production rates, which seem to be an issue? From buyer perspective, not much to inspire trust...what if IAF puts eggs in lca basket and orders 100 more, and hal can only deliver about 50 by 2021?

[srai]

^^^

The initial production hurdles will be overcome in due time as both integrator and suppliers establish themselves. Look at how much issues HAL had at the beginning for the license production Su-30MKI and Hawk AJT. But now both are humming along.

No one is disagreeing on the fact that HAL underestimated the effort and announced to the world impossible timelines when even established global players take at least 36-months to deliver first planes from active production lines. IOC-2 was only finalized in Dec-2013. Aren't there defence journalists who can visit HAL facilities and see the progress of LCA production on their assembly lines? They can report on progress since HAL themselves are failing to communicate and market themselves clearly.

[Akshay Kapoor]

I was doing some back of the envelop analysis on what roles we could use Tejas Mk 1 for. According to Vivek Gupta's excellent analysis Tejas has a combat radius of about 250 km in a low - low -low mode with 2 tonnes payload and 1 center-line fuel tank. I checked google maps and drew arcs of 250 km radius from our main AF bases. Staging from Pathankot that allows coverage of a an arc including Sialkot, Gujrawala and Lahore. Staging from Amritsar we can even reach Faisalabad. We can also stage from Jammu, Srinagar, Udhampur, Bikaner, Adampur, Uttarlai.

We can cover pretty much all of Pakistan to a depth of at least 100 kms (from Pathankot we can go much deeper). That is good enough for tactical support to Army.

For CAP roles at 15000-20000 feet, Tejas has a 350 km combat radius with a centre line fuel tank and 2 tonnes of A2A load. With a 1 tonne load of 6 AAMs we should be able to address most of current agility issues in air combat.

[mody]

Maybe HAL is insisting on a firm commitment for MK1A and I don't think thats a bad idea.

Imagine a scenario that only the current order for 40 MK1 is confirmed and after that we wait for MKII.
HAL would probably finish the production around 2020 and then the production line would remain idle.
MKII was sanctioned in 2009, but as confirmed by RM, the engine order was confirmed only in 2013.
As it stands today the 2022-23 timeline for getting MKII ready seems really ambitious.
What if MK-II were to suffer a 2 year delay. Entirely plausible with the current state of affairs.

IAF in 2023 would be desperately short of planes. Someone like Saab or even Dassault could then pitch in and offer to transfer the entire production line for Gripen or Rafael to India and assemble the planes in India in partnership with a private player in 51:49 joint joint venture.
The production run for these foreign planes would have been over by then and there would hardly be any export orders either. To India the pitch would be to get a private player into the aerospace business with cutting edge manufacturing tech, plus joint exports of the planes to other countries and getting a good 4.5 gen plane ready and raring to go. To sweeten the deal, the customization, would include porting all Indian made weapons like Astra, desi-LGBs, NG-ARM if available etc, on to these platforms.

IAF would certainly jump at such a proposal and most people would argue that valuable lessons have already been learnt from MK-1 and that MK-II is already too late and would be obsolete by the time is actually matures. Instead ADA should utilize the experience gained and move on to 5th gen Fighter project and for the current requirement Indian assembly of a proven and ready foreign fighter in a joint venture between a private player and foreign partner is the best way to go.

HAL would be left holding the can of having setup a completely new assembly line and built only 40 planes on the same.
The above scenario seems completely plausible to me and hence HAL insistence on a firm commitment for MK-1A is not bad. Also MK-1A, does not come in the way of MK-II. It will materialize from the work being done for MK-II itself. The only thing is that the specs and changes/features required for MK-1A should be frozen and these changes/features should be given priority in the MK-II development.
Producing 40 MK-I+40 MK-IA+24 MK-I 2-seat trainers will justify the expense for the current assembly line.

Offcourse all this should come with a strict timeline and fixed responsibility to HAL to complete the production of 40 MK-I latest by end 2019.

[SaiK]

I can see logic and agree to HAL's wishes on commitments. Exactly the way to do things.. but what I don't get is HAL trying to re-invent the wheel like stamping their feet and telling about LCA Mk1.5. Jeez! as if we don't have problems with the current delivery of things. Any change must go thru regression especially on stores and weapons system., and they want AESA put in. was that a joke?

[srai]

I was doing some back of the envelop analysis on what roles we could use Tejas Mk 1 for. According to Vivek Gupta's excellent analysis Tejas has a combat radius of about 250 km in a low - low -low mode with 2 tonnes payload and 1 center-line fuel tank. I checked google maps and drew arcs of 250 km radius from our main AF bases. Staging from Pathankot that allows coverage of a an arc including Sialkot, Gujrawala and Lahore. Staging from Amritsar we can even reach Faisalabad. We can also stage from Jammu, Srinagar, Udhampur, Bikaner, Adampur, Uttarlai.

We can cover pretty much all of Pakistan to a depth of at least 100 kms (from Pathankot we can go much deeper). That is good enough for tactical support to Army.

For CAP roles at 15000-20000 feet, Tejas has a 350 km combat radius with a centre line fuel tank and 2 tonnes of A2A load. With a 1 tonne load of 6 AAMs we should be able to address most of current agility issues in air combat.

That is with a centerline fuel tank. Now calculate combat radius with two or three fuel tanks: 2 x 1200ltr/800ltr inner wings plus 1 x 725ltr centerline. LCA's reach would be even more.

[JTull]

Re: Mk1A, why not replace the ballast with fuel tanks?

[member_26535]

Saurav Jha ‏@SJha1618 22m22 minutes ago New Delhi, Delhi

#LCA update 1: The first new nose cone and bolt on IFR probe have been delivered by Cobham. Nose cone integration underway.
#LCA update 2: The other two nose cones are expected to be delivered by the end of next month. Three aircraft will be used to test it.
#LCA update 3: HAL says SP-2 will fly next month. Says will deliver four aircraft by March 2016.
#LCA update 4: HAL says that it will build 8 SPs in 2016-17.Their credibility is on the line.
#LCA Update 4: IAF and ADA are both of the view that HAL will receive 1A, orders if it can at least deliver the first 40 aircraft by 2018.
#LCA update 5: 2016 is going to be a crucial year. if HAL can ramp up production, its case for further order of Mk-1 variants will prevail.
#LCA update 6: Nose cone qualification for FOC will be completed by year end. IFR will take longer. Race to March 2016 deadline is on.

[NRao]

Re: Mk1A, why not replace the ballast with fuel tanks?

I believe that is because as the fuel is consumed the weight distribution starts to make a difference.

[JTull]

But replacing ballast with nothing will cause the same issue. What is HAL's plan? With fuel you can actively manage distribution between different tanks.

Also, the control software should also compensate for some of the ballast issues.

[K Mehta]

I thought the ballast was going to be replaced with an internal jammer?

[vina]

Well, design and weight gain is a spiral. So for e.g., if they manage to shave off 200kg (say) from the under carriage which is behind the CG in the tricycle landing gear of the kind the LCA has, to maintain the position of the CG, you need to reduce some weight from the front of the airport depending on the lever (i.e. if you take 200kg off X m to the rear of the CG, you will remove 100K of ballast if it is located 2X m forward of CG), so the total weight reduced is 300KG. Now the weight of the aircraft the undercarriage supports is 300Kg less than earlier ! As a result, you do one more iteration and you take off a further say 20 kg off the undercarriage (say) and then 10 kg from the ballast, so you have shaved off 330 kg, and that is lesser weight the undercarriage supports, and so you do one more iteration and the weight saved drops to negligible levels like say 1 or 2 kgs and you stop.

The point is, even small weight losses in individual components cumulatively works in your favour as significant weight losses, this is the good flip side of weight gain where even small individual gains will see a Tun Tun Mausi esque final result.