Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

[hgupta]

That clause should have been amended to say GE414 or its likewise alternative such as M-88-4 or Rolls Royce engine.

No engine manufacturer will mate their turbofan to an aircraft, without a signed contract.

That is why there was a contest between the GE F414 and the EJ200. The former won. If the switch is made to the EJ200, then negotiations will have to start with Rolls Royce. And when that is completed (and heaven only knows when that will be!), the Tejas Mk2 program will be even more delayed. And there will be nothing different with the Rolls Royce offer, when compared to the GE offer.

You can't just take a turbofan off the shelf and plug it into a combat aircraft. There are a myriad of technical considerations at play. And those considerations can only be satisfactorily answered with a detailed technical review on mating the turbofan to the airframe. This technical review will require a signed contract with an OEM. And that will involve money. You can't dole out money to two (or more) OEMs to do the exact same thing. No Indian Govt will not sanction this.

That kind of approach virtually leaves all the leverage with that engine manufacturer and the host nation which we just saw recently. GoI will have to loosen its strings on the purse to avoid being caught in a vise like that. US always had two vendors for its contracts in R&D. When the final product is ready to be produced in mass numbers, only the US begin to lock in and order mass quantities and make sure that the vendor is in an ironclad agreement where it cannot blackmail the US. GoI needs to have that same strategy when it comes to R&D and limited production series.

[ashishvikas]

#LCAAFMk2 Update 9

The aircraft equipping and integration will start by Dec 2024 and is expected to end within 6 months, i.e. June 2025.

More in 10 [Final]

https://twitter.com/writetake/status/17 ... 1KJ-g&s=19

https://x.com/writetake/status/1738845662031368320?s=20 ---> #LCAAFMk2 Update 10

* The much-anticipated Roll Out (RO) will be likely by mid of 2025, taking into consideration the current status of the project.

* Remember, the RO is also possible without waiting for all critical systems to be integrated.

* The first flight (FF) could take between six months to one year after RO, again depending on several factors prevailing then, says those in the know-how of plane-making.

* Stay-tuned for more patience-testing, BVR-extremely-slow-speed-authentic-updates from this handle.

* One #GuruKalam badge with his signature awaits one of your comments.

[ End of thread. Jai Hind! ]

[Rakesh]

I have edited the Ashish's post above.

@ashishvikas: please edit tweets to remove graphics.

[Rakesh]

That kind of approach virtually leaves all the leverage with that engine manufacturer and the host nation which we just saw recently. GoI will have to loosen its strings on the purse to avoid being caught in a vise like that.

That is the only approach available, when you purchase an engine from off the shelf.

Forget loosening the purse strings, even opening the door to your purse strings will not make the OEM budge. A turbofan represents billions of dollars and decades of effort for an OEM. They are not going to open the door to their crown jewels, no matter how much money you throw at them. This is their bread and butter and there is zero incentive for them to help a future competitor. There are only four engine manufacturers in the world - the entire world - that have successfully developed and manufactured low bypass turbofans in large numbers, across a variety of platforms. They are;

1) Pratt & Whitney (US)
2) General Electric (US)
3) Rolls Royce (UK)
4) Safran (France)

There are other smaller players in the US like Honeywell and Williams International, but they are not at the scale of P&W or GE and cater to a different market. But that's it. These above four have a 100% monopoly on low bypass turbofans in the Western world. Same situation for high bypass turbofans for civilian airliners and military transports as well. Japan has Ishikawajima-Harima Heavy Industries, but for their own local aircraft like the Kawasaki T-4, the Kawasaki P-1 and the experimental XF5-1 aircraft.

In Russia there is UEC Saturn, Klimov and Aviadvigatel. Ukraine has Ivchenko-Progress and Motor Sich. China has the Shenyang Aeroengine Research Institute among others. But none of these as reliable as their Western counterparts, but are still widely used in their nations and even exported to other countries, as in the case of India and Pakistan.

In India, only GTRE has the technical ability and knowledge to develop a low bypass turbofan and they are struggling with it, because India having her own working low bypass turbofan has not and has never been a priority to the decision makers. But having your own SSBN certainly was a priority and received all the funding and support over decades

The only other player in India that is even thinking of entering this space is Kalyani and that is solely because of its founder, Baba Kalyani. He wants to make a foray into a number of strategic military programs, with one being a low bypass turbofan and the other being an EMALS system for aircraft carriers (in partnership with General Atomics of the US). But this program is still very much at the infancy stages. Kalyani will have to pour billions of dollars and invest minimum a decade of time (if not longer) to develop a proven and viable low bypass turbofan. For such a high value program to become a reality, Kalyani has to see a potential market in India. They are not a Govt PSU and drinking chai at 4 pm, along with hot bondas is not Kalyani's priority.

US always had two vendors for its contracts in R&D. When the final product is ready to be produced in mass numbers, only the US begin to lock in and order mass quantities and make sure that the vendor is in an ironclad agreement where it cannot blackmail the US. GoI needs to have that same strategy when it comes to R&D and limited production series.

Not possible in India, to replicate what the US does. And that is not because of funding or vision, but just boils down to priorities.

[BenG]

https://bnnbreaking.com/world/turkey/tu ... ghter-jet/

Even turkey runs a better fighter programme than DRDO Babus. The time line for Tejas MK2 is rollout in end 2024 or early 2025 and flight an year after that in 2026. I am not going to post links. Anyone can just check Wikipedia which has even worse projections than my memory. An open source website like Wikipedia has more quality and audit controls than our entire military bureaucracy. At least I see the timeline delays in one page instead of different files with different babudom.

TAI has taken 10 months to fly KAAN since rolling out the jet in March this year. Why does DRDO need more time than TAI to fly a 4th gen jet whose technologies and airframe are pretty similar to tejas mk1?

Some old fools who call my rant dhothi shivering and trolling are no more than old fools. Defending a system with no levers to control DRDO's behaviour. They and pretty much all of DRDO just engage in naval gazing and self-praise instead of retrospection.

I have a life and a pretty busy one at that. I respond only when I'm on holiday. Please don't construct that as I'm a paid troll.

[BenG]

In 2009, Tejas mk1 was deemed a complete failure without Kaveri and a new turbofan was needed. Tejas mk2 was sanctioned because a new turbofan means a new plane. With mk1a, the failure has been overcome. So Tejas mk2 necessity no longer exists. Now DRDO is trying to put cart before horse. Here too, instead of IAF's choice EJ200, DRDO chose F414 because it was cheaper and quite similar to F404.

Afterall, anybody with any iota of even superficial understanding of operational constraints of putting a very high thrust class engine (say F414) into a lighter weight (say a 6T) platform, wouldn't have said so.
And there are actual hints/allusions wrt this by various ultra-closely-associated-with-the-program-from-user-perspective folks.
(I'll not spoon-feed, and people will have to figure out these on their own, if they want to - after all, what goes-to-anyones-father what these import-pasand-shills believe or want to believe, and come and crap here with their various anal-sys. It's for the mods to keep them straight, anyway)

First feed yourself some relevant facts before you start blabbing about which engine can replace what.

Kaveri has 78 kg/s airflow while GE F414 has 77kg/s and f404 has 70 kg/s. Engine dia is 89-90 cm for all 3. The weight as it stands is 1180 kg for Kaveri, 1100 for f414 and about 1035 for f404. Its important to understand which fact/detail/data is essential before beginning a verbal diarrhoea. If have brain power left to process this vital information, you can see Kaveri replacement with f414 is just as feasible. Probably tejas mk1 intakes design is more optimised for f414.

DRDO used the engine swap as a clever ploy to fund a new project which is just fixing tejas mk1 flaws like area ruling, over-weight, less internal fuel etc. If the ploy had worked and we had a MK2 flying, all is well that ends well. But now, MK2 is hobbling down personnel, infrastructure and funds from AMCA.

[JTull]

Is it possible for anyone knowledgeable to compare M88 with F414, as an alternative? What impact it could have on TEDBF capabilities.

[ramana]

BenG You can make your arguments without personal remarks.
Don't do that in future.
Ramana

[ramana]

Also EJ200 wasn't on table.
We can prefer all we want but it has to be on table.

F414 meets the thrust requirements and is single country origin. Lesser geopolitical risk.

EJ 200 is way too powerful, not on offer and has multiple fathers. Any among them can object.
Where did IAF say they want EJ 200 ?

[maitya]

Afterall, anybody with any iota of even superficial understanding of operational constraints of putting a very high thrust class engine (say F414) into a lighter weight (say a 6T) platform, wouldn't have said so.
And there are actual hints/allusions wrt this by various ultra-closely-associated-with-the-program-from-user-perspective folks.
(I'll not spoon-feed, and people will have to figure out these on their own, if they want to - after all, what goes-to-anyones-father what these import-pasand-shills believe or want to believe, and come and crap here with their various anal-sys. It's for the mods to keep them straight, anyway)

First feed yourself some relevant facts before you start blabbing about which engine can replace what.

Kaveri has 78 kg/s airflow while GE F414 has 77kg/s and f404 has 70 kg/s. Engine dia is 89-90 cm for all 3. The weight as it stands is 1180 kg for Kaveri, 1100 for f414 and about 1035 for f404. Its important to understand which fact/detail/data is essential before beginning a verbal diarrhoea. If have brain power left to process this vital information, you can see Kaveri replacement with f414 is just as feasible. Probably tejas mk1 intakes design is more optimised for f414.

DRDO used the engine swap as a clever ploy to fund a new project which is just fixing tejas mk1 flaws like area ruling, over-weight, less internal fuel etc. If the ploy had worked and we had a MK2 flying, all is well that ends well. But now, MK2 is hobbling down personnel, infrastructure and funds from AMCA.

From your previous posts I had a feeling/hunch that you are utterly comprehension-challenged - so must thank you for posting this, as your response above, proves it conclusively.
I just hope you read the red highlighted part of my post, a hundred times maybe, and then try and comprehend what it meant.

You could have done some searches as well, but I do understand and actually empathize - before searching anything, one first needs to comprehend first what is being talked about, which definitely will take some doing by you.
So laage raho - hopefully one day, light will dawn and then some searches can be proceeded with, to first understand what is being talked about - before jumping into posting etc.

Rest of your post wrt comparo of the mass flow, inlet diameters etc of Kaveri/F414/F404 etc, are just too elementary to counter etc - you sir are ofcourse free to assume whatever you want, and even continue to vomit them time and again, into whichever thread you deem fit, as long as the Mods/admins are ready to indulge you.

But let me be generous, and provide some more ideas to you, so it becomes easier for you to parade your ignorance more forcefully and frequently around:
As per you,

Kaveri has 78 kg/s airflow while GE F414 has 77kg/s and f404 has 70 kg/s. Engine dia is 89-90 cm for all 3. The weight as it stands is 1180 kg for Kaveri, 1100 for f414 and about 1035 for f404.
<useless rant snipped>
... you can see Kaveri replacement with f414 is just as feasible ...
<more useless rant - snipped>

So going by that same logic, since the already existing F110-GE-129 with inlet dia of 118 cm and weight of 1780Kg was already producing 125KN dry thrust, it must have been a completely useless activity (and billions of $$s wastage) of producing a brand new TF called F135 with 117cm dia and 1700Kg weight producing only 76KN dry thrust for the F-35 program etc etc etc.

Go on now, chew on it ...

[bala]

maitya saar, no point wasting time on things so elementary on jet engines.

Just the complexity to master all facets would take several lifetimes, one problem or other keeps lingering on and there is no shortcut but to solve them and move to the next. Reduction in weight is a very knotty problem, since the bulk of weight are in casing, rotors, blades, etc., you touch each of them and you are into additional issues. I remember RR spent 1-2 B pounds to get 1% efficiency improvement.

Slightly different subject: Do you happen to know whether the raw material supplied by Rus for the AL-31 engines was studied thoroughly by DRDO materials lab or is this prohibited by contract clause.

[VishnuS]

maitya saar, no point wasting time on things so elementary on jet engines.

Just the complexity to master all facets would take several lifetimes, one problem or other keeps lingering on and there is no shortcut but to solve them and move to the next. Reduction in weight is a very knotty problem, since the bulk of weight are in casing, rotors, blades, etc., you touch each of them and you are into additional issues. I remember RR spent 1-2 B pounds to get 1% efficiency improvement.

Slightly different subject: Do you happen to know whether the raw material supplied by Rus for the AL-31 engines was studied thoroughly by DRDO materials lab or is this prohibited by contract clause.

Bhai, even though it is prohibited, we might have studied them secretly.

We never had any agreements with Mirage's M53 engine. But we are talking about M53 engine upgrade with our own parts....

I believe this is our own insurance if something is to happen to F414 deal. Please don't get me wrong, M53 will not be a direct replacement, but studying it and iteration improvement will help develop replacement quickly.

[drnayar]

maitya saar, no point wasting time on things so elementary on jet engines.

Just the complexity to master all facets would take several lifetimes, one problem or other keeps lingering on and there is no shortcut but to solve them and move to the next. Reduction in weight is a very knotty problem, since the bulk of weight are in casing, rotors, blades, etc., you touch each of them and you are into additional issues. I remember RR spent 1-2 B pounds to get 1% efficiency improvement.

Slightly different subject: Do you happen to know whether the raw material supplied by Rus for the AL-31 engines was studied thoroughly by DRDO materials lab or is this prohibited by contract clause.

Bhai, even though it is prohibited, we might have studied them secretly.

We never had any agreements with Mirage's M53 engine. But we are talking about M53 engine upgrade with our own parts....

I believe this is our own insurance if something is to happen to F414 deal. Please don't get me wrong, M53 will not be a direct replacement, but studying it and iteration improvement will help develop replacement quickly.

it is a matter of fact a country can reverse engineer anything that they get. only depending on the level of their technological maturity. that they choose to do or not is just a matter of policy and abiding by IPR.

[Rakesh]

VIDEO: ---> https://x.com/ShivAroor/status/1741109891564294598?s=20 --> “There can be no doubts that the Tejas Mk2 is both necessary and a crucial link to our future projects, it’s time to leave delayed behind and speed up now,” ex-IAF chief Air Chief Marshal RKS Bhadauria tells me on Ep 1 of the new season of Battle Cry.

Entire Video is here ---> viewtopic.php?p=2610621#p2610621

[sanman]

The 80s called -- they want their corny Top Gun music back

----POST REMOVED-----

[Rakesh]

The 80s called -- they want their corny Top Gun music back

Please read posts (especially right above yours), before posting.

[Pratyush]

Dr. Nair,

WRT, your post regarding reverse engineering of items being subject to technical maturity of the the industry.

If the industry has the technical maturity, then they will be able to design own products with similar levels of technical capabilities.

[JTull]

We've the technical maturity to integrate any weapon system. But we don't have emotional maturity or the vision to build every subsystem, even when we can.

Prior to Atmanirbhar Bharat, it was deemed okay to import subsystems if there's no profit in producing each individual one of these.

For example, HAL never cared if tyres were imported. It was not there domain and it didn't engage with local industry until IAF faced supply disruption.

HAL is on record stating that they had no plans to indigenise FOC Tejas radomes, despite facing non-Covid related supply delays in 2019-2021.

Even when local substitutes are available, there's no straightforward process to certify these. Believe me, HAL will almost always first approach foreign supplier to help with certification even when that supplier's products are being substituted. Often these suppliers will cause delays, or steal any innovative ideas, and offer something new, setting back the whole thing.

HAL will import every subsystem at every opportunity if it can get away with it, so long as it gets a markup for the final product. This is the only reason import content remains so high.

[rrao]

TULL sirji, Just dont come to quick conclusions and pass judgement on HAL. This ex HAL donkey had spent 12 years in indigenization and braying that crores of rupees in FE were saved during its tenure. HALs objective is to deliver final product to the customer. customer doesnt see whetehr tyres are imported or made in india sirji. tell me ,how many electronic component industries are there in india which are supporting HAL locally? everything is made in USA,EU....and comes attached with various restrictions... what is the indigenous component content in HAL made mission computers, radars and other avionic systems. we dont have one simple chip resitors,chip capacitors making company in india...and baboodom... every file needs atleast 3 months to 4 months depending upon cost... HAL managers do not have credit cards to buy components directly...they have to follow roools which are as looooong as hanumanji's tail.. and the MoD inspectors they are monsters who close their eyes conveniently if it is imported and make the lives of HAL designers miserable with nonsensical demands in the name of mil certification...

[JTull]

Thanks for confirming my assessment.

Converting technical capabilities to indigenous subsystems requires a national mission. Unfortunately our ordering process focuses mostly on costs, so favours suppliers who've already monetised their research costs. There's no incentive to develop unless the end user hits a roadblock.

[csaurabh]

Thanks for confirming my assessment.

Converting technical capabilities to indigenous subsystems requires a national mission. Unfortunately our ordering process focuses mostly on costs, so favours suppliers who've already monetised their research costs. There's no incentive to develop unless the end user hits a roadblock.

Exactly. We have processes for procurement, not for development. This means most of the time, a 'proven' system will be imported.
The entire financial process is kept opaque deliberately. There is no discussion about it.

[Kartik]

Boeing used Model Based Design (MBD) with CATIA with their Boeing 787, 747-8F, 747-8I as well as 777X models. Basically all of their models since 2007 at least AFAIR. All of them are security compromised is it?

The models you cited are civilian planes. DRDO/HAL/ADA are developing a military plane with sensitive information. Not sure how that comparison applies. Moreover, by law Boeing and US defense manufacturers must only use computer systems that are certified as being compliant with US security laws, i.e., those computer systems must be situated on US soil and can only be accessed by people with US security clearance levels. All servers must be situated on US soil and none of the info/data can go out of the US.

The point being made is that civil or military, there is NO WAY that the data is compromised as easily as you're describing it. Do you think that the data related to the design of the Boeing 787/777X/747-8F/747-8I/737-8,-9,-10 are not that sensitive when it comes to ITAR??

What makes you think that DRDO/HAL/ADA are not competent enough to protect their IP?

[hgupta]

If the IN could get their IT systems compromised or the French Naval Group's Scorpene materials compromised, then yeah it can happen to DRDO/HAL/ADA.

[Kartik]

If the IN could get their IT systems compromised or the French Naval Group's Scorpene materials compromised, then yeah it can happen to DRDO/HAL/ADA.

That's as generic as one can get. Going by this logic, if LM can have their F-35 data stolen by Chinese hackers then all of theirs and Boeing's data will also necessarily be compromised and fail ITAR.

[hgupta]

If the IN could get their IT systems compromised or the French Naval Group's Scorpene materials compromised, then yeah it can happen to DRDO/HAL/ADA.

That's as generic as one can get. Going by this logic, if LM can have their F-35 data stolen by Chinese hackers then all of theirs and Boeing's data will also necessarily be compromised and fail ITAR.

Well as much as you like to deny it, there's no getting around the fact that DRDO/HAL are using a foreign IT service to produce their own designs and that means the risk is there where the data could be potentially uploaded to a server or be downloaded through a spyware program created by that foreign entity. As such, DRDO/HAL cannot maintain complete control over access to their designs and data unless they have their own servers and data is not downloaded without their express permission. The only way to be sure of that is to come up with your own design software. India has a very strong IT base. Surely they can create the likes of Solidworks. It is not beyond their capacity.

[vinay]

Well as much as you like to deny it, there's no getting around the fact that DRDO/HAL are using a foreign IT service to produce their own designs and that means the risk is there where the data could be potentially uploaded to a server or be downloaded through a spyware program created by that foreign entity. As such, DRDO/HAL cannot maintain complete control over access to their designs and data unless they have their own servers and data is not downloaded without their express permission. The only way to be sure of that is to come up with your own design software. India has a very strong IT base. Surely they can create the likes of Solidworks. It is not beyond their capacity.

ADA using Model Based Definition for Tejas Mk.2, indicates that HAL and Tier 1 suppliers such as Godrej Aerospace, TASL, Dynamatic, VEM etc. would use the same CAD package as ADA. USA civil and military aero eco-system is dominated by either Siemens NX (formerly Unigraphics) or Dassault Catia. I would guess that this is true in India as well, especially with HAL and many Tier 1 & 2 Indian suppliers being plugged into the global aerospace supply chain. It would be a good goal for India to create or buy its own CAD and associated software ecosystem as it grows in size economically. I think companies like ANSYS have a lot of engineering/product dev in India already.

Offtopic:
On the lower end, Solidworks (Dassault) and Creo (formerly ProE by PTC) are also popular and probably more widespread because they are adequate for most industries and have much lower license costs. Generally Tier 1 and Tier 2 aerospace suppliers would have the same CAD package(s) as their main customers because it is very unproductive to convert between softwares while trying to retain the original information. Tier 3 may try to match but will have a split of high/low end software and much fewer licenses. Tier 4 (machine shops etc.) would go with what they can afford and rely on upstream customers to convert into formats they can use. These CAD installations would typically require an internet connection to point to a license server to manage the pool of floating licenses within a company or between multiple locations of the same company.

For Tier 1, 2 and large Tier 3 aerospace companies, actual product related files would be managed within the framework of a product lifecycle management software such as Windchill (PTC), Teamcenter (Siemens), Oracle or SAP. These installations would be on the respective servers (local or remote) of each company.

So even while data is stored on company servers, one could argue that a connection to a CAD license server introduces a vulnerability. Any competent organization would encrypt sensitive data and monitor network traffic. There are far greater threats to data security such as employee laxity or theft, which I believe was the case in the Scorpene leak. Larger concerns should also be around DRDO/DAE/HAL journals identifying organization structure with names of all key individuals, on MoD using Gmail adressess in tender solicitations, a general over-sharing of CAD images showing innards and cut-aways of systems and technical parameters when compared to other countries.

[Rakesh]

Part 1: viewtopic.php?p=2610704#p2610704

Part 2: viewtopic.php?p=2610757#p2610757

Part 3: viewtopic.php?p=2610850#p2610850

https://x.com/writetake/status/1742807455921512584?s=20 ---> * Sources in ADA & HAL confirm that CABS has developed and established Electrical Rig for Aircraft Systems (ERAS) for the testing of electrical LRUs of #LCAAFMk2 and #AMCA.

* This is a unique test facility created first time in the country and both ADA and HAL propose to use it for all future aircraft programmes.

* Electrical systems for future surveillance mission aircraft, UAVs and UCAVs can also be tested in this facility.

ERAS Features

* Twin-engine aircraft electrical architecture validation in ground rig.
* In-house developed software for data acquisition and control in real time.
* Electrical loading of aircraft generator with lagging and leading power factor.
* Generator lubrication/cooling system with inbuilt heater.
* Status monitoring of electrical LRUs with different avionics interface.
* Testing of aircraft generators up to 120 KVA and 28000 rpm.
* Online data storage in Network Attached Storage (NAS) and automatic report generation.

LTF

* In addition CABS has also set up a state-of-the-art Lightning Test Facility (LTF) specifically for LCA program.
* This is capable of aircraft level direct and indirect lightning testing , impulse voltage testing, pin induction & bulk cable induction testing.
* The LTF, a first-of-its-kind in India, was set up with the major participation from IISc, Bangalore.

[Rakesh]

From the Jan 2024 edition of Vayu Aerospace. Interview with HAL Chairman starts from Page 43. Please click on link below....

https://www.vayuaerospace.in/Issue/2024 ... 151624.pdf

Q. How are negotiations progressing with GE for the F414 engines?

A. We should have a deal in six months to a year. We expect GE to give us a price quotation soon and then discussions will gather momentum. Things are moving fast. Our target is to conclude the deal at a good price.

[Rakesh]

https://x.com/alpha_defense/status/1757 ... 89705?s=20 ---> Officials said the first LCA Mk2 is expected to be ready for serial production by 2027 and work is already underway to get the prototype ready.

https://x.com/alpha_defense/status/1757 ... 38679?s=20 ---> They added that jigs and fixtures to produce the aircraft are already in place and work is progressing as per schedule for the first flight. The MK2 will be capable of staying in the air longer than previous versions and will also have significantly more weapons payload capacity.

New fighter jet version by March, LCA Mk2 by 2027
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ne ... 638745.cms
13 Feb 2024

[Roop]

Officials said the first LCA Mk2 is expected to be ready for serial production by 2027 ...

Hmmm ... in order for that to happen, the maiden flight would have to take place this year itself (2024). Do we know when are the expected dates for (a) prototype rollout and (b) first flight?

[rajsunder]

Officials said the first LCA Mk2 is expected to be ready for serial production by 2027 ...

Hmmm ... in order for that to happen, the maiden flight would have to take place this year itself (2024). Do we know when are the expected dates for (a) prototype rollout and (b) first flight?

could it be possible that DRDO/ADA/HAL whoever is responsible for developing MK2 might be doing the JSF F-35 way of developing and testing while the serial production is going on parallely.

[srai]

^^^
ADA/HAL are bypassing TD -> PV -> LSP -> SP route and instead going for "designed for production" approach.

All new platforms Tejas Mk.2, TEDBF and AMCA being designed straight for production — meaning manufacturing standards and processes are setup from get go with final production in mind. All future R&D are going to be done this new way in line with latest practices by leading nations. It cuts down a lot of time.

However, there is still extensive flight testing to be done. For complex products, there are always some design glitches that will be discovered during testing. It depends on the IAF as to how much “concession” it is willing to give to attain IOC as quickly as possible and let the production begin.

[bala]

Another thing to note is that HAL has several decades of experience with the LCA program. Many things can be borrowed as-is. Flight control laws are now actually tested on an in-house test bed that simulates the actual flight. Sub-systems, layouts, process flows, production ready components are all relatively easier compared to the initial learning curve. We know what works and doesn't. The wind tunnel simulation tests are now mature and once Tejas Mk.2, TEDBF and AMCA are properly validated then it onwards to prototype and testing. Both Tejas MK 2 and TEDBF have enormous previous experience, however AMCA is new for stealth which HAL has no prior experience in this domain. The aero glitches if any are going to be minor things which needs some fine tuning here and there. Getting to flight is perhaps quicker and there is no large obstacle to get to production quickly.

[srai]

^^^
Time will tell …

[Pratyush]

Forces will tell.

[Yagnasri]

From what I read Mk2 will be a direct production-level model. So direct testing. F404 production is now limited to 20 per year. So MkA1 can not be more than 20 per year. Hence, I think the second large order we read about may not come for MK1A and will be directly for MK2. Since F414 is in use with various US and other fighter, we may not have serious production issues for that. So Mk2 can be done in much larger units per year.

Shows what happens when we do not have our own engines.

[srai]

^^^
Mk1A is here. Let the orders stand.

Mk2 yet to be. Let it have its own orders.

Don’t mix the two!

[Haridas]

it is a matter of fact a country can reverse engineer anything that they get. only depending on the level of their technological maturity. that they choose to do or not is just a matter of policy and abiding by IPR.

What IPR prevents india from disassembling a turbo engine from open market (life hours expiration) to learn/inspire from?

Patents with India coverage will not teach secret sauce / family jewels (guerenteed), OTOH many patents are filed to mislead / red herring.

Babus and labs complicit in not doing what is needed (they do no get fired for inaction).

Labs and technical beaurocracy have many evil parochial divisive groups based on language, region and creed. One can not be blind to it.

Need honesty and external audit by people of repute even if they are NRI.

[Haridas]

... F404 production is now limited to 20 per year. So MkA1 can not be more than 20 per year. Hence, I think the second large order we read about may not come for MK1A and will be directly for MK2. Since F414 is in use with various US and other fighter, we may not have serious production issues for that. So Mk2 can be done in much larger units per year.

Shows what happens when we do not have our own engines.

F414 will be made in India by GE

F404 beyond 20 per yr is good shoe in for Kaveri and /or new Safran JV engine

[ashthor]

I think we are held back by our own people who acts as puppets for others....Everything including desi corporate's is being used to pull down Atmanirbhar Bharat.