Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 23 Jan 2019 20:56

gaurav, Any link to the PAC report?

gaurav.p · Post by **gaurav.p** » 23 Jan 2019 21:20

ramana wrote:gaurav, Any link to the PAC report?

Here's the link ramanaji http://164.100.47.193/lsscommittee/Publ ... ts_114.pdf

It took some time for me as well to search for the report.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 23 Jan 2019 21:22

Thank you so much.

ashishvikas · Post by **ashishvikas** » 24 Jan 2019 13:21

As far as the Tejas Mk-2 is concerned, prototyping wil need fresh funds to be sanctioned. But has even the proposal for that reached the sanctioning authority? Extensive CFD studies on canard configurations etc have been done & it is now time to actually build something.

https://twitter.com/SJha1618/status/108 ... 52704?s=19

gaurav.p · Post by **gaurav.p** » 24 Jan 2019 13:50

nam wrote:Regarding DRDO's LDP for LCA, what is this from BEL? Does BEL make LDPs?

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/media/Aer ... 2.JPG.html

Continuing the chain of question, I would also like to ask this mango question whether, LDP which are used as offensive tool, can be as well used as a DIRCM to counter MANPADs et all?

gaurav.p · Post by **gaurav.p** » 24 Jan 2019 14:04

ashishvikas wrote:As far as the Tejas Mk-2 is concerned, prototyping wil need fresh funds to be sanctioned. But has even the proposal for that reached the sanctioning authority? Extensive CFD studies on canard configurations etc have been done & it is now time to actually build something.

https://twitter.com/SJha1618/status/108 ... 52704?s=19

My op is that either combine mk2(which is already called to be in medium weight category) with AMCA or shelve it. Countries are proposing to build 6th gen a/c and we can't forever be laggard in it and keep proposing 4+ gen a/c when the dynamics of airwarfare is taking paradigm shifts. You can't dream of building a mirage++-ish aircraft by late 2020's and F22-ish by mid 2030's (I am being optimistic with the timelines).

In my op, canards are anti-thesis to the doctrine of stealth. How will mastering canards help in future projects? Rather focusing on domains which are here to perpetuate in future iterations is the requirement. Countries saw the future of EW and invested in it heavily (hint F35). Countries are now demonstrating directed energy weapons to counter UAV's, later they will minituarise it and deploy as armaments in jets. Investment should be in something that has future potential. mk2 for me was a proposal to overcome the shortcomings of mk1. The overlap between mk2 and amca justify that they should be combined if not shelved.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 24 Jan 2019 14:14

USA was produced the first F-22 prototype in 1997, we should have never bought the SU 30 MKI. Numbers are always needed in battle to follow the tip of the spear. This was the same reason why a Radar guided AAM in the late 1960's/70's was abandoned on IAF recommendations, if you don't produce what you can you will never catch up. Produce, develop knowledge and manufacturing plants and then improve.

gaurav.p · Post by **gaurav.p** » 24 Jan 2019 14:40

Aditya_V wrote:USA was produced the first F-22 prototype in 1997, we should have never bought the SU 30 MKI. Numbers are always needed in battle to follow the tip of the spear.

Adityaji if above you are hinting to India getting/following the F22 path it is practically impossible then and now as well. I would counter your statement that Su30MKI was a bad purchase. Su30 is different from F22. Both are superior in their own aspects. Look at the geopolitics in the neighborhood, a heavy fighter with air superiority and dominance was the need of the hour. Nobody was selling you the F16 then. What would have been the solution to counter the PAF F16s then? I think the answer is Su30. And comparing India with US in terms of MIC is nothing but a joke.

Tejas will follow the tip of the spear no doubt but the practicality of canard is in question here, is it really a requirement for future doctrine of air warfare. I am just a

now, would like the knowledge of gurus to enlighten me more. I still say mk2 bus is long gone, merge it with AMCA to save some face if you can't axe it.

This was the same reason why a Radar guided AAM in the late 1960's/70's was abandoned on IAF recommendations, if you don't produce what you can you will never catch up. Produce, develop knowledge and manufacturing plants and then improve

Yes indigenisation is and always will be the solution. The issue is the political will.

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 24 Jan 2019 23:09

nam wrote:Regarding DRDO's LDP for LCA, what is this from BEL? Does BEL make LDPs?

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/media/Aer ... 2.JPG.html

AFAIK it is the French Damocles LDP which BEL was offering as screwdrivergiri.

Khalsa · Post by **Khalsa** » 25 Jan 2019 02:32

I agree with Gaurav P.
It's had to be either or
AMCA or Tejas Mk2 for IAF
It's the naval question that muddies the water.

Far more easier path to Mk2 for Navy
Far more easier path for AMCA for IAF

So we are back to the same problem
Shitty economic days globally and India is trying to kick of more than one aircraft development programmes with multiple upgrade and one procurement programme.

Prasad · Post by **Prasad** » 25 Jan 2019 10:01

Well the IN seems to know and understand the path to using a desi naval fighter. So despite that nearly one year loss in the middle, they're going ahead with the development of NLCA. Mk2 will come when it comes but until then they're working on doing the hard work.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 25 Jan 2019 10:43

JayS wrote:
Indranil wrote:First of all, there is question about the legitimacy of this ask. It's required of all fighters. Unfortunately, IAF cannot ask for it on all its fighters. On Tejas, it can. My beef is not with IAF's ask. My beef is with why sit on this till the last moment? IAF has been with the program from its inception.

Exactly.

There is a very logical reason for why now. Its not a last minute requirement but rather an evolving requirement from an operational perspective.

1. Historically IAF was majority MiG-21, 23, 27, 29 and sorties were local air defence / superiority and strike. Most sorties required endurance less than an hour and was within a radius of a few hundred km from home airbase. So in the event of a bird strike, a pilot could return back to base relatively quickly

2. From a threat perspective, we faced a one front war. Reason being Pakistani military being American equipped and Chinese following Soviet doctrine, compatibility between Pakistani and Chinese military was non existent. Even radios were incompatible.

1 & 2 have evolved over the last decade.

1. IAF aircraft today are mid air refueling equipped. Jaguar, MiG-29UPG, Mirage-2000, Su-30, Tejas & Rafale all are. They are flying long sorties. So in the event of a bird strike, the option of returning back to base is not there, because base is far away.

2. Pakistan is mostly Chinese equipped now and two front war is a reality. So WAC aircraft will need to fight in the east and EAC aircraft will need to fight in the west. Gaganshakti validated this. Both will need to fly really long range sorties.

Because of these developments, pilots do not have the option of a base close by. Hence additional safety needs to be built into the canopy.

This requirement has gone to IAF BRD (MiG-29) and HAL (Jaguar, Mirage, Su-30) as well and not restricted to Tejas only.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 25 Jan 2019 10:47

but on indian mainland isnt a diversion (civil) airport no more than 1 hour away?
only for andaman ops there may be issues

not that I am contesting your rationale just asking if in emergency, there is a channel for IAF to make emergency landing in civil airports?

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 25 Jan 2019 11:26

Tsarkar sir with all due respect to you, isn’t it common knowledge that bird strikes happen below 1000 feet so it is 21/23 or point Defence the requirement is same. Like IR sir said it is not that the change request is invalid it is the timing of it, increasing the thickness will increase weight and also possibly necessitate ejection clearance certification

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 25 Jan 2019 12:10

tsarkar wrote:
JayS wrote: Exactly.
There is a very logical reason for why now. Its not a last minute requirement but rather an evolving requirement from an operational perspective.

1. Historically IAF was majority MiG-21, 23, 27, 29 and sorties were local air defence / superiority and strike. Most sorties required endurance less than an hour and was within a radius of a few hundred km from home airbase. So in the event of a bird strike, a pilot could return back to base relatively quickly

2. From a threat perspective, we faced a one front war. Reason being Pakistani military being American equipped and Chinese following Soviet doctrine, compatibility between Pakistani and Chinese military was non existent. Even radios were incompatible.

1 & 2 have evolved over the last decade.

1. IAF aircraft today are mid air refueling equipped. Jaguar, MiG-29UPG, Mirage-2000, Su-30, Tejas & Rafale all are. They are flying long sorties. So in the event of a bird strike, the option of returning back to base is not there, because base is far away.

2. Pakistan is mostly Chinese equipped now and two front war is a reality. So WAC aircraft will need to fight in the east and EAC aircraft will need to fight in the west. Gaganshakti validated this. Both will need to fly really long range sorties.

Because of these developments, pilots do not have the option of a base close by. Hence additional safety needs to be built into the canopy.

This requirement has gone to IAF BRD (MiG-29) and HAL (Jaguar, Mirage, Su-30) as well and not restricted to Tejas only.

IMO, your argument about long sorties is tangential to the topic I feel, as overwhelming majority of the bird strikes happen during TO and Landing or at very low altitude. Bird hits above few thousand feet altitude are rare. And second thing, we know that very serious canopy bird hits have happened even in past when the two arguments you put forth were not applicable as you yourself said its recent evolution. Jaguars have always been meant to fly rather low. I do not have to tell you about the higher risk that Jags would face in this particular respect. Doesn't matter how far and where they fly they would have literally no reaction time in case of canopy hit.

But I am glad to know all aircrafts are being upgrades, for this requirement. I hope we have a certification standard system which will freeze this requirement now for all aircrafts flying in India.

Prasad · Post by **Prasad** » 25 Jan 2019 15:15

Lets take stock. So far this year -
Delivered
Line 1 ... SP-10 ... LA-5010 ... 26-Jul-18 ... Group Captain Kolal Krishnamurthy Venugopal (Retd)
Line 2 ... SP-11 ... LA-5011 ... 10-Oct-18 ... Group Captain Kolal Krishnamurthy Venugopal (Retd)
Line 1 ... SP-12 ... LA-5012 ... 28-Nov-18 ... Group Captain Kolal Krishnamurthy Venugopal (Retd)

TBD
SP-13 (Line 2) - will be ready for maiden flight in December 2018.
SP-14 (Line 1) - with the LCA Tejas Division.
SP-15 (Line 2) - will be ready for maiden flight in December 2018.
SP-16 (Line 1) - will have its wings from a private manufacturer - Larsen & Tubro.

PratikDas wrote:Tejas - LCA's Post
14th series produced Tejas, LA - 5014 had her maiden flight yesterday. The 13th member will follow soon. The competition between the two assembly hangars is intensifying. Competition, in one sense, indicates better days are ahead.
https://www.facebook.com/tejas.lca/posts/2104763666284737

So that'll be SP-13 & 14 most likely to be delivered within this financial year. 15 &16?

So we see a 3 (D) +2 (TBD) =5 for sure. If 15 &16 are also ready by March, it'll be 7 SP vehicles made by HAL this financial year.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 27 Jan 2019 03:56

Finally got some time to read this PAC report. Thank you for taking the time to post all this wonderful info. Some questions.

JayS wrote:This is what I have been saying all along. 16 planned capacity on HAL's own accord and as the Tier1 suppliers come online HAL will be able to deliver 24-25 aircrafts per year. And hence no third line is required. That confirms my hypothesis.

Noob pooch. At what point is it NOT feasible to add a third line? If they can deliver 24+ aircraft out of two lines (after the Tier 1 suppliers come on line), by adding a third line can we increase the production even further from 24+ aircraft or no? I am assuming the law of diminishing returns will take into effect?

JayS wrote:Rakesh, we can add the milestones in future plan in sticky post on page 1 - 16/yr for FY19-20 ans 24/yr for FY21-22.

Adding it in now. Also will add some info (from wiki) about IOC and FOC as well. Please check and let me know.

JayS wrote:The range at which Su30 being seen on LCA radar, are they real or dummy numbers given as an example?

Those numbers have to be dummy. I would be worried if he mentioned the actual range. Or perhaps that part of the briefing was supposed to be redacted and it got out by mistake. That would be concerning.

prasannasimha · Post by **prasannasimha** » 27 Jan 2019 08:03

The numbers are dummy. The ysage "for example" is striking

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 27 Jan 2019 12:15

I think we should concentrate on MKIA & refine its weight further to get the desired performance.

Canards on MK2 Sound like a complicated, long, one off project as wing design of AMCA & UCAV is different.

Would it be better to drop MK2 & go for LCA MK 3 using AMCA type wingplan layout, without the internal storage on a single engine aircraft? In the meanwhile the production orders for MK1 can be increased to 200 instead of of 83?

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 28 Jan 2019 14:35

Rakesh wrote: Noob pooch. At what point is it NOT feasible to add a third line? If they can deliver 24+ aircraft out of two lines (after the Tier 1 suppliers come on line), by adding a third line can we increase the production even further from 24+ aircraft or no? I am assuming the law of diminishing returns will take into effect?

Feasibility is a relative term. Depends on to what length we want to go and at what cost.

HAL is already on its way to 24-25/yr Capacity. They have been saying this for 2-3yrs now and things look good as of now. Lets say they can reach to that goal by 2021-22 realistically speaking. By that time HAL would have already delivered 16 +12+16+16 = 60 minimum jets out of 123. So half the order is over out of 123. The existing lines with 24/yr rate would go on for 3 more years with some ramp down by 2023-24, lets say by end of 2025. Now if we want to start 3rd line today of 8/yr, it will take 3-4 yrs minimum to get upto speed. And then all these lines will run through the order in less than 2yrs. What will they do after that..? IAF is hell bent on letting the Sq strength to fall to ground but would not consider LCA MK1A or Su30MKI as plan B for gap filler. They want MK2 and god knows what they will demand for it, which at least 7yr for IOC even in most optimistic time line. What will these LCA assy workers will do until then..? You can keep them, you can't fire them. For mere 1-1.5yrs gain in timeline, now you have one full line to amortize over only about 16-20 jets. If its within HAL, its still OK. But if you are thinking of PVT company having a line, forget about it. The set up cost and time will be inordinately high, and amortization cost over very small number of jets will make LCA cost sky rocket. And then the cost of keeping it alive after the order of 123 is over, if no more orders are followed. We do not see any serious import order too.

HAL committing to converting Nashik facility for additional LCA assy line is the most logical solution. But IAF and GOI will have to make sure the lines keep ticking.

In addition, We also have to think about IAF's capability to absorb such high rate of induction (all aircrafts taken together, LCA, SU30, Rafale, and MMRCA 2.0 if it happens) and GOI's ability to make funds available for buying at the higher rates.

ashishvikas · Post by **ashishvikas** » 28 Jan 2019 17:39

IAF to take HAL's LCA Tejas' non-compliant proposal to Defence Ministry

https://m.economictimes.com/news/defenc ... ssion=true

nam · Post by **nam** » 28 Jan 2019 18:21

After reading the report above, if true, we should stop wasting time discussing LCA.

Neither IAF, nor HAL/GoI is serious about it's induction.

IAF does not want to order MK1A using ferry range excuse and HAL/MoD is dilly dialing with procedures.

Frankly a lost cause..

hemant_sai · Post by **hemant_sai** » 28 Jan 2019 19:26

I don't think we need to lose hope on Tejas as long as there are chances of BJP coming back to power.
There are lot of fishy things in and around DPSUs/MoD/Procurement teams. Honestly a lot of work needs to be done on these DPSUs than Tejas itself.
Raksha Mantri ji needs a very proactive approach and out-of-box thinking to fix DPSUs. If BJP comes back to power, my request to Raksha Mantri ji will be - 1) Find some rule/excuse, make HAL a non-public entity. At most something like semi-military entity. So that worker-unions can be removed from HAL. 2) Bring IAF technical leadership as official partner in leadership of HAL. 3) Involve military technical staff along with civil staff 4) There on Make IAF leadership accountable. 5) Last and not the least, just close doors on import of fighter aircraft. Make it a mission of no-alternative but to Success.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 28 Jan 2019 19:54

hemant_sai wrote: I don't think we need to lose hope on Tejas as long as there are chances of BJP coming back to power.
There are lot of fishy things in and around DPSUs/MoD/Procurement teams. Honestly a lot of work needs to be done on these DPSUs than Tejas itself.
Raksha Mantri ji needs a very proactive approach and out-of-box thinking to fix DPSUs. If BJP comes back to power, my request to Raksha Mantri ji will be - 1) Find some rule/excuse, make HAL a non-public entity. At most something like semi-military entity. So that worker-unions can be removed from HAL. 2) Bring IAF technical leadership as official partner in leadership of HAL. 3) Involve military technical staff along with civil staff 4) There on Make IAF leadership accountable. 5) Last and not the least, just close doors on import of fighter aircraft. Make it a mission of no-alternative but to Success.

All these are long term measures, some of which are even simply impractical. We need a RM who can take decisions today, act as arbitrator for these frankly childish quarrels.

souravB · Post by **souravB** » 28 Jan 2019 20:02

1) Find some rule/excuse, make HAL a non-public entity. At most something like semi-military entity. So that worker-unions can be removed from HAL.

The first step should be to divide HAL into 4 separate and distinct Entities based on area of expertise namely Fixed wings, Rotorcraft, Engines and MRO.
This actually ease up private companies to take part in privatisation without an exorbitant investment. Also makes the management easy.
Get them privatized one at a time, the effect of unions will be lesser.

sum · Post by **sum** » 28 Jan 2019 20:23

nam wrote:After reading the report above, if true, we should stop wasting time discussing LCA.

Neither IAF, nor HAL/GoI is serious about it's induction.

IAF does not want to order MK1A using ferry range excuse and HAL/MoD is dilly dialing with procedures.

Frankly a lost cause..

Hate to agree but looks like thats the endgame

Every 1 step seems to lead to 3 back

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 28 Jan 2019 21:20

Unless the pm cracks some heads and says no rafale no sef this game will continue

The potus to his credit fires people who dont get in line. James duggan, mcchrystal, petraeus, 7th fleet commander does not matter- its not a personal or service based issue

nam · Post by **nam** » 28 Jan 2019 21:38

GoI/PM has to draw a line. It is LCA take it or leave.No Rafale/EF/F35. If PAF and PLAAF can induct half baked solution, I don't see the need behind IAF's obsession with perfection.

If IAF says cannot defend the nation without imported toys, it is a risk the nation will take.

ArjunPandit · Post by **ArjunPandit** » 28 Jan 2019 21:41

^^I am not sure why these things come again. The things like range etc are not something new. Is it just media or forces too putting pressure on the govt.

Prasad · Post by **Prasad** » 28 Jan 2019 21:48

The tender is for the Mk1A. If the FOC bird is acceptable, how is the 1A not acceptable? This is a "sources" based story so far with no details. The bit about ferry range is bizzare.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 28 Jan 2019 21:50

From what I read, the range is not an issue. The problem lies in price issues and negotiation between hal and mod. This doesn't seem like an iaf issue so much.

nam · Post by **nam** » 28 Jan 2019 21:58

Prasad wrote:The tender is for the Mk1A. If the FOC bird is acceptable, how is the 1A not acceptable? This is a "sources" based story so far with no details. The bit about ferry range is bizzare.

My impression was IAF got MMRCA 2 in return for buy in of MK1A by Parikkar. So IAF is holding off MK1A orders, because there is no movement on MMRCA 2(means more Rafale).

Which is why FOC(only 20) is acceptable, not MK1A as it will eat in to MMRCA 2 orders.. MoD will order more Su30 & LCA MK1A instead of Rafale.

jpremnath · Post by **jpremnath** » 28 Jan 2019 22:40

Just can't understand why the govt can't put it's foot down and tell the IAF why we can't keep buying forren maal forever...How their dependence on OEM supports and spares for these ubercool imported aircrafts is compromising our sovereign foreign policy for ages to come...After all that's what we expect a nationalist goverment to do..if we mango people can see that, why can't the govt?...

Prasad · Post by **Prasad** » 28 Jan 2019 22:41

Well that needs a hardnosed En Ooo NO from PMO to further SEF buys. Word will get out, being election time and things will get uglier. Expect no decision on this until June

jpremnath · Post by **jpremnath** » 28 Jan 2019 23:10

The government should never have agreed to MMRCA 2 in the first place!...Why does the govt has to bend over backwards everytime to IAF demands?...Let them take a look at PAF and PLAAF...does their officers say we cant fight unless we get the finest aircraft in the world?...they fight with what they have...we trust our pilots and soldiers who are brave, selfless and skilled to take down our enemy no matter what...how would they feel if our politicians say "we should hire some swiss merceneries for the next war..they are super cool..."

I am sorry for all this OT and whining...last post on this from me...it is just so painful to watch our own forces knowingly go against what is good for the country....

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 28 Jan 2019 23:27

The entire blame does not lie at IAF's feet. It was the government/babus which forced IAF into the MMRCA circus in the first place when they had already identified their need as 126 M2ks. Then after wasting 2 decades on it, the govt. said we can only buy 36 of the aircraft you selected because of cost. Bear in mind that it was the nature of the acquisition process that MoD designed that partially lead to this scenario in the first place. So IAF went back saying if we can't afford the Rafale, at least buy one of the others that we can afford. This will ofcourse lead to a bigger zoo of aircraft types than we already have but with squadron strength decreasing that is a secondary concern as far as IAF concerned. It will also impact the LCA adversely, but IAF seems unconcerned about the need for indigenisation.

IAF and the government need to come to some form of compromise where we avoid buying yet another type of aircraft and also arrest the slide in numbers. It is not that difficult if both sides are a little more flexible. Government needs to bite the bullet and buy 2 more squadrons of Rafales with the understanding that it puts an end to any further MMRCA and foreign SEF demands. Meanwhile IAF commits to large numbers of LCA Mk1s to be built while the Mk1A is completed. Perhaps more Su-30s as well if the need is acute. All this needs to wait till after the elections of course and the nature of the new government will dictate how things will proceed (or won't).

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 29 Jan 2019 00:49

A paper on LCA Weapons system simulation by PS Subramanyam, if someone feels like reading it.

https://publications.drdo.gov.in/ojs/in ... /4014/2302

chola · Post by **chola** » 29 Jan 2019 05:54

<Sigh> The Arjun all over again. It has been inducted in some numbers so then will come the ask for the Mark II (MK1A) and everything will ride on this until we near completion of the second mark and with luck the military arm in question accepts it. If not then we must go through more requirements and hope again.

I don’t believe there are anyone out to “stop” the indiginization process. It is just a military who has access to topflight hardware and a GOI who is not willing to force a domestic solution down anyone’s throat.

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 29 Jan 2019 12:52

Unfortunately if the report is correct it is the IAF which went to MoD this time. So we can not blame anyone else for this round.

chola · Post by **chola** » 29 Jan 2019 13:02

Yagnasri wrote:Unfortunately if the report is correct it is the IAF which went to MoD this time. So we can not blame anyone else for this round.

You still can’t blame the IAF. They are not in the business of manufacturing or industry building. They want the best gear available so they could fight and win. It is the GOI who must determine the threat level and it is they who must make the call to place our MIC over the need of the IAF — to maintain a wider advantage over the PAF’s F-Solahs and Blunders and the PLAAF’s rump force in Tibet which can’t support more than a dozen or J-11s and J-10s anyways.