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

Trikaal
BRFite
Posts: 564
Joined: 19 Jul 2017 08:01

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

Postby Trikaal » 17 Jun 2018 13:03

Yes. Also, I think that if the french do not back down, at least for the israeli radars(Tejas), then it will kill any chance of further purchase of Rafale.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8286
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

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

Postby Pratyush » 17 Jun 2018 13:04

That is the story of nearly all Indian defence negotiation. I am hard pressed to find out the exception to this.

JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2765
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

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

Postby JTull » 17 Jun 2018 13:14

It's basic knowledge that every optionality has a price. Whether we want to pay for that must be determined in advance. It's also a fact that not all options that are paid for need to be exercised.

Indian negotiators are tasked to minimise the price of deal at hand because in the end that'll be scrutinised in public domain.

There's no point in criticising. Govts would fall if in Indian context we're found to have paid for but not exercised an option.

souravB
BRFite
Posts: 578
Joined: 07 Jun 2018 13:52

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

Postby souravB » 17 Jun 2018 16:55

There might be a possibility that IAF wants to use meteor with only Mk2 fitted with Uttam and not 1A. Mk2 ultimately is more suited for interceptor role.
For 1A they are considering Astra which will be more suited for occasional firing of BVR in point defense role, so they do not care if MBDA does not want them to integrate Meteor elsewhere. Also by next 5 years we will also have SFDR Astra.
Saves cost, hassle, indigenous effort and makes everybody happy.

barath_s
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 45
Joined: 03 Apr 2017 10:40

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

Postby barath_s » 17 Jun 2018 17:56

tsarkar wrote:x post from the Navy thread



For LCA Navy, we went with a two seater design with the rear cockpit used for avionics & possibly additional fuel. The same design element was used for MiG-29K and possibly carried forward in MiG-35 that takes MiG-29K developments (paid by India) to land based fighters.

So whenever you see this design, remember Indians came up with it.



Is this a joke ?

The Naval LCA prototype first flew in 2012 while the 29k entered operational service in 2010. The F4 phantom which flew in 1958 had an aft seat RIO, and I am sure you could come up with more examples. The F15 had a front seat wso . Front seat vs rear seat are at junior school levels of obviousness

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17036
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

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

Postby Rahul M » 17 Jun 2018 19:36

you did not understand what he wrote (possibly because of lack of awareness of the Tejas project) and are now making a rude post based on that lack of understanding. please desist.

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4850
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby Neshant » 18 Jun 2018 11:34

I'm no missile expert but Meteor should only be used on front line fighters with long range and high load carrying capacity.

That largely excludes it's usage on Tejas MkX.

Anyway India should be careful about further purchases of military equipment from Europe which may restrict usage to narrow bands.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

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

Postby Singha » 18 Jun 2018 12:07

to really chase off chinese heavies ( transports, ELINT, tankers, AWACS) from their orbits over tibet, we need a solid fuel hypersonic missile of 1000km range so launch platforms can climb safely on our side to 50,000 feet before releasing them on their long climb to 200,000feet and back down.

but first a means to surveil and track a.c deep inside tibet over the himalaya has to be tested and proofed. ground based HPR are cued to high alt BMD targets and cannot detect manned platforms flying much lower. the aussie jindalee oth seems all bark and no bite. could not even track a big lumbering malaysia 777....and they talk of tracking ships in the north pacific.

some new basic research is needed on this theme.

AWACS will have emissions, the rest will have little to none.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4550
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby JayS » 18 Jun 2018 18:24

barath_s wrote:
tsarkar wrote:x post from the Navy thread



For LCA Navy, we went with a two seater design with the rear cockpit used for avionics & possibly additional fuel. The same design element was used for MiG-29K and possibly carried forward in MiG-35 that takes MiG-29K developments (paid by India) to land based fighters.

So whenever you see this design, remember Indians came up with it.



Is this a joke ?

The Naval LCA prototype first flew in 2012 while the 29k entered operational service in 2010. The F4 phantom which flew in 1958 had an aft seat RIO, and I am sure you could come up with more examples. The F15 had a front seat wso . Front seat vs rear seat are at junior school levels of obviousness


What he meant is starting with a two seater design and converting it to a single seater by converting rear seat for additional fuel or avionics.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4550
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby JayS » 18 Jun 2018 18:26

Singha wrote:to really chase off chinese heavies ( transports, ELINT, tankers, AWACS) from their orbits over tibet, we need a solid fuel hypersonic missile of 1000km range so launch platforms can climb safely on our side to 50,000 feet before releasing them on their long climb to 200,000feet and back down.

but first a means to surveil and track a.c deep inside tibet over the himalaya has to be tested and proofed. ground based HPR are cued to high alt BMD targets and cannot detect manned platforms flying much lower. the aussie jindalee oth seems all bark and no bite. could not even track a big lumbering malaysia 777....and they talk of tracking ships in the north pacific.

some new basic research is needed on this theme.

AWACS will have emissions, the rest will have little to none.


Saar how is this related to LCA MK1...??

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19684
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 19 Jun 2018 09:09

He drew on the meteor discussion..and is pointing out its limitations..

IMO, not integrating Meteor on Tejas and Su-30 is but expected as it takes away a big reason for India to buy Rafale. What did we expect, MBDA which is tied at the hip to the French state and Dassault, will just acquisce to our needs? Its like expecting Thales will put a RBE-2 and Spectra derivative on the Su-30.

jaysimha
BRFite
Posts: 1265
Joined: 20 Dec 2017 14:30

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

Postby jaysimha » 19 Jun 2018 12:38

Tejas – Inching Closer to FOC
http://www.aeromag.in/Magazines/6868929262.pdf

Trikaal
BRFite
Posts: 564
Joined: 19 Jul 2017 08:01

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

Postby Trikaal » 19 Jun 2018 13:30

Karan M wrote:He drew on the meteor discussion..and is pointing out its limitations..

IMO, not integrating Meteor on Tejas and Su-30 is but expected as it takes away a big reason for India to buy Rafale. What did we expect, MBDA which is tied at the hip to the French state and Dassault, will just acquisce to our needs? Its like expecting Thales will put a RBE-2 and Spectra derivative on the Su-30.

This is exactly what makes Israel such a valuable partner. They have no qualms in integrating whatever system on whatever platform. We have Israeli avionics on Su-30 if I am not mistaken and for Tejas, radars, missiles and quite a few subsystems.

Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13262
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

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

Postby Lalmohan » 19 Jun 2018 13:54

most Israeli kit is derived from unkil tech, and unkil can and does veto their onward sales
Israel is not risk free

Bart S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2412
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 00:03

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

Postby Bart S » 19 Jun 2018 13:59

Trikaal wrote:
Karan M wrote:He drew on the meteor discussion..and is pointing out its limitations..

IMO, not integrating Meteor on Tejas and Su-30 is but expected as it takes away a big reason for India to buy Rafale. What did we expect, MBDA which is tied at the hip to the French state and Dassault, will just acquisce to our needs? Its like expecting Thales will put a RBE-2 and Spectra derivative on the Su-30.

This is exactly what makes Israel such a valuable partner. They have no qualms in integrating whatever system on whatever platform. We have Israeli avionics on Su-30 if I am not mistaken and for Tejas, radars, missiles and quite a few subsystems.


They are opportunistic like the rest. If they had a plane to sell, they would behave the same as the French.

Raman
BRFite
Posts: 276
Joined: 06 Mar 2001 12:31
Location: Niyar kampootar onlee

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

Postby Raman » 19 Jun 2018 18:58

jaysimha wrote:Tejas – Inching Closer to FOC
http://www.aeromag.in/Magazines/6868929262.pdf


Interview with Dr Girish Deodhar includes this fascinating nugget
We have received the approval to prove
unmanned technologies like auto take-off
and landing on LCA for future uses. The
unmanned version will sport Flush Air Data
Systems technology for stealth feature. The
design of the front also will be modified.
The project will begin immediately after
receiving the FOC for Mark 1.


I'm guessing they will use this to develop the air data sensor suite for AMCA.

Trikaal
BRFite
Posts: 564
Joined: 19 Jul 2017 08:01

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

Postby Trikaal » 19 Jun 2018 19:07

Would it be a good idea to combine thw Rustom project with the unmanned Tejas? I don't see what an unmanned Tejas can do that a UCAV like Rustom can't. This might help make more funds available to the project as then we will be funding 1 instead of 2.

putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4493
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

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

Postby putnanja » 19 Jun 2018 21:38

From Tejas-LCA FB post ...

LCA Tejas Programme achieves another accomplishment:
The Tejas programme achieved a rare distinction by completing 4000 Successful Test Flights today. All the flight tests and aircraft instrumentation related activities are planned, coordinated and executed by the National Flight Test Centre, ADA in Bengaluru. NFTC has experienced Indian Air Force and Indian Navy test pilots and flight test engineers along with the scientists and engineers for telemetering the regular test flying activities in real time in an extremely controlled environment.
#LCATejas #IAF #HAL #ADA #NFTC #Milestone

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19684
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 19 Jun 2018 21:42

Trikaal wrote:Would it be a good idea to combine thw Rustom project with the unmanned Tejas? I don't see what an unmanned Tejas can do that a UCAV like Rustom can't. This might help make more funds available to the project as then we will be funding 1 instead of 2.


Not at all! The Rustom can't fly and fight in contested airspace until and unless it flies high enough that an enemy with only VSHORAD/MANPADS can't attack it, an unmanned Tejas may well be able to, especially if it is armed with a proper self defense suite. The Tejas will fly and maneuver at several times the speed of the Rustom and carry a much heavier payload! On the other hand, the Rustom is designed for extreme endurance, a day even and hence an entirely different mission capability.
Both systems complement each other and can't replace each other.

Raman
BRFite
Posts: 276
Joined: 06 Mar 2001 12:31
Location: Niyar kampootar onlee

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

Postby Raman » 19 Jun 2018 22:58

It's not clear from that paragraph if there truly is going to be a Tejas design without a pilot, or if the airplane will be used to create unmanned flight capabilities. It makes a lot of sense to develop these capabilities with a pilot still available to train or take over from the software. It will also be extremely useful for manned airplanes to execute automatic ingress, attack, evasion, etc. leaving the pilot to deal with battle plan management, target designation, etc. All in all, very exciting.

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4043
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

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

Postby kit » 20 Jun 2018 01:03

Karan M wrote:
Trikaal wrote:Would it be a good idea to combine the Rustom project with the unmanned Tejas? I don't see what an unmanned Tejas can do that a UCAV like Rustom can't. This might help make more funds available to the project as then we will be funding 1 instead of 2.


Not at all! The Rustom can't fly and fight in contested airspace until and unless it flies high enough that an enemy with only VSHORAD/MANPADS can't attack it, an unmanned Tejas may well be able to, especially if it is armed with a proper self defense suite. The Tejas will fly and maneuver at several times the speed of the Rustom and carry a much heavier payload! On the other hand, the Rustom is designed for extreme endurance, a day even and hence an entirely different mission capability.
Both systems complement each other and can't replace each other.


Boss .. you answered it .. matter of fact when you have standoff weapons at extreme ranges (Sukhoi with an x range brahmos for eg), all it needs is targeting data ..from drones or unmanned fighters! .. the manned fighter could be in home airspace

Kakarat
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2117
Joined: 26 Jan 2005 13:59

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

Postby Kakarat » 20 Jun 2018 01:12

https://www.ada.gov.in/
4000th flight on 19th Jun

TD1 : 233 PV1: 245 PV3: 387 LSP1: 74 LSP3:393 LSP5: 412

TD2 : 305 PV2: 222 PV5: 208 LSP2: 317 LSP4:364 LSP7: 299

NP1: 73 LSP8:234 PV6:180 NP2: 55

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19684
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 20 Jun 2018 04:42

DRDO notes it is making Uttam, Digital RWR and SPJ for Mk1A. If HAL wishes, it can integrate them on the Mk1A.

Great move. At any rate we have systems available for Mk2 and also, can fob off arm twisting from the Israelis or whosoever.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 24154
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

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

Postby SSridhar » 20 Jun 2018 21:58

jaysimha wrote:Tejas – Inching Closer to FOC
http://www.aeromag.in/Magazines/6868929262.pdf

July 2018 for FOC is what ADA chief says.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54781
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby ramana » 20 Jun 2018 22:07

Next month!!!!

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8215
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Postby Indranil » 20 Jun 2018 23:12

Raman wrote:
jaysimha wrote:Tejas – Inching Closer to FOC
http://www.aeromag.in/Magazines/6868929262.pdf


Interview with Dr Girish Deodhar includes this fascinating nugget
We have received the approval to prove unmanned technologies like auto take-off and landing on LCA for future uses. The unmanned version will sport Flush Air Data Systems technology for stealth feature. The design of the front also will be modified. The project will begin immediately after receiving the FOC for Mark 1.


I'm guessing they will use this to develop the air data sensor suite for AMCA.

I think what he means is that they have received the approval to prove out technologies required for the Ghatak UCAV using LCA as a test bed. They will prove out ATOL first. The manned pilot will be there as back up. I think this is a brilliant idea to mitigate risk. The final UCAV will have flush air data sensors. As will Mk2 and AMCA. But AFAIK flush air data sensors are still in development.

SSridhar wrote:
jaysimha wrote:Tejas – Inching Closer to FOC
http://www.aeromag.in/Magazines/6868929262.pdf

July 2018 for FOC is what ADA chief says.


Add a couple of months. But flight testing is carrying on smoothly. AAR coming up shortly.

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1692
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

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

Postby Khalsa » 21 Jun 2018 05:55

I heard the current Tejas Squadron is moving out soon (end of month or so).
Will this be post FOC and if so, where will be the next squadron based.
If I remember correctly, its the Flying Bullets Squadron correct.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9566
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Postby Rakesh » 21 Jun 2018 06:41

Khalsa-ji, they are moving to Sulur. See below...

Tejas squadron to be shifted to Sulur air base in July
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/t ... 207275.ece

Sulur AFS ---> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulur_Air_Force_Station

And yes, the next one is indeed No 18 Flying Bullets Sqn - of Flying Officer Nirmal Jit Singh Sekhon, PVC fame

Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2579
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

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

Postby Katare » 21 Jun 2018 07:26

AAR is the last thing left for the FOC? IOC1 was in 2011 and IOC2 in 2013...it’s about time!!

suryag
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3810
Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14

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

Postby suryag » 21 Jun 2018 08:10

IR sir haven’t we proven ATOL on Rustom1 ? What additional items would need to be proven on LCA ?

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1692
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

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

Postby Khalsa » 21 Jun 2018 09:46

Katare wrote:AAR is the last thing left for the FOC? IOC1 was in 2011 and IOC2 in 2013...it’s about time!!

It is about time Sir.

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1692
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

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

Postby Khalsa » 21 Jun 2018 09:49

Rakesh wrote:Khalsa-ji, they are moving to Sulur. See below...

Tejas squadron to be shifted to Sulur air base in July
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/t ... 207275.ece

Sulur AFS ---> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulur_Air_Force_Station

And yes, the next one is indeed No 18 Flying Bullets Sqn - of Flying Officer Nirmal Jit Singh Sekhon, PVC fame


Befitting salute to the son of the soil, From Gnat to the Tejas.
He would be bloody proud

Last question Admiral, does 45 Squadron sign off the actual FOC on behalf of the air force.
i.e were a snag / issue to develop does the move get postponed.

Arun.prabhu
BRFite
Posts: 446
Joined: 28 Aug 2016 19:26

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

Postby Arun.prabhu » 21 Jun 2018 10:04

What you need is a custom AAM mounted on one of our old Agnis with a radar or IR sensor on the Agni to provide the initial guidance. Hell, mount three or four AAMs - the missile can carry that many - to ensure that the target is destroyed for certain.

Singha wrote:to really chase off chinese heavies ( transports, ELINT, tankers, AWACS) from their orbits over tibet, we need a solid fuel hypersonic missile of 1000km range so launch platforms can climb safely on our side to 50,000 feet before releasing them on their long climb to 200,000feet and back down.

but first a means to surveil and track a.c deep inside tibet over the himalaya has to be tested and proofed. ground based HPR are cued to high alt BMD targets and cannot detect manned platforms flying much lower. the aussie jindalee oth seems all bark and no bite. could not even track a big lumbering malaysia 777....and they talk of tracking ships in the north pacific.

some new basic research is needed on this theme.

AWACS will have emissions, the rest will have little to none.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8215
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Postby Indranil » 21 Jun 2018 11:19

suryag wrote:IR sir haven’t we proven ATOL on Rustom1 ? What additional items would need to be proven on LCA ?

Not completely. ADE still doesn’t have a full proof ATOL.

This one is being developed by an ADA team. They can leverage from the Navy program. LCA Navy takes off from the jet ski in a completely hands off manner. Some aspects of the landing is also automated.

There are some other teams too who are doing ATOLs for fixed and rotary wing designs. In the private, public and academic sector.

disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7405
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

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

Postby disha » 21 Jun 2018 13:15

Disappointed that there is no lungi dance for Tejas making 4000 sorties!

I know several doubts still persist on this flight of Tejas ;-)


Trikaal
BRFite
Posts: 564
Joined: 19 Jul 2017 08:01

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

Postby Trikaal » 21 Jun 2018 13:38

Arun.prabhu wrote:What you need is a custom AAM mounted on one of our old Agnis with a radar or IR sensor on the Agni to provide the initial guidance. Hell, mount three or four AAMs - the missile can carry that many - to ensure that the target is destroyed for certain.

Missile on a missile? Is that even feasible? How will the AAM know when to detach? Missile seeker is not the same as aircraft radar, the range is severely limited.

What about the economics? It would be too costly to launch an Agni-5 every time we want to take down a transport/AWACS aircraft.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8286
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

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

Postby Pratyush » 21 Jun 2018 13:39

Not me. I believe that Tejas was delayed due to lack of clarity from the government rather than any design issues with the aircraft.

A bit of foresight in early 2000 could have resulted in a functional and serviceable fighter by 2007 or 2008. Such as using the mission package developed for mig 21-93 or something similar. While not cutting edge, would still be a lot better than what we had and still have in service.

On an easy to fly and maintain aircraft.

While domestic mission package gets deployed in a subsequent iteration of the plane.

An approach of this nature would have given us at least 200 jets in service by now.

Trikaal
BRFite
Posts: 564
Joined: 19 Jul 2017 08:01

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

Postby Trikaal » 21 Jun 2018 13:43

Pratyush wrote:Not me. I believe that Tejas was delayed due to lack of clarity from the government rather than any design issues with the aircraft.

A bit of foresight in early 2000 could have resulted in a functional and serviceable fighter by 2007 or 2008. Such as using the mission package developed for mig 21-93 or something similar. While not cutting edge, would still be a lot better than what we had and still have in service.

On an easy to fly and maintain aircraft.

While domestic mission package gets deployed in a subsequent iteration of the plane.

An approach of this nature would have given us at least 200 jets in service by now.

I don't think IAF would've accepted it. Those were the days when there were plans to induct 200 rafale. No way IAF would've accepted a sub-standard Tejas.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9566
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Postby Rakesh » 21 Jun 2018 18:08

Khalsa wrote:Last question Admiral, does 45 Squadron sign off the actual FOC on behalf of the air force.
i.e were a snag / issue to develop does the move get postponed.

That is a question that IR is best suited to answer. I have no clue.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54781
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby ramana » 21 Jun 2018 21:00

I think its the IAF chief who accepts the FOC.


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests