Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1910
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby Thakur_B » 09 Dec 2020 11:30

Ballsy move. But untenable without a US partner.

basant
BRFite
Posts: 456
Joined: 20 Mar 2020 20:58

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby basant » 09 Dec 2020 11:31

And I am still waiting SP23 to fly after it has been ready to fly since September. Why can't we get the priorities right? Why should we waste time and money at the expense of own needs on developing prototypes that will not be selected?

disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7628
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby disha » 09 Dec 2020 11:32

^Jai Ho! I am assuming it is the Naval LCA which indeed is a great LIFT. GE will be interested since it powers the LIFT!

arvin
BRFite
Posts: 458
Joined: 17 Aug 2016 21:26

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby arvin » 09 Dec 2020 12:33

Hurray....good news indeed.
It will be Naval LCA with strengthened undercarriage that will be offered. Other options US navy has is T-7 which is land based with little or zero
deck based capability.

V_Raman
BRFite
Posts: 1004
Joined: 04 Sep 2008 22:25

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby V_Raman » 09 Dec 2020 13:51

Why waste time on prototype - money - and get it working for India as well!

ArjunPandit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3753
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby ArjunPandit » 09 Dec 2020 19:31

Rakesh wrote:https://twitter.com/thewolfpackin/status/1336536252678594562?s=21 —> India's HAL offers to sale US Navy Tejas-LIFT (previously known as Tejas Sport) for US Navy's fighter trainer program (Undergraduate Jet Training System). The aircraft will be based on Tejas Mk1A and a demonstrator will be build if shortlisted.

i think it could be quick way to support india as an ally instead of handing dole outs like they were in pakistan. It wont be bad for us link up this deal with other fighter deals that we may do with US. US order if it comes could be big, would give us good exposure in setting up production at top class level. Tejas orders can piggy back. I see this as a win win.

Possibly F18/F15EX for The IAF MRCA X.0 + IN order would benefit if coupled with it.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9797
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby brar_w » 09 Dec 2020 20:43

There is so much to this story that we don't know. Is there any credible source confirming this? Who is the US partner for HAL? If it has no US partner, how does it expect to support and sustain the platfrom?

The US Navy, is in the early stage of its analysis. Right now all they have is an RFI. But as this matures into an RFP it will need a proper solution that can be flight tested and an industrial and support package that includes US infrastructure. Secondly, in its request, the USN did not ask for a T-45 replacement. It asked for a modern land based trainer that could take over a major chunk of the T-45 training syllabus. The aircraft was not required to possess or be able to demonstrate CATOBAR operations. Had they asked for a CATOBAR capable training solution then this RFI would have been DOA because there exists no non-developmental solution for such a training role (besides building new T-45's ..LOL). The idea with the htinking being that as it transitions, those few mission areas will continue to be addressed by the T-45's and since other parts of the syllabus would be replaced by the new fighter the T-45's could continue on longer as the platform is relieved from other flight duties.

All that points to the USN actually wanting to buy the T-7 "as-is" and, at a later date, modify the design to cover the full spectrum of the T-45 mission. There is little doubt that Boeing, which produces majority of fixed winged aircraft for NAVAIR, has plans to create a naval variant of the T-7 for a future USN requirement. It would have been part of their business case when they underbid the competition and essentially took a loss on the initial batches of the USAF program. With the T-7 now entering production, and Boeing's deep involvement in USAF and USN Live-Virtual-Construct and Open Mission Systems upgrades and standards, any competitor (including US competitors) will have a very difficult time dislodging them. They are sitting pretty on a 400-500 aircraft production program with the T-7 and there is nothing in the USN request that the T-7 cannot do even as is (and Boeing has a leg up in integrating "extras" like JPALS). Given that Boeing basically went out and build the first two prototypes for the T-7 without waiting for any USAF funding it could very well be that they have done the sort of design analysis, tunnel testing and validation of any proposed changes that will get them 100% of that navalized capability.

But from the RFI it seemed quite clear that the USN wasn't interested in a developmental end-item. They wanted to see if it was possible to just pick something from a hot production line and fit into its training needs. The T-7 will only needs comms and other training aids upgrade to meet that need. Its in production and will get a DOD conducted IOT&E and milestone c decision in the coming years. All things the Navy would have to pay for exclusively if it were to choose something bespoke. That means years of EMD, development/operational testing and a formal IOT&E before it gets into rate production. Whereas on the T-7, all they need is expand the existing program and provide Boeing/industry some lead time before they start delivering aircraft straight to the training units. The focus of the current RFI seems very much to be to explore whether they can slot in a new non-developmental trainer and offload 85,000 hours of training over to it over a given timeframe starting 2028. This frees up the remaining T-45s and makes it easier to sustain them. We will have to see in the FY22 budget which won't come till March to see if this line of thinking has persisted.

arvin wrote:Hurray....good news indeed.
It will be Naval LCA with strengthened undercarriage that will be offered. Other options US navy has is T-7 which is land based with little or zero
deck based capability.


Full CATOBAR ops is not a requirement (see below). Only deck based touch and go's and some High AOA abilities to support other naval training needs and a fatigue life of 14,000 hours per airframe. The RFI seems to be an industrial survey to determine whether an in-production non-developmental training solution exists that can relieve a major chunk of the T-45s current syllabus. So if this line of thinking continues (based on what response they got from interested parties) then the T-7 is going to remain a frontrunner. If on the other they change this and open it up to developmental material solutions then there will be some competition and may involve various OEM's wanting to either self-fund, or seek R&D funding to develop and demonstrate USN compliant CATOBAR operations with both steam and EMALS. I doubt the USN wants to spend on an EMD program in the near term. They seem to want to make a decision in the 2023-2025 time-frame and begin fielding the aircraft by 2028 and begin replacing the oldest T-45's. By 2028, Boeing will be producing the T-7 at its peak production rate of 60 aircraft per year so the USN will have loads of financial incentive to tap into that EOS and use the existing USAF contracting authority. So its quite possible that the RFI attempted to see if the USN can just tap into the USAF's T7 acquisition program, at least initially, and meet a portion of its training needs.

Image

arvin
BRFite
Posts: 458
Joined: 17 Aug 2016 21:26

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby arvin » 09 Dec 2020 23:47

brar_w wrote:. With the T-7 now entering production, and Boeing's deep involvement in USAF and USN Live-Virtual-Construct and Open Mission Systems upgrades and standards, any competitor (including US competitors) will have a very difficult time dislodging them. They are sitting pretty on a 400-500 aircraft production program with the T-7 and there is nothing in the USN request that the T-7 cannot do even as is (and Boeing has a leg up in integrating "extras" like JPALS).



Not sure about T-7 entering production part.
As per this link T-7 is still few years away before USAF gets its hands in it.
https://www.defensenews.com/2020/06/25/ ... ning-jets/
It’s several years away from us getting their hands on it,” he said. “Boeing and Saab are working through the shift from their prototypes to the operational airplane. They will tell you that they were pretty darn close in their prototypes to an operational airplane. … I agree, but it still takes some time to work through the issues and turn that into an operational platform.


Worthwhile for USN to evaluate it vis a vis T7 since N-LCA is already flying and land based trainers are already operational.

basant
BRFite
Posts: 456
Joined: 20 Mar 2020 20:58

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby basant » 10 Dec 2020 00:38

^^^
It is interesting to see that many are citing N-LCA's progress while the news talks of model based on Mk1A. The difference between the them is demonstrated here through existence two different threads (and countless posts within)! :oops:

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9797
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby brar_w » 10 Dec 2020 01:16

arvin wrote:
Not sure about T-7 entering production part.
As per this link T-7 is still few years away before USAF gets its hands in it.
https://www.defensenews.com/2020/06/25/ ... ning-jets/


The T-7 was a FFP contract in that Boeing was committed a lump sump (one for EMD one for production with both amounts negotiated and agreed upon at the very start) to develop and deliver a set number of agreed upon trainers for a certain not to exceed price. So they have been executing the production program from day-1. This entails delivering 5-6 pre LRIP aircraft for land based and flight testing next year and delivering the first LRIP lot to the first unit to declare operational capability by 2023 for IOC in FY24. As such, the first LRIP aircraft would either be in, or are about to enter into the production chain for delivery in just over two years.

By the time this US Navy program/effort advances to an RFP and source selection (if it does at all) Boeing may well have a number of LRIP aircraft in final assembly or even flying with frontline USAF pilots. So they are going to turn around and say that they have a US DOD vetted set of requirements, interoperability, and other data (like fatigue testing data that will be generated by the DOD approved testers), and don't need any additional step to get going. While for the competition it would either take the USN to just agree to buy whatever training solution is being utilized or to spend R&D dollars to add its unique set of requirements for both live and virtual training and OMS and other systems for interoperability. That would require a deep industrial partnership between HAL and an appropriate US OEM that can do that and has experience with NAVAIR. Boeing can avoid most of that. And they don't need to find a partner, and industrialize this effort. They'll have a production supply chain set up and a program executing at 60 aircraft a year production rate at full-rate-production. Thats a lot of advantage that would possibly be only negated if there some requirement that Boeing just can't meet without deviating so much from the design that basically negates the advantages they enjoy.

Additionally, a good chunk of this program focused on identifying the type of high fidelity simulator, and LVC that would be needed to allow for the type of live and synthetic collaborative environment needed for future 5th generation and next gen training needs. Boeing likewise is executing on that with that portion of the ATP contract in effect and the first simulator being built for delivery. So a major advantage Boeing enjoys is that its OMS and training solution has been developed as per DOD spec which factors in its training needs with current and next generation platforms (like the F-35, NGAD etc) in mind.

Also, the N-LCA isn't CATOBAR ready and integrating flight training with CATOBAR operations goes much beyond just being able to land and take off from a Nimitz or Ford. So for practical purposes, it is also not a non-developmental item which the USN does not want to pursue based on the current claimed needs. So even if it were to have a look at a future variant of N-LCA trainer it would be strictly within the confines of it being used as a land based trainer with the ability to meet some unique navy needs short of taking off and landing on a CVN. If the USN F-35C testing is any indication it takes 2-2.5 years of lead time just to schedule 4-6 weeks of test time on a USN CVN in between longer deployments, availabilities, and post availability contractor or Navy testing and work-ups. So if they all of a sudden decide that they need a full fledged T-45 replacement, and still want to pick something a couple of years from now then they likely won't be able to meet that 2028 deadline that was part of the current expectation based on the RFI. So for that, the scope is likely to be limited to what was desired or maybe more navy specific requirements but still short of full carrier ops.

arvin wrote:Worthwhile for USN to evaluate it vis a vis T7 since N-LCA is already flying and land based trainers are already operational.


It will be worth having a look if the USN expands and casts a wider net. So far, nothing in the iniitial RFI tells me that they are open to completely re-doing the contracting for next gen training and then paying an OEM with a mature design to drive and collaborate to meet that need. They may well do it as this program evolves towards an RFP but from what I can make out they just want something that can be picked in 2023-2025 and put into use a couple of years later. In case of the T-7 they have a solution that complies with what was viewed as a requirement for future training needs. Pushing that straight into acquisition would be a lot easier and cheaper. But a 2-3 page RFI is far from a well thought out program and is more a survey to feel what can and cannot meet USN needs. So a lot can change depending upon timelines and budget availability. So yes it wouldn't be too far fetched to think that the USN could come out, next year, and ask for a full fledged replacement for the T-45. In that case, HAL partnering with a US OEM and showing how the N-LCA can get to that 'yet to be defined requirement' is going to be something that the USN will definitely want to evaluate.

ArjunPandit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3753
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby ArjunPandit » 10 Dec 2020 06:50

brar do you have any thoughts from a political perspective, i think it could be a quid pro quo..like india buys something from US and vice a versa. There could be political capital investment into it. But again pure speculation. It serves well for domestic constituencies of both the parties and if it happens (even though there is a very remote chance) it would be great for India to get into the US ecosystem..the order for t38 was huge. Not sure how much of that is T7 expected to replace but given it is US and allies, it could be huge...
PS: given boeing makes both F15 & F18 it could be carrot that boeing might have dangled to IAF.
Given the post is less related to tejas please see if it needs moving to other thread or forum

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9797
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby brar_w » 10 Dec 2020 06:58

ArjunPandit wrote:brar do you have any thoughts from a political perspective, i think it could be a quid pro quo..like india buys something from US and vice a versa. There could be political capital investment into it. But again pure speculation. It serves well for domestic constituencies of both the parties and if it happens (even though there is a very remote chance) it would be great for India to get into the US ecosystem..the order for t38 was huge. Not sure how much of that is T7 expected to replace but given it is US and allies, it could be huge...


The political angle looks less likely but who knows, a new administration and a new Congress could change that. The US Navy currently has 4 main fast jet aviation EMD programs (which all have some level of risk associated with them - risk in terms of budget and schedule) in the Block III Super Hornet, F-35C Block IV, MQ-25, and NGAD/FA-XX. So one would assume that any intention on a trainer would be the lowest risk investment that meets its training needs without chewing too much of the budget. That's why the T-7A is extremely atractive. They don't need any significant R&D. They don't need to set up a production supply chain, final assembly and check out or go through and set up an extensive test and evaluation phase. All that is paid for by the USAF. So it is an extremely low risk option for them to divest a vast chunk of the T-45 capability rather quickly (operational by 2028 for a program that is not even at the RFP stage) at a time when they will be neck deep in fielding the MQ-25 and will be flying prototypes and advanced systems for the next generation fighter (Super Hornet replacement).

If on the other hand the USN is amenable to be guided towards a complete replacement for the T-45, within the same timelines then of course all bets are off. But somehow, I doubt that Boeing will not take this away given how deeply embedded it is into NAVAIR operations, the Super Hornet community and the overall US Navy fast jet operations. Boeing enjoys a lot of influence with the US Navy. They consider it as their OEM to retain and promote given how deeply Boeing has been involved with naval aviation. Remember, the F-35C is Lockheed's first stab at a naval fighter. They had zero expereince with a carrier borne figther prior to it. So when I look at the RFI with a rough 2028 operational date, I tend to think this as a clear indication that this is Boeing's to lose since it coincides nicely with the T-7A being in full rate production. In fact, I would be highly surprised if Boeing doesn't have some preliminary work on a navalized T-7 and that the USN has seen their work.
Last edited by brar_w on 10 Dec 2020 08:46, edited 1 time in total.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8321
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby Indranil » 10 Dec 2020 07:48

The news is correct. I have known it for about 2 months now.

Other potential export potentials are also being evaluated. Geopolitics is involved in decision making.

It will be difficult to beat T7 just because it is US's bird.

The delay in delivering the SPs is not because of production rate. Initially, The Tejas squadrons were placed near Bangalore so HAL could handle initial serviceability issues. That umbilical cord is being cut.

basant
BRFite
Posts: 456
Joined: 20 Mar 2020 20:58

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby basant » 10 Dec 2020 09:36

Indranil wrote:The delay in delivering the SPs is not because of production rate. Initially, The Tejas squadrons were placed near Bangalore so HAL could handle initial serviceability issues. That umbilical cord is being cut.

Indranil, with my limited understanding I fail to grasp the connection. How is this issue influencing first flight of SP-23? Are they going to replace LRUs with those supplied from some other vendor(s)? In such a case it can be anybody's guess as to how long FOCs will take to have even first flight.

V_Raman
BRFite
Posts: 1004
Joined: 04 Sep 2008 22:25

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby V_Raman » 10 Dec 2020 09:42

Is this the SOP for foreign vendors? The Rafales will be flown locally and then given to customer correct?

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 11140
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby Rakesh » 11 Dec 2020 05:28

Meant as joke onlee. Please take it as such. Our DDM at its best :lol:

Of all the damn combat planes available on the internet, this is the one they found. My goodness!

Image

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8321
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby Indranil » 11 Dec 2020 06:23

basant wrote:
Indranil wrote:The delay in delivering the SPs is not because of production rate. Initially, The Tejas squadrons were placed near Bangalore so HAL could handle initial serviceability issues. That umbilical cord is being cut.

Indranil, with my limited understanding I fail to grasp the connection. How is this issue influencing first flight of SP-23? Are they going to replace LRUs with those supplied from some other vendor(s)? In such a case it can be anybody's guess as to how long FOCs will take to have even first flight.

It means that SP23, 24 .... are not waiting in an assembly line. But, IAF & HAL have agreed that IAF will not accept and HAL will not deliver a Tejas which is not fully serviceable at IAF's BRD without any of HAL's interventions. And that this serviceability leads to a minimum level of availability.

So giving you an example, At Gaganshakti, Tejas's availability was higher than pilot availability, but that was ensured with HAL's team traveling with the squadron. Henceforth, this will not be the case.

Kakkaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3674
Joined: 23 Oct 2002 11:31

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby Kakkaji » 11 Dec 2020 08:19

Indranil wrote:It means that SP23, 24 .... are not waiting in an assembly line. But, IAF & HAL have agreed that IAF will not accept and HAL will not deliver a Tejas which is not fully serviceable at IAF's BRD without any of HAL's interventions. And that this serviceability leads to a minimum level of availability.

So giving you an example, At Gaganshakti, Tejas's availability was higher than pilot availability, but that was ensured with HAL's team traveling with the squadron. Henceforth, this will not be the case.


So, does that mean that SP23, 24, ... will sit fully-assembled and parked at the HAL facilities, until these serviceability issues are sorted out between IAF and HAL?

Another stupid question: Have some maintenence staff from different BRDs at the country been deputed for on-the-job training at HAL yet?

basant
BRFite
Posts: 456
Joined: 20 Mar 2020 20:58

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby basant » 11 Dec 2020 10:19

Indranil wrote:
basant wrote:It means that SP23, 24 .... are not waiting in an assembly line. But, IAF & HAL have agreed that IAF will not accept and HAL will not deliver a Tejas which is not fully serviceable at IAF's BRD without any of HAL's interventions. And that this serviceability leads to a minimum level of availability.

So giving you an example, At Gaganshakti, Tejas's availability was higher than pilot availability, but that was ensured with HAL's team traveling with the squadron. Henceforth, this will not be the case.

Temporary high availability is not a factor, even Su-30 MKIs have done that in Red Flag, etc. What I find incredible is that what IAF did with Rafale, it failed to do with HAL. Or that HAL was not ready. Or both were to blame. If *this* is the issue, then it raises more questions than answers. What happened to all the PR pitch by HAL that the a/c itself will self-diagnose and aid in finding the problems, most of which could be addressed with changing LRUs? From the previous posts it appeared that accessibility of LRUs could be improved, but we are not talking of that anymore, are we?

*IF* we are talking of initial issues after delivery, then FOCs could be inducted in Bangalore and then transferred to another base later, like with IOCs. Sorry IR, I don't see rationale in this approach. It appears that IAF is not serious/sincere wrt LCA. Or that even IOCs are also having serious service issues. Somehow this reminds me of talk by ACM RKS Bhaduria's mentioning of it in one of the earlier videos posted here.

KSingh
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 82
Joined: 16 Jun 2020 17:52

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby KSingh » 11 Dec 2020 20:35

Indranil wrote:
basant wrote:Indranil, with my limited understanding I fail to grasp the connection. How is this issue influencing first flight of SP-23? Are they going to replace LRUs with those supplied from some other vendor(s)? In such a case it can be anybody's guess as to how long FOCs will take to have even first flight.

It means that SP23, 24 .... are not waiting in an assembly line. But, IAF & HAL have agreed that IAF will not accept and HAL will not deliver a Tejas which is not fully serviceable at IAF's BRD without any of HAL's interventions. And that this serviceability leads to a minimum level of availability.

So giving you an example, At Gaganshakti, Tejas's availability was higher than pilot availability, but that was ensured with HAL's team traveling with the squadron. Henceforth, this will not be the case.

So are we talking months or years at this point for deliveries to resume?

This is a bizarre situation, the IAF and IN have accepted birds into service in the past with ongoing maintainability questions but for LCA they are not?

Any news on SP 25?

Is this delaying the contract signature for the MK1As?

KSingh
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 82
Joined: 16 Jun 2020 17:52

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby KSingh » 11 Dec 2020 20:39

Aditya_V wrote:This month is supposed to be the deadline, any basis that it will actually be ahered to?

I've seen a few people saying it will be delayed to Aero India 2021 now, which could then easily turn into December 2021 and around and around this circus goes.

Similar promises have been made for LCH orders over the years and yet here we are.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2693
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby Vivek K » 12 Dec 2020 00:45

It seems deliveries are being held back to pay for the emergency and Rafale purchases. My chaiwallah has been saying that for months. So this is one way to delay paying by one year or several years. The impact on force readiness - those making the decision are well aware.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8321
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby Indranil » 12 Dec 2020 01:08

KSingh wrote:
Indranil wrote:It means that SP23, 24 .... are not waiting in an assembly line. But, IAF & HAL have agreed that IAF will not accept and HAL will not deliver a Tejas which is not fully serviceable at IAF's BRD without any of HAL's interventions. And that this serviceability leads to a minimum level of availability.

So giving you an example, At Gaganshakti, Tejas's availability was higher than pilot availability, but that was ensured with HAL's team traveling with the squadron. Henceforth, this will not be the case.

So are we talking months or years at this point for deliveries to resume?

This is a bizarre situation, the IAF and IN have accepted birds into service in the past with ongoing maintainability questions but for LCA they are not?

Any news on SP 25?

Is this delaying the contract signature for the MK1As?

They had estimated that the deliveries to start in December. Add a couple of months (to HAL's ability to predict timelines). But a bunch of aircrafts will be delivered in very quick succession.

This has nothing to do with Mk1A.

basant
BRFite
Posts: 456
Joined: 20 Mar 2020 20:58

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby basant » 12 Dec 2020 03:12

Vivek K wrote:It seems deliveries are being held back to pay for the emergency and Rafale purchases. My chaiwallah has been saying that for months. So this is one way to delay paying by one year or several years. The impact on force readiness - those making the decision are well aware.

I doubt if that is the case. The outstanding dues of HAL (~13,500 cr) is case in point.

IR, taking deliveries is a different issue. What is preventing HAL from even going ahead with flight testing? Surely, it's not TPs.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 11140
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby Rakesh » 13 Dec 2020 22:52

X-Post from the IAF History Thread.

This is an average of 7+ Su-7s per month. I am not sure whether these aircraft came in SKD (semi-knocked down) kits from Russia. That would make a big difference in ramping up the numbers. Also unsure whether the Su-7 was built by HAL. But this is impressive nevertheless. However it is only impressive because of the number of orders (140 aircraft).

As per media reports, the IAF wants HAL to deliver the 83 Tejas Mk1As at the rate of 20 aircraft per year. If the IAF wants to achieve that number, they are going to have to increase the order from 83 to a triple digit figure. Another 2 squadrons (at least) would be great.

https://twitter.com/singhshwetabh71/status/1337661183055126528?s=20 ---> You wanna know which aircraft had the fastest induction rate in the IAF. It was the Su-7BMK. IAF inducted 6 squadrons (~140 frames) within a span of 18 months, from 1968-1969. Just in time for 1971.

Image

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 11140
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby Rakesh » 13 Dec 2020 22:56

https://twitter.com/DefenceDecode/statu ... 21762?s=20 ---> “A star does not compete with other stars around it; it just shines.”

Image

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12824
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby Aditya_V » 14 Dec 2020 11:38

Rakesh wrote:X-Post from the IAF History Thread.

This is an average of 7+ Su-7s per month. I am not sure whether these aircraft came in SKD (semi-knocked down) kits from Russia. That would make a big difference in ramping up the numbers. Also unsure whether the Su-7 was built by HAL. But this is impressive nevertheless. However it is only impressive because of the number of orders (140 aircraft).

As per media reports, the IAF wants HAL to deliver the 83 Tejas Mk1As at the rate of 20 aircraft per year. If the IAF wants to achieve that number, they are going to have to increase the order from 83 to a triple digit figure. Another 2 squadrons (at least) would be great.



All the parts were made in the Soviet Union and we at best did Screwdrivergiri, similarly the induction of Mig 21's. The Induction of 100 + Su 7, 100+ Mig 21, Upgrade of 50+ Hunters plus induction of weapons such as Vidyut class Missile Boats with Styx missiles made the difference between the 65 and 71 wars giving us much better capabilities.

That was primarily on the back of Soviet Largesse whose reputation suffered a beating in Arab -Israeli wars and needed something to boost their reputation.

The downside was our forces keep hoping for such largesse which was a black swan event. We can only induct weapons in numbers if we build them.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5097
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby chola » 14 Dec 2020 11:50

Whoa! True?

https://www.timesnownews.com/videos/times-now/india/india-offers-trainer-jets-to-the-us-navy-as-part-of-its-first-major-defence-sales-pitch/83649

India offers trainer jets to the US Navy as part of its first major defence sales pitch

14 DECEMBER 2020 11:11 IST | ENGLISH | GENERAL AUDIENCE

In a first attempt of strengthening US-India ties, a major weapons sales pitch by India has been made where a fighter jet trainer has been offered to the United States. The offered aircraft has experience gained by Indian developers from the naval version of the LCA, which has successfully demonstrated operations from an aircraft carrier. India has sent in a detailed project plan of the aircraft to US, including advanced avionics that enable the LIFT LCA to mimic almost all types of fighter jets, from cockpit display layout to control performances and all the work on the aircraft has been done in house.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5537
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby Kartik » 14 Dec 2020 14:09

Indranil wrote:They had estimated that the deliveries to start in December. Add a couple of months (to HAL's ability to predict timelines). But a bunch of aircrafts will be delivered in very quick succession.

This has nothing to do with Mk1A.

All in all, this is a very disappointing situation. Raises questions to HAL's ability to certify and deliver the sheer number of Mk1As and Mk2s in time.

hemant_sai
BRFite
Posts: 108
Joined: 13 Dec 2018 12:13

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby hemant_sai » 14 Dec 2020 14:59

I would like to give some space to HAL.
As is we don't count HAL as visionary. To add to their problem of planning and execution, we have corona crisis and LAC stand-off.
And Tejas getting deployed to forward base may have something to do with skilled staff availability.

Can we rather discuss on how things in HAL can be improved and provide solutions to their problems. What is the use of having so many intellectuals and patriots on this forum but not able to contribute.

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4510
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby kit » 14 Dec 2020 17:26

Aditya_V wrote:That was primarily on the back of Soviet Largesse whose reputation suffered a beating in Arab -Israeli wars and needed something to boost their reputation.

The downside was our forces keep hoping for such largesse which was a black swan event. We can only induct weapons in numbers if we build them

That is what it is. No other way out. Build build build. If you want numbers.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 11140
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby Rakesh » 14 Dec 2020 19:10


chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5097
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby chola » 14 Dec 2020 21:34

^^^ Sorry Admiral, I missed your posts and tweets on it.

But this is simply huge if we can get the Tejas LIFT/SPORT/NLCA even mentioned in the USN competition.

The Korean T-50 got a lot of credibility being linked in the USAF trainer competition. Unlike India, Korea had nearly NO experience in building aircraft before the T-50 and now the thing has exports.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9797
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby brar_w » 14 Dec 2020 21:53

chola wrote:

But this is simply huge if we can get the Tejas LIFT/SPORT/NLCA even mentioned in the USN competition.


It would be interesting to watch this and see if this program even makes it to a competition. The USN's RFI was super thin and felt more like a survey than a program that was fast moving into competitive source selection. The longer it takes to get from RFI to RFP the more incentive they'll have to simply use the USAF competition as a source selection tool and go straight into acquisition (provided their technical parameters are adequately satisfied).

chola wrote: The Korean T-50 got a lot of credibility being linked in the USAF trainer competition.


The T-50 had export success even prior to it formally entering the US competition mainly because it had huge backing from the ROKAF, had Lockheed Martin as an invested (financial stake) party in its development and marketing/sales and something that stood out relative to other competitors (it was supersonic capable).

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2693
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby Vivek K » 15 Dec 2020 10:25

With even orders not forthcoming - the Tejas stands no chance.

Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2921
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby Prem Kumar » 15 Dec 2020 11:53

brar_w wrote:It would be interesting to watch this and see if this program even makes it to a competition


Even if it doesn't make it to the shortlist, this is very good PR. We need loads of it. Little wins lead to bigger wins.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12824
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby Aditya_V » 15 Dec 2020 12:58

Forget the US Navy bid,

Any chance of the MK1A contract actually adhereing to the Dec-20 timeline?

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8410
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby nachiket » 22 Dec 2020 09:48

Mod Note: I have moved all Engine related posts to the Engines thread: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3351&start=5320

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 11140
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby Rakesh » 23 Dec 2020 21:51

Aditya_V wrote:Any chance of the MK1A contract actually adhereing to the Dec-20 timeline?

https://twitter.com/TheWolfpackIN/statu ... 53056?s=20 ---> Deal for 83 Tejas Mk-1A likely to be announced during Aero India 2021.

https://twitter.com/TheWolfpackIN/statu ... 87105?s=20 ---> HAL will deliver atleast 6-7 Tejas Mk1 this financial year. May be a bit less than target of 8 due to pandemic affecting supply chain during Q1-Q2.

basant
BRFite
Posts: 456
Joined: 20 Mar 2020 20:58

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby basant » 23 Dec 2020 22:55

I really hope and pray that 6-7 Mk1 deliveries happen by this financial year.


Return to “Military Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests