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

Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2452
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

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

Postby Katare » 25 Aug 2018 00:34

It depends on what kind of robots are you talking about. They are not that expensive - the cost runs from few thousands of dollars to couple of hundred thousand for higher end ones. Couple of million dollars is usually sufficient to build a vey nice automated manufacturing line for fiber laying and processing to build large structures.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7389
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Postby Indranil » 25 Aug 2018 02:50

Katare Sahab, Boeing just spent a billion for their 787 automated line. The ROI is calculated typically in years of existense. For Boeing, Airbus lines manufacturing 40-60 planes a year, the ROI starts coming in at 4-5 years at the earliest (at that rate).

But it is true that today's robots (unlike yesterdays monument robots) are flexible and decrease tooling costs going from one plane to the other. But even then where are the orders?

Trikaal
BRFite
Posts: 544
Joined: 19 Jul 2017 08:01

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

Postby Trikaal » 25 Aug 2018 10:12

RKumar wrote:2. We know with certain confidence that there will be further orders for at least 250+ kits - 200+ million worth

We don't know that. Nothing is stopping any other manufacturing company to bid for those extra 200+million contracts in future and win them. What will be the use of costly equipment then if tomorrow Reliance or some other new player outbids them?

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8052
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

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

Postby Pratyush » 25 Aug 2018 10:26

The CSIR process that reduces the weight of the LCA by 20%. How much would it help in shedding max take off weight.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7389
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Postby Indranil » 25 Aug 2018 11:51

All those parts are already flying on all the flying LSPs and SPs.

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1163
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

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

Postby Gyan » 25 Aug 2018 11:55

From the casual reading of the posts here, it seems that the impression of LCA production being split into 16 mk1 IOC single seater and 16 mk1 FOC single seater + 16 MK 1 FOC double seater is incorrect and the original production schedule is being maintained which is 20 mk1 IOC and 20 mk1 IOC followed by 83 MKIA.
Though I do hope that we see one aircraft rolling out of the assembly line each month from September 2018 onwards

RKumar
BRFite
Posts: 1049
Joined: 26 Jul 2009 12:29
Location: Evolution is invention, explosion is destruction.

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

Postby RKumar » 25 Aug 2018 15:45

Thank you for queries everyone.

I can’t give cost analysis because I don’t have some specific data, forget about all relevant data. I don’t want to pull numbers out of Musharraf. Even if I would have such data, I would not share it.

But without going into each aspect, Let’s assume - we need 10 experts to fullf the order. We need to train them and retain them just in case we have more orders. Output will be slow and as each kit is handmade so can be different. Now if we invest in two robots, it is one time big investment but we reduce the human costs to 3 or max 4. Each kit will be same if not better with much less rejection rate, faster n timely delivery. If they can maintain their quality, quantity, cost and most importantly delivery timeline - I see no reason to worry for future orders.

Additionally, for important projects like LCA/AMCA/Rustom etc - investment should not be any issue. We always curse babus for penny wise pound foolish, I see BRF is not doing much better. We praise China for investing everywhere but we don’t want to improve our own infrastructure by investing moderate amounts.

Regarding the order numbers .... it’s chick n egg situation. IAF wanted 20 IOC planes in 200x without giving or support for IOC certification. Now they want 20 FOC in next two years without LCA having FOC. They could order more IOC planes if IAF is Short of numbers but they have their own issues. So uncertainties are going to be around us, so should be stop working on LCA? No way, we have to go ahead with positive outlook and invest accordingly.

With this I rest my case. It’s my personal viewpoint, so others might not agree with it - that is ok for me.

Trikaal
BRFite
Posts: 544
Joined: 19 Jul 2017 08:01

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

Postby Trikaal » 25 Aug 2018 21:57

RKumar wrote:Thank you for queries everyone.

I can’t give cost analysis because I don’t have some specific data, forget about all relevant data. I don’t want to pull numbers out of Musharraf. Even if I would have such data, I would not share it.

But without going into each aspect, Let’s assume - we need 10 experts to fullf the order. We need to train them and retain them just in case we have more orders. Output will be slow and as each kit is handmade so can be different. Now if we invest in two robots, it is one time big investment but we reduce the human costs to 3 or max 4. Each kit will be same if not better with much less rejection rate, faster n timely delivery. If they can maintain their quality, quantity, cost and most importantly delivery timeline - I see no reason to worry for future orders.

Additionally, for important projects like LCA/AMCA/Rustom etc - investment should not be any issue. We always curse babus for penny wise pound foolish, I see BRF is not doing much better. We praise China for investing everywhere but we don’t want to improve our own infrastructure by investing moderate amounts.

Regarding the order numbers .... it’s chick n egg situation. IAF wanted 20 IOC planes in 200x without giving or support for IOC certification. Now they want 20 FOC in next two years without LCA having FOC. They could order more IOC planes if IAF is Short of numbers but they have their own issues. So uncertainties are going to be around us, so should be stop working on LCA? No way, we have to go ahead with positive outlook and invest accordingly.

With this I rest my case. It’s my personal viewpoint, so others might not agree with it - that is ok for me.


A few errors in assumptions I would like to point out:-
1)Human cost wouldn't reduce by 3-4. It will stay the same. It's a government organization so no one will be asked to leave after robots are bought.

2)Future planning can't be done without confirm orders. No one does that, not china not private sector. Chinese put in millions in investment because they have government assurance of orders and don't have to worry about auditing agencies like CAG blasting them for wasting taxpayer's money.

Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2452
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

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

Postby Katare » 26 Aug 2018 00:30

Indranil wrote:Katare Sahab, Boeing just spent a billion for their 787 automated line. The ROI is calculated typically in years of existense. For Boeing, Airbus lines manufacturing 40-60 planes a year, the ROI starts coming in at 4-5 years at the earliest (at that rate).

But it is true that today's robots (unlike yesterdays monument robots) are flexible and decrease tooling costs going from one plane to the other. But even then where are the orders?


IR,
Creating a factory to build thousands of jumbo jets should cost a lot of money but here we are talking about automating a part manufacturing line for a small production runs of 20 light aircrafts at a time.

I just installed a dozen Kuka collaborative robots in Mexico to tackle the high employee turnover issue. They cost me less than $25k/robot fully installed. These are safe for humans to work around them without any guarding or safety curtons. Best of all you can simply grab the arm and make it pick and place or rotate the parts a few time and it programs itself.

You are right about cost of automation. Robots have become cheap enough to replace human workers in Mexico and China. But the problem with any automated line is that it takes forever to make it work properly and it doesn’t really work well with small orders or frequent product changeovers. I almost always try to minimize the number of robotic arms in all my new mfg lines because they can be really pain in the neck, humans are still the best options in almost half the situations.

RKumar
BRFite
Posts: 1049
Joined: 26 Jul 2009 12:29
Location: Evolution is invention, explosion is destruction.

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

Postby RKumar » 26 Aug 2018 02:19

Trikaal wrote:A few errors in assumptions I would like to point out:-
1)Human cost wouldn't reduce by to 3-4. It will stay the same. It's a government organization so no one will be asked to leave after robots are bought.

2)Future planning can't be done without confirm orders. No one does that, not china not private sector. Chinese put in millions in investment because they have government assurance of orders and don't have to worry about auditing agencies like CAG blasting them for wasting taxpayer's money.


Regarding the first point, people retire and can also be rotated within org. At least you reduce the number of hiring new people.

Regarding your 2nd point, CAG or newspapers have never stopped cribbing regarding locally produced stuff. Better to ignore these, we keep doing our work while they keep shouting their lungs out. Do we really believe either there will be no new LCA orders or someone doing an excellent job will not get new orders? In any case, if we can't afford to take a calculated risk at the national level important project than God may help our country. Good luck with producing 5th generation planes in foreseeable future.
Last edited by RKumar on 26 Aug 2018 02:22, edited 1 time in total.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7389
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Postby Indranil » 26 Aug 2018 02:22

Thank you for sharing your experience Katare sahab.

Rkumar ji, even Boeing and Airbus did not lay off anybody even after significant automation. The ROI is based on higher throughput based on the same workforce. But for that you need orders and we are back to square one.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17878
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 26 Aug 2018 04:23

Automation in the context of a LCA is a completely different ballpark than say a line doing less complex manufacture. Purely because many of the LCA components etc will have complexities beyond the standard expectations from industrial robots, even the multi-articulated ones and also require multiple tasks (our budget simply wont allow entire lines with single function units). Its all too common in Indian experience to have procured expensive automation from abroad then have the equipment rust as it proves unsuitable for the task. In the case of the LCA, I fully expect them to have to work with multiple vendors to have something purpose modified and programmed for their specific needs. And the $16Mn budget does seem woefully small. On the plus side, it also means a screw up in procurement will be for $16Mn, not an OFB style huge mess-up.

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4840
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby Neshant » 26 Aug 2018 10:40

Whatever they do, they better do it fast.
This plane has taken forever to come into fruition.
Any more delays and it will go the way of the Arjun tank which is a project that has been incompetently managed.

mody
BRFite
Posts: 493
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Mumbai, India

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

Postby mody » 28 Aug 2018 13:54

Any updates with regards to the MK1A? The main features to be implemented for the MK1A, over the FOC version are as follows:

1). AESA Radar. No news about selection having been finalized as yet. When the MK1A was conceived, it was almost a given that the Elta 2052 would be used. However, so far no progress on this front. The UTTAM is also ready for flight testing. Maybe Dileep saar might be able to provide some chaiwala info on its status. However for the 73 MK1A to be produced, I would prefer that we go with the Elta 2052 or another proven solution, with all air to air and air to ground modes fully tested. We will have to upgrade the 32 MK1 planes at a latter date and maybe also the 18 2-seat trainers. Don't know if the trainers will get a MLU to upgrade the radar. The MK1 surely will get upgraded to MK1A standard at some point. For these we can use the Uttam, if it is ready.

2). External EW pod. Which agency is responsible for developing this? Is this going to be based on the EW pod made for the Su-30MKI or is this going to be new? There were reports about offers from SAAB and maybe others as well, about providing EW solution for Tejas. Is the EW pod going to be an indigenous solution, or are we going to import the same. No news on this front so far.

3). Weight reduction and re-arranging the LRU's for ease of maintenance. This was supposed to be HALs responsibility. I'm sure they must have made some progress on this. Especially the re-arrangement part, as serial production is ongoing and HAL is also involved with the maintenance of the aircrafts, they should have a very good idea about what exactly is required to be done. With regards to weight reduction, this would be a little more tricky, also considering that the CG of the aircraft would have to be maintained as much as possible, so as to not require extensive changes in the flight control software. Any chaiwala/paanwala updates on the progress at HAL?

Not sure if there are any other major requirements for the MK1A apart from the above. Maybe getting Python/ASRAAM missiles integrated. Though this is not a show stopper, as the R-73 is also decent enough.

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 974
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

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

Postby ks_sachin » 28 Aug 2018 17:19

Mody,

Its a stealth aircraft!!

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7389
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Postby Indranil » 29 Aug 2018 04:16

1. 2052: great progress made. Jaguar template to be adopted. Backend is anyways tested with 2032.
2. DARE: great progress made. In prototype build phase.
3. HAL is tight lipped. Wants to it alone. Means CG and static margin will be untouched.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4257
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Kartik » 29 Aug 2018 04:57

Indranil wrote:1. 2052: great progress made. Jaguar template to be adopted. Backend is anyways tested with 2032.
2. DARE: great progress made. In prototype build phase.
3. HAL is tight lipped. Wants to it alone. Means CG and static margin will be untouched.


Good news on the radar and EW suite front. So Elta 2052 is confirmed as the AESA radar and there is no going back now. How good is Elta’s support on this program? Asking since in the past, there have been issues with the level of support that the Israelis were willing to provide.

But I didn’t get what you meant by the third point. HAL obviously would have had to re-develop some LRUs and rearrange others to get some weight reduction and maybe even look at some structures that could be further optimized. But it will be difficult to do so without changing CG and static margin, right? On the flip side, not changing CG and static margin will have a positive impact on the flight testing and certification of FCS requirements. Will cut down that by quite a bit.

As to the Mk1A prototypes- will they be reworked Mk1 LSP prototypes or are they planning on building entirely new one? From a timeline perspective, the former approach will be far more sensible. But if the latter approach is adopted, that will indicate that quite a bit of the structure is going to be redesigned to reduce weight. Is there a timeline for prototype rollout that you might be able to find out?

Any more info or tidbits are more than welcome !

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7389
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Postby Indranil » 29 Aug 2018 10:20

Yeah. It’s going to be very difficult to not move the CG at all. CP obviously stays as is. So there will be a little bit change of static margin. But it will not be much. Otherwise, as you rightly said, the entire envelop will have to be tested again.

HAL’s plans for MK1A prototype has changed at least twice in the last two years. I am not sure now whether they will modify a prototype or just build a new one on the MK1 production line. The former is cheaper and the later is faster (and easier?).

Inside story: you might know that reengining the 748s is being taken up again. I favour this. I know that it might adversely affect the C295 project (which has not gone anywhere). But reengining the 748 is such a cost effective solution.

IJT may be revived :wink:

mody
BRFite
Posts: 493
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Mumbai, India

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

Postby mody » 29 Aug 2018 11:57

Kartik wrote:
Indranil wrote:1. 2052: great progress made. Jaguar template to be adopted. Backend is anyways tested with 2032.
2. DARE: great progress made. In prototype build phase.
3. HAL is tight lipped. Wants to it alone. Means CG and static margin will be untouched.


Good news on the radar and EW suite front. So Elta 2052 is confirmed as the AESA radar and there is no going back now. How good is Elta’s support on this program? Asking since in the past, there have been issues with the level of support that the Israelis were willing to provide.

But I didn’t get what you meant by the third point. HAL obviously would have had to re-develop some LRUs and rearrange others to get some weight reduction and maybe even look at some structures that could be further optimized. But it will be difficult to do so without changing CG and static margin, right? On the flip side, not changing CG and static margin will have a positive impact on the flight testing and certification of FCS requirements. Will cut down that by quite a bit.

As to the Mk1A prototypes- will they be reworked Mk1 LSP prototypes or are they planning on building entirely new one? From a timeline perspective, the former approach will be far more sensible. But if the latter approach is adopted, that will indicate that quite a bit of the structure is going to be redesigned to reduce weight. Is there a timeline for prototype rollout that you might be able to find out?

Any more info or tidbits are more than welcome !


There has been no news on selection of Elta 2052. I had always assumed that it would be a direct deal with Elta or the Israeli govt. The issuance of the tender was a surprise. Hope the 2052 integration is going well and the order for 73 units is placed at the earliest. Will the 10 trainers that are to be built as part of the MK1A order, also get the 2052 radar or will get the 2032-MMR hybrid radar?

DARE working on the EW suite is welcome news. Relying on imports for EW is dicey. The pod developed for the Su-30 would be a good reference. Hopefully the pod will be ready for integration around 2020-21. We might be able use the POD with other platforms as well, like maybe the Mig-29s.

For the 3rd point, re-arranging the LRUs and weight reduction are two separate tasks. The former is for ease of maintenance, as the placement of some of the LRUs was not optimal from the maintenance point of view and increased the maintenance time and effort. There is also a separate effort to indigenize some of the LRUs that is on going. Now that serial production of the plane is on going and HAL is fully involved with the maintenance as well, they would have a very good idea about the most desirable placement of various LRUs. The effort on this front should be well on its way.

The second task, that of weight reduction is a lot more tricky. HAL had claimed at the time of pitching the MK1A, that upto 800 Kg weight reduction might be possible. That seems to be a real tall order. The main weight reduction was to come from redesiging the landing gear and the under carriage and getting rid of some of the dead weight ballasts that are used in the MK1. The deaweight ballasts are used to balance the CG and for stability of the platform. The one in the nose cone, was to be removed, but some of the weight was to get compensated due to higher weight of the AESA radar. Its hard to imagine how HAL will be able to reduce say even 200-300 Kgs of weight, without effecting the CG and static margin.
Some amount of re-writing of the flight control software and associated testing will surely be required. Even a 200-300 Kg empty weight reduction, would be really welcome.

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2980
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

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

Postby kit » 29 Aug 2018 12:35

Good to see real quality discussions .. Thanks to everyone !

Mukesh.Kumar
BRFite
Posts: 1001
Joined: 06 Dec 2009 14:09

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

Postby Mukesh.Kumar » 29 Aug 2018 21:17

Finally SP-10 seems about to come out.

Tarmak007
Bengaluru, July 12: The 10th series production fighter (SP-10) from Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) Tejas production line is ready. It has completed the full performance engine ground run.
Weather-permitting, the low and high speed taxi trials are lined up next leading to its first flight soon.
The SP-10 will be likely to be piloted by Air Cmde K A Muthanna (Retd) or Gp Capt K K Venugopal (Retd), both Test Pilots with the National Flight Testing Centre here.
Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL), under immense pressure from various quarters to scale up the production rate, needs to deliver 16 aircraft to IAF this financial year.


Apologies if this is old news but I had given up hope.

Kakarat
BRFite
Posts: 1759
Joined: 26 Jan 2005 13:59

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

Postby Kakarat » 29 Aug 2018 22:03

Mukesh.Kumar wrote:Finally SP-10 seems about to come out.

Tarmak007
Bengaluru, July 12: The 10th series production fighter (SP-10) from Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) Tejas production line is ready. It has completed the full performance engine ground run.
Weather-permitting, the low and high speed taxi trials are lined up next leading to its first flight soon.
The SP-10 will be likely to be piloted by Air Cmde K A Muthanna (Retd) or Gp Capt K K Venugopal (Retd), both Test Pilots with the National Flight Testing Centre here.
Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL), under immense pressure from various quarters to scale up the production rate, needs to deliver 16 aircraft to IAF this financial year.


Apologies if this is old news but I had given up hope.


Sp-10 has already had its maiden flight on 26-Jul-18 and should have been handed over to IAF for squadron operations by now. We are waiting for news on SP-11 and would request you to read the first post of this topic for current situation

Today is 29th August :rotfl:

Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2452
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

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

Postby Katare » 29 Aug 2018 22:44

Indranil wrote:1. 2052: great progress made. Jaguar template to be adopted. Backend is anyways tested with 2032.
2. DARE: great progress made. In prototype build phase.
3. HAL is tight lipped. Wants to it alone. Means CG and static margin will be untouched.


What happened to the tender for AESA radar?

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4257
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Kartik » 29 Aug 2018 23:29

Indranil wrote:Yeah. It’s going to be very difficult to not move the CG at all. CP obviously stays as is. So there will be a little bit change of static margin. But it will not be much. Otherwise, as you rightly said, the entire envelop will have to be tested again.

HAL’s plans for MK1A prototype has changed at least twice in the last two years. I am not sure now whether they will modify a prototype or just build a new one on the MK1 production line. The former is cheaper and the later is faster (and easier?).

Inside story: you might know that reengining the 748s is being taken up again. I favour this. I know that it might adversely affect the C295 project (which has not gone anywhere). But reengining the 748 is such a cost effective solution.

IJT may be revived :wink:


Given that the current assembly lines are barely able to meet the IAF's requirement for SP series jets, dedicating a SP jet as a Mk1A prototype would seem to me to be the approach not to be taken. Compared to that, stripping and rebuilding LSP prototypes and using them as Mk1A prototypes seems to be a more cost effective approach that will not adversely affect the IAF's delivery schedule for 20 IOC and 20 FOC jets.

Removing some of the older LRUs and installing new ones, perhaps new cabling, new piping for in-flight refueling (mostly not, since the FOC jets' will most likely cater to that), cooling for the AESA..those seem to be the primary changes, as we aren't yet sure if any structural changes are in the works or not. Does this require a new build jet? I don't think so. We aren't talking about changes to the dimensions of the jet. This is more like an overhaul with some new innards.

I never believed the bunkum about 800 kgs weight reduction. That was close to 15% of the empty weight itself! If they even manage 200-250 kgs in weight reduction, I'll be more than happy.

BTW, how many Mk1A prototypes are to be built? I would assume 3 would be the minimum required, to allow for the hundreds of test flights that would need to be carried out before completion of the certification. With first flight planned in 2020, HAL must already have a plan in motion, else it cannot be achieved in 2020 for sure. With nearly 15 Mk1 prototypes, of which at least 8 were LSP prototypes, HAL could easily take some of the later built LSPs and modify them into Mk1A prototypes.

BTW, HS-748 re-engine program seems to be a good idea. Why waste scarce resources on the C-295 when these older transports still have life in them and could be put through a major upgrade program with new avionics and engine to let them soldier on for another decade and a half at least? Whether it gets traction with the IAF is the question. Private industry must be roped in for this program to allow them to build up some experience

As for IJT, if the program is re-started, they had better have a solution in mind. Perhaps a new wing itself, or major changes to the design.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7389
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Postby Indranil » 30 Aug 2018 00:07

There is a mod they have in mind. If it works out on the prototype they would take the rest forward. I think the time for the IJT has come to pass. They should go for HJT-cum-LSF. Develop a trainer around a single F125IN afterburning engine. When the HTFE(+afterburner) is ready, swap them out. Because of its trainer-aerodynamics, it would be a great strike platform in the Himalayas (the reason why Hawk-i was being proposed). Having AB will put aside IAF's worry that the Hawk-i is a sitting duck if attacked. This will be a great 2 Ton mudmover that Abhibhushan sir always wanted.

I don't know if they will pursue this. But I know that we should any discussion on the 748 and the IJT in the military aviation thread.

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3858
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby deejay » 30 Aug 2018 08:52

Kartik wrote:...

BTW, HS-748 re-engine program seems to be a good idea. Why waste scarce resources on the C-295 when these older transports still have life in them and could be put through a major upgrade program with new avionics and engine to let them soldier on for another decade and a half at least? Whether it gets traction with the IAF is the question. Private industry must be roped in for this program to allow them to build up some experience

As for IJT, if the program is re-started, they had better have a solution in mind. Perhaps a new wing itself, or major changes to the design.


Hi,

The AVRO does not do very well in the rough area landing, short field performance department and it is not just the engine power that is an issue here.

Additionally, the HS 748 needs very careful CG balancing to the best of my info. Not a good solution as a platform for the role of C-295 or AN-32s.

That said the above is only an operational way of looking at it. There are many other factors to be considered.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36292
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

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

Postby SaiK » 30 Aug 2018 08:56

Is Uttam ready then?
https://m.economictimes.com/news/defenc ... 597037.cms

Fold your Lungis?

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 52340
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby ramana » 30 Aug 2018 09:29

SaiK wrote:Is Uttam ready then?
https://m.economictimes.com/news/defenc ... 597037.cms

Fold your Lungis?

Looks like it.

Love the way DRDO comes up with non standard acronyms!

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36292
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

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

Postby SaiK » 30 Aug 2018 09:57

lot of "mixed messages" as well in that link. who is mixing it -DDM/DRDO/PVT Cos. who knows?

Dileep
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5597
Joined: 04 Apr 2005 08:17
Location: Dera Mahab Ali धरा महाबलिस्याः درا مهاب الي

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

Postby Dileep » 30 Aug 2018 17:28

ToT will work only if

- The design is fully qualified.
- There is an assurance of purchase.

I don't think either is true in this case.
We have enough experience with this ToT bijnejj with DRDO/govt entities.

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2326
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

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

Postby nam » 30 Aug 2018 19:48

They might be looking for production partners for the components including AESA modules. Given the number of AESA radars coming up, we need increased production numbers for the components.

However the important point is DRDO is now working as the national fountainhead for tech. Private companies even if wished for cannot get AESA tech from international companies. Here DRDO is giving them the tech. If there are bright spark in the industry, they will think of creating radar tech, which we can atleast sell to Africa.

AESA is still TFTA.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36292
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

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

Postby SaiK » 31 Aug 2018 14:23

This Is Why All That Fighter Jet Testing Is So Important

https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/this- ... 1828726533

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19121
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

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

Postby chetak » 31 Aug 2018 14:36

Dileep wrote:ToT will work only if

- The design is fully qualified.
- There is an assurance of purchase.

I don't think either is true in this case.
We have enough experience with this ToT bijnejj with DRDO/govt entities.


I know of multiple instances where crucial TOT was tied to the very expensive post-retirement sinecure of some senior lot of guys.

Some of the demands were so unreasonable that the entire project was dropped late in the day by the hapless buyer. This "costing" is never mentioned in the negotiations and often slyly arises, very belatedly and off line, when the predators' sense that a firm commitment has been made or is about to be made.

Dileep
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5597
Joined: 04 Apr 2005 08:17
Location: Dera Mahab Ali धरा महाबलिस्याः درا مهاب الي

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

Postby Dileep » 31 Aug 2018 17:15

nam wrote:They might be looking for production partners for the components including AESA modules. Given the number of AESA radars coming up, we need increased production numbers for the components.


Nope. That is what Tenders are for.

I for one, will not touch the ToT with a barge pole.

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2326
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

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

Postby nam » 31 Aug 2018 22:41

Dileep wrote:
nam wrote:They might be looking for production partners for the components including AESA modules. Given the number of AESA radars coming up, we need increased production numbers for the components.


Nope. That is what Tenders are for.

I for one, will not touch the ToT with a barge pole.


In that case, I don't understand.

If I ignore the greasing someone's palm, which is the norm for anything we do, why wouldn't a company want a tech like AESA radar? Our biggies would love to get a hand on such a tech and they have enough palm oil in their banks to cover any babu in GoI.

Countries which don't want expensive US or European AESA would love to have an Indian option against Chinese & Russian offerings.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7421
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby brar_w » 31 Aug 2018 22:47

Countries which don't want expensive US or European AESA would love to have an Indian option against Chinese & Russian offerings.


End users are seldom the deciders when it comes to choosing a radar or choosing one vs the other. It is often the OEM for the fighter aircraft (assuming you are referring to fighters front ends) that has the technical rights and is the lead integrator. The best case here would be increased production so that eventually a more capable Tejas can enter and compete for exports.

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2326
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

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

Postby nam » 31 Aug 2018 22:56

brar_w wrote:
Countries which don't want expensive US or European AESA would love to have an Indian option against Chinese & Russian offerings.


End users are seldom the deciders when it comes to choosing a radar or choosing one vs the other. It is often the OEM for the fighter aircraft (assuming you are referring to fighters front ends) that has the technical rights and is the lead integrator. The best case here would be increased production so that eventually a more capable Tejas can enter and compete for exports.


That's true, however for aircraft ugrade market, it would definitely be a choice. If the country pays for the integration, which OEM will refuse. We can sell Astra+Uttam combo.

A perfect example is 2052 on our Jags.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7421
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby brar_w » 31 Aug 2018 23:04

That market is quite small. Not many nations around the world compete sub-systems and then pay for integration. Most pick and choose from already available, and mostly integrated choices. Paying for a bespoke solution to be integrated, and then paying the OEM to qualify it comes at a cost and schedule penalty. It also leaves you exposed to being the only user of that combination and as such the bearer of a large amount of future upgrade/integration/testing costs.

Not saying that this could never happen, but a better use of say a multi-vendor AESA production could be that export variants could be put out faster and cheaper if the other systems and subsystems are not a bottleneck. Think of all the phased array radars that have been sold in new built and upgrade market and then see how many have been cases where the buyer paid for integration of a radar of its choice which was not previously integrated on the aircraft. For price conscious/ cost sensitive customers this is an even larger barrier.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 52340
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby ramana » 01 Sep 2018 05:02

Brar,
Be realistic. Max order will be for 200 Tejas Mk1A ans even that is not assured. Some minion can put objection in the file amd it will get rejected. Too many risks for a medium enterprise to take up offer. And multivendor for small pie has to be by uber patriots like the ones who invested for 20 to 30 years to turn a profit.

This tender businees is death of Indian military industry.

mody
BRFite
Posts: 493
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Mumbai, India

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

Postby mody » 01 Sep 2018 16:11

I was hoping for news of integration of the Uttam prototype being integrated with a LSP Tejas and the flight testing commencing. The production part will come once the radar has been proven in all aspects and IAF has accepted the same. Only then the orders will be confirmed. Any shortfall in performance by a margin of more then 5%, as compared to the Elta 2052 and Uttam would remain a tech demonstrator. IAF will asking for a new MK2 version to be developed.

However, to be fair to DRDO, they have always been asking for freedom to choose the production agency of their choice for the systems that they develop. Upto now the MOD dictated which defence PSU or OFB would take up the production, once the system was ready and the production problems many times gave the indigenous system a bad name.
In this case, however, it seems a little early in the game to be sending out a tender for ToT.


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests