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

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3263
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

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

Postby tsarkar » 05 Nov 2020 00:13

nachiket wrote:This discussion started because you said the reason IAF wasn't ordering the Tejas in larger numbers was because the production standardization wasn't complete yet.

My exact words were -
tsarkar wrote:Those doing rona dhona on large orders being not placed need to track when ICY is completely achieved so that proper mass production can commence and aircraft maintenance can be standardized at IAF bases.


And my assertion is, unless production standardization is achieved, of which ICY is an indicator, mass production cannot start.

nachiket wrote:Since the Mk1A will have a lot of differences with the Mk1, HAL meeting ICY standards for the Mk1 will have little to no bearing on the Mk1A.

https://www.theweek.in/news/india/2020/ ... 22-23.html
Tejas Mk1A is an upgraded version of the final operational clearance (FOC) configuration (Mk1) with 80 per cent of the detail components being the same.


HAL meeting ICY standards for the Mk1 has the very major bearing of meeting 80% of the standardization required for Mk1A

nachiket wrote:The process will have to begin again. All further orders of the Tejas are going to be Mk1A. So how does HAL meeting ICY standards for the Mk1 SP's matter at all in terms of when and how many orders are placed for the Mk1A?

Only for the remaining 20% will the process have to begin again. So the process will be considerably shortened. Mk1A will have systems upgrade like Elta 2052 radar, UEWS and some additional maintainability improvements.

What give Tejas MK1A more teeth compared with earlier version of Tejas are four key capabilities over the current variant. The major improvements are planned in operational roles, enhancing the combat ability and maintainability improvements through incorporation of active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar, electronic warfare (EW) suite and beyond-visual range (BVR) missile capabilities.

Desi air-to-air missile Astra Mk1 will be integrated on Tejas Mk1A, giving an edge to the fighter over its contemporaries in BVR warfare. “With the introduction of podded self-protection jammer (SPJ) and AESA on Tejas Mk1A, the survivability of the aircraft is further enhanced. Besides, Astra and ASRAAM (Advanced Short-Range Air-to-Air Missile), the fighter will also carry missiles for long-range as well as short-range operations. This is in addition to prevailing store configurations to increase offensive capability,” an official overseeing the programme said.

The AESA radar will give Tejas improved range with near-simultaneous missile-firing options on multiple targets and increased situational awareness with mode interleaving.

“The AESA radar will be electronically scanned agile beam radar based on transmit/receive modules (TRM) and supports multimode operation. The radar is having capability to track multiple targets at a time in air-to-air, air-to-ground and air-to-sea modes,” says the official.

The unified electronic warfare suite (UEWS) will provide capabilities for electronic countermeasures (ECM) and ECCM (electronic counter-countermeasures), with extended band of operation for threat detection and jamming capability.

“The EW capability will increase survivability of the aircraft in a networked environment. With the integration of an external jamming pod, the aircraft will be able to do its duty as offensive air combat platform,” he added.

More real estate

Additional features that are getting on board Tejas Mk1A, boosting its precision warfighting capabilities, include a digital moving map with 2D maps and 3D perspective view, provision for GLONASS (Global Navigation Satellite System), the Indian Regional Navigation Satellite System (IRNSS)-based positioning system, GAGAN (GPS-aided geo-augmented navigation) and SBAS (Satellite-based Augmentation system).

“The Tejas Mk1A will have excellent manoeuvrability, unhindered by control and stability considerations, over the widest possible speed and CG (centre of gravity) range from + 8 to -3g,” says the official.

On the maintainability front, the new Tejas promises to be a delight for the ground support crew with ARDC planning to incorporate many new features.

“The idea is to step up the availability of aircraft and reduce the turnaround time. Based on various inputs, we are making changes in the roots of the aircraft,” says the official.

New panels are getting in to reduce the DI (daily inspection) time. A new concept called ‘panel-in-panel’ will be in place to increase the visibility of the components during DI.


So the four main features as per the article are -
1. AESA
2. Jammer
3. Missiles
4. Maintainability
An additional feature is the new digital moving map

These would account for the 20% changes.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19874
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 05 Nov 2020 01:32

The above report seems to be from IDRW which has done the usual copy paste mish mash of other reports. The grammatical errors kind of give it away.

Unfortunately we won't see a UEWS in the Mk1A. That will come with the MWF. We will have an integrated SPJ carried on an external pylon though, which will be done with the Mk1 as well (its a relatively straightforward task, and an essential one). Its not very different from the practical POV but DRDO reserves the UEWS terminology for an internal all-in-one suite. The Tejas Mk1A will have separate RWR plus SPJ plus countermeasures but tested and integrated together. And a dual pylon to carry the pod but retain extra space for a munition.

The Mk1A also has a very different cockpit display system than the Mk1. This portion "include a digital moving map with 2D maps and 3D perspective view" understates the improvement. The 2D map is there with a DMG on the Mk1 too. What the Mk1A adds is a Gripen like Tac Situation Display wherein you get all the sensor data fused and displayed along with the map which is excellent. Only the Rafale and Netra plus likely the Phalcon, have something similar in the IAF currently. Whats incredible is how blase we are about the whole thing. Any other developer would be hard selling the whole thing. Anyways, good enough as long as we do it well and deliver it to the IAFs satisfaction. It also bodes well for the Su-30 upgrade. If we can do this for the Mk1A, can be done for the Su-30 too and would significantly improve the situational awareness of the pilot and WSO both.

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3263
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

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

Postby tsarkar » 05 Nov 2020 02:14

nachiket wrote:The history of the Su-30 MKI actually goes against your point that large orders are placed only after ICY conformance is achieved to the necessary levels.

How? Lets see in details whether the Su-30MKI and Tejas programs have different or similar yardsticks.

nachiket wrote:The initial order for the Su-30 itself was 50 (10 more than the Tejas Mk1), when the MKI did not even exist.

The initial order was 8 Su-30K that existed and was flying at Farmborough Air Show in 1994 before IAF signed the contract for 40 in November 1996.
An additional 10 Su-30K from Indonesian unpaid order were taken up in 1999.

That leaves 32 MKIs that IAF ordered in 1996 when MKI actually did exist as a prototype built 1995 in anticipation of the Indian order. It flew in 1997 (1 year after order) They were delivered 2002-2004. (8 years after order)
https://eurasiantimes.com/why-su-30-mki ... an-su-30s/

The IAF ordered 20 IOC Tejas in 2006. IOC happened 2013 (7 years after order) Delivery happened 2014-19 (13 years after order)

The IAF ordered 20 FOC Tejas in 2010. FOC happened 2017 (7 years after order) Delivery still happening (10 years after order)

So you can see, the time from order to delivery (8, 13, 10 years) are very similar.

nachiket wrote:Neither were many of its components and avionics ready. The aircraft differed significantly in batches of 10 initially. Forget about interchangeability of components, some components you might find on one aircraft would not even exist on one from the previous batch. And this was before HAL started building them. Even that was divided in phases. Some avionics like the Bars radar were not even fully ready and would not be for some time.

Very true. And they were of differing standards like ICY in Tejas IOC and FOC.

nachiket wrote:some components you might find on one aircraft would not even exist on one from the previous batch

Absolutely true. Some components you might find on Tejas FOC aircraft like Mid Air Refueling probe, centerline drop tank, pressure refueling, Derby missile, 23 mm gun and dual rack pylon on inner wing hard point in Tejas FOC would not even exist in previous batch of Tejas IOC.

https://www.onmanorama.com/news/nation/ ... tures.html

nachiket wrote:Despite that the initial MoU itself was for 140 to be built by HAL. This was in 2000, years before HAL ever built the first MKI. That is not a "limited" order by any means.


The next orders are placed as each milestone is covered. For example, as the Su-30MKI standards became definitive by 2000, order was placed for manufacturing and HAL delivered them in 2004
The first pre-production aircraft completed its maiden flight in November 2000. India signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with Russia in October 2000, to start the licence production of Su-30MKIs at HAL’s plant.


Anyways, the overall point for this post is unless one reaches a stage where a product is standardized, mass production cant commence. For Su-30MKI was October/November 2000 when the production standard Su-30MKI started flying.

For Tejas, mass production can commence once full ICY is achieved.

nachiket wrote:ICY did not seem to matter in the least back then

Russians never had a concept of ICY, and Tejas was developed as per Western Standards, for example,

IEEE-1220
IEEE-12207
RTCA DO-178B
MIL-STD-1553 Databus
MIL-STD-1760 Aircraft/Store Electrical Interconnection System

If Tejas was built by ADA to Russian standards by ADA, then yes, no one would have asked about ICY.

But since its built to Western Standards, then ICY becomes relevant.

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3263
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

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

Postby tsarkar » 05 Nov 2020 02:25

Karan M wrote:The above report seems to be from IDRW which has done the usual copy paste mish mash of other reports. The grammatical errors kind of give it away.


This is a Week magazine reproduction of a Murali Anantha Krishna report on Manorama. Though you've explained both the EW and sensor data fused on moving map quite well and thank you for that.

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3263
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

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

Postby tsarkar » 05 Nov 2020 02:40

Amplifying this more -

8 Tu-142M served for 29 years and logged approx 30,000 flight hours.
8 P-8I served 7 years since 2013 and logged more flight hours than that.

With Tu-142, we get 3 hours per day of ASW flights (30,000/29/365)
With P-8I, we get 12 hours per day of ASW flights (30,000/7/365)

Both hunt submarine equally well. But a P-8I protects us 4x times more than a Tu-142M can.

From a purely operational perspective, this is a huge gain achieved by standardization of manufacture and maintenance

So what do Bharat Rakshak members want?

A Tejas built to Tu-142M standards protecting 3 hours a day or a Tejas built to P-8I standards protecting 12 hours a day.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 10629
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Postby Rakesh » 05 Nov 2020 02:55

tsarkar wrote:So what do Bharat Rakshak members want?

A Tejas built to Tu-142M standards protecting 3 hours a day or a Tejas built to P-8I standards protecting 12 hours a day.

This is what I want....if it is good enough for Boeing, I am sure it will be good enough for HAL.

https://www.ang.af.mil/Media/Commentari ... aintainer/

F-15 maintenance; the relationship between jet and maintainer
By Tech. Sgt. Jefferson Thompson, 173rd Fighter Wing Public Affairs / Published October 17, 2014

"Every aircraft is different, if you use cars as an example every Mustang is different," said Chief Master Sgt. Joe McKenzie, 173rd Fighter Wing Maintenance Chief.

What McKenzie is saying is that two cars produced at the same time on the same line will still have differences. He relates that to the jets and says "we have to know beyond the broad guidelines in the T.O. how things should be set exactly to make each individual aircraft really perform...and each one is different."

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2611
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

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

Postby Vivek K » 05 Nov 2020 03:26

Tsarkarji- Rome isn’t built in a day. Some goals are desirable but it takes a while to get there. And we’re getting there. While wanting the higher standard, I wouldn’t want to hold up production for accomplishment of this goal.

Dileep
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5871
Joined: 04 Apr 2005 08:17
Location: Dera Mahab Ali धरा महाबलिस्याः درا مهاب الي

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

Postby Dileep » 05 Nov 2020 18:08

The way BRDs maintain the birds, there will be no ICY after a few years of operational use :twisted: And don't get started on the part obsolescence induced changes. ICY is very important to build the planes quickly. Not that much in operational use.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 10629
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Postby Rakesh » 05 Nov 2020 22:12

Well said Dileep. This entire lecture on the minutiae of ICY just highlights one key point - a strong supply chain. I will not entirely discount ICY, as it certainly has its uses in emergencies i.e. war. But even in that, only in certain circumstances.

99.9% of the time, rather than cannibalize a part from another aircraft, the better option would be to acquire the part from the supplier itself. A brand new part means no fatigue and thus no need for the subsequent processes that have to take place in order to ensure that the part works as designed. That in turn reduces downtime of the aircraft in question. ICY on the other hand increases the downtime of not just the aircraft that requires the part, but also the aircraft from where that part has been cannabilized from.

The ICY argument is systemic of the larger issue which is basically a deep rooted bias against local products that is prevalent in the Indian Armed Forces. When one issue is solved, another issue is brought up. When that issue is solved, another issue is then given birth. Anything to not allow a local program to succeed. And hide behind the curtain of technical jargon i.e. ICY to validate the point. Foreign products on the other hand are given tremendous leeway and faith, to bring the product up to spec. Two examples;

* First batch of Mirage 2000s had underpowered engines i.e. M53-5 vs M53-P2
* First batch of Jaguars also had the same issue i.e. Mk 804 vs Mk 811

No one in the IAF ever complained. So if two Tejas are indeed different from each other, it is best to resolve the issues with the supplier itself and not by stating that since the parts are different, the platform does not conform to international ICY standards. So further Tejas orders will be put on hold, till those standards are met. In fact, I doubt that is even a "deal-breaker" issue apart from it being stated on this thread. A very relevant and real example would be (assuming the country in question agrees to sell) this...

Tomorrow if the Qatari Air Force acquires F-35s, as they have requested the US Govt for them, they will have five different fighter types;

1) F-15QA
2) Rafale B/C F3-R
3) Mirage 2000-5EDA / Mirage 2000-DDA
4) Eurofighter Typhoon
5) F-35

If the Qataris sell #2 and #3 to India, for a favourable price, would the IAF turn it down? Hell no! And this despite the fact, that neither Qatari aircraft meet the same standards that are presently in the IAF. Air HQ would gladly operate them right alongside the present IAF Mirage 2000s & Rafales and even invest their meagre CAPEX to bring them up to the requisite IAF standard. If that sounds not plausible, please note that the 2004 order of 10 Mirage 2000s were not of the exact same standard that the first batch of 40 Mirage 2000s delivered in the mid 80s. This is the same IAF that has operated a buffet of various MiG-21 trainers from Eastern European nations, but apparently Russia does not follow the ICY rule. ICY is not an "earth shattering" issue that is being made out to be on this thread. Posts from KaranM, Tanaji, Dileep and others have proven that.

If Boeing is okay with its ICY standards, why should HAL adopt any different?

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21227
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

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

Postby Philip » 06 Nov 2020 10:57

The fundamental issue before the IAF is increasing numbers asap at least/affordable cost. This must also take into account the threat from the PAF and PLAAF are in terms of their air assets.Both the PAF and PLAAF have a variety of aircraft in their
inventory, their frontline best to legacy fighters ,and in a variety of numbers. For the PAF their top bird are their F-16s, workhorse their JF-17s and legacy Mirages.For the PLAAF,their J-11Flanker clones,a small number of J-20 stealth birds,their J-10s and legacy MIG-21 clones.

Looking at those types and figures,which I've not given, we can decide the number and type of aircraft that would suit us.The famous saying that " quantity has a quality of its own", has served us v.well in previous wars with Pak. Hundreds of MIG-21s and SU-7s along with legacy Hunters and Gnats saw off superior Mirages,F-104s,etc. Since then the numerical advantage we had has hugely shrunk even though we've considerably increased our qualitative advantage especially with the PAF with our top 4 frontline aircraft,the MKIs and Rafales and upgraded M2Ks and 29UPGs. It is in the workhorse sector that we are low in numbers.
Hundreds of retired MIG-21/23/27s have not been replaced one-for-one at all primarily because of the failure of Tejas to arrive in large numbers.

We therefore have only two alternatives.One, acquire more fighters from abroad,preferably of types in service,which we're exactly doing with the 12 MKIs plus 21 MIG-29s on order from Russia. These are being bought for just $40M in the case of the 29s,v.reasonable cost,MKIs at current costs too.

The second option is to really crack the whip with the LCA programme which frankly has left a huge lot to be desired. Here,
we have to handle matters on a war footing and with the miserly production,open a 3rd. prod. line preferably in the pvt. sector giving whichever entity is chosen a substantial order. This is crucial for the long-term success of our desi aircraft industry.Look at the hundreds of aircraft,helos ,transports,etc. that the PRC churns out each year,plus the staggering variety of types. The world's biggest amphibian for example.

Why if we're really going ahead with the MMRCA 2.0 farce, argument that LCAs aren't coming as fast as we want, heavyweights like the F-15s,SU-35s,Typhoons and Rafales should be canned.Extra Rafales can stand on their own merits with a first tranche of 36 in the pipeline and more d pected when pockets are fulll. The light/ med. range of fighters to be considered only. Getting the MK-1A into production asap is the key decision.We've been told that the order would be sealed by Dec. is eagerly awaited.

Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2520
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

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

Postby Manish_P » 06 Nov 2020 14:50

Philip wrote:..

Why if we're really going ahead with the MMRCA 2.0 farce, argument that LCAs aren't coming as fast as we want, heavyweights like the F-15s,SU-35s,Typhoons and Rafales should be canned...


Mig 29Ks/35s are heavier than the Rafales. So you will need to include them in your canned list too.

ashishvikas
BRFite
Posts: 576
Joined: 17 Oct 2016 14:18

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

Postby ashishvikas » 08 Nov 2020 11:39

RKumar wrote:Tejas SP-22 and SP-23 ready for first flight this week

I am happy to be proven wrong ... :D

wo fighters from the Tejas Final Operational Clearance (FOC) block—SP-22 and SP-23—are likely to take to the skies in the coming days, signalling the resumption of flight activities that were halted for a while. An official from Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) told Onmanorama that the flight trials of these two fighters will be completed by the end of this month.

The low- and high-speed taxi trials of both fighters have been completed. The LCA-Tejas Division of HAL is currently finishing the activities ahead of their first flights. SP-23 is manufactured by HAL’s Aircraft Division.

“The FOC variants getting ready for delivery/flight are loaded with updated software to meet the operational requirements of Indian Air Force (IAF). The production rate has been enhanced at LCA and Aircraft Divisions. Structural works are in advanced stages,” the official told Onmanorama.

HAL hopes that by the end of this production year, the fuselages of the remaining FOC fighters will be loaded on to their respective jigs.
....
Production rate

HAL is working towards delivering the FOC aircraft to IAF without having any pending concessions. The production rate is expected to be enhanced, once the vendors start delivering major assemblies.

...

SP-21, the first Tejas FOC fighter that flew in March this year, was produced by HAL in a record time of 12 months, post release of the documents.

The aircraft was subsequently delivered to the IAF in May and is currently undergoing software upgrade and post-delivery checks. It is expected to be with its Indian Air Force squadron by the end of this month.

HAL has put in reinforced efforts to meet the demands of IAF with the manufacturing of detailed parts of all FOC fighters almost completed.

Now, the focus is on the completion of structural build of aircraft, which are planned to be produced during this financial year. The first three aircraft are in advanced stage of delivery and another three (SP-24, SP-25, SP-26) are in various stages of equipping,” the official added.

Pandemic pause
....

“We are planning to maximise the deliveries despite the lockdown-induced slowdown in supply chain. The target is to produce eight aircraft by end of this FY and this could be enhanced if the supplies from our business partners improve,” the official added.

.....
Meanwhile, detailed part manufacturing work is currently under way for manufacturing of eight Tejas FOC trainer aircraft. The jigs are being calibrated for structural assembly and if HAL sticks to the current plan, the first trainer will fly out by end of next year.



We are still waiting for SP23 first flight.

idan
BRFite
Posts: 105
Joined: 21 Jun 2020 00:19

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

Postby idan » 08 Nov 2020 19:56

With winds of change blowing in the geopolitical front, HAL should qualify a second non-US jet engine for Tejas. There should be an alternative to GE404 and 414s.

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4332
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

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

Postby kit » 08 Nov 2020 20:45

idan wrote:With winds of change blowing in the geopolitical front, HAL should qualify a second non-US jet engine for Tejas. There should be an alternative to GE404 and 414s.


Always good to have alternatives if Biden or the mylapore maami gets the itch

fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3589
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

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

Postby fanne » 08 Nov 2020 20:55

kit wrote:
idan wrote:With winds of change blowing in the geopolitical front, HAL should qualify a second non-US jet engine for Tejas. There should be an alternative to GE404 and 414s.


Always good to have alternatives if Biden or the mylapore maami gets the itch



Which is?

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9616
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby brar_w » 08 Nov 2020 21:58

fanne wrote:
kit wrote:
Always good to have alternatives if Biden or the mylapore maami gets the itch



Which is?


The Kaveri. Otherwise someone will come here demanding an alternate to an alternate in case political winds change and the alternate supplier, per their belief, becomes less reliable. It'll be a never ending story.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19874
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 08 Nov 2020 22:26

idan wrote:With winds of change blowing in the geopolitical front, HAL should qualify a second non-US jet engine for Tejas. There should be an alternative to GE404 and 414s.


The EJ200 is the only game in town.

Picklu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2114
Joined: 25 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Picklu » 08 Nov 2020 23:59

Why not m88?

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19874
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 09 Nov 2020 00:10

Check the thrust.

Picklu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2114
Joined: 25 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Picklu » 09 Nov 2020 00:18

m88-3 and/or m88-4 would be close in thrust rating while giving better strategic autonomy and still better technology than ruski; similar path for hal dhruv going with ardiden.

the evanjihadi engine would have 100s of oiro noise maker stakeholders poking on cashmere, nrc, caa, babri bla bla

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19874
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 09 Nov 2020 00:25

Have to stick to current engines. Funding future variants is not financially viable or practically feasible in the short term given the fact we can't even finance Kaveri. The political issues with an EJ200 exist but would occur with a M-88 too. Never forget that during that MMS's time, Sarkozy's French Govt summoned the Indian ambassador to rant over the Kandhamal incident. Only the Russians and Israelis haven't in public interfered in Indian affairs. They use other means.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 10629
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Postby Rakesh » 09 Nov 2020 00:30

Fully agree with KaranM.

The host country has to be willing to integrate their turbofan onto the aircraft.

Then funding is required to certify and test for a new turbofan. All this takes time.

Apart from GE F404 for the Mk1 and Mk1A, there is no other option. Kaveri - in her current form - is not on the horizon.

Now that all the alphabet agreements have been signed, it will be short sighted for either side to walk away from the relationship. Lot of energy and time has been invested these past 20+ years, from President Clinton's visit in March 2000. There has to be an earth shattering event for the relationship to rupture.

Rather than look out for another engine, work on getting a MRO facility for the F404/F414 turbofan. That's it.

Mort Walker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9151
Joined: 31 May 2004 11:31
Location: The rings around Uranus.

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

Postby Mort Walker » 09 Nov 2020 00:36

Combat aircraft are designed around an existing engine. The Tejas is not just sheet metal and avionics like PLAAF J-10/20 which can take a sundry of different engines. It is the GE-404 or Kaveri. Nothing else. The order for 200 GE-404 engines should be placed forthwith.

fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3589
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

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

Postby fanne » 09 Nov 2020 06:54

if we get screwed for F-404 then $hit has already hit the fan. That means US is willing to walk away from 25 (rather 70 years) of strategic relationship and has gone ap$hit crazy. At that point, I would hazard a guess that west has also turned against us (or is going to or secretly maybe screwing us, while acting nice). At that point I would go with a redesign of LCA (mostly engine inlet to accommodate new engine) - ALF31.
Chinese were in similar strategic predicament a decade ago (and still are). No western power to share engine tech, they also went with AL-31F and produced J-10. Our LCA MWF will have LCA wings and fuselage (proportionally enlarged) and AL-31F.
Hopefully it will not come to that. That junior Biden is beholden to the sugars is perhaps a malicious rumor.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2611
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

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

Postby Vivek K » 09 Nov 2020 07:04

IAF/HAL/GOI have no vision of developing local MIC and what to do if the geopolitical climate changes. HAL should have been asked to import 100-200 GE 404s. That would have insulated the development from any changes. However, the development has proceeded albeit slowly with the GE engine over 25 years. So there will not be earth shattering impact on the situation especially for the meager counts on order.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21227
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

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

Postby Philip » 09 Nov 2020 12:05

I've always said that at the prototype stage we should've tried out two options at least ,both western,European and US for the LCA. European from SNECMA,RR,Eurojet,and GE and P&W. This way we would have good competition to identify the two best, so that if ever sanctions were imposed upon us we would have a ready alternative.

jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5361
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

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

Postby jamwal » 09 Nov 2020 14:39

Paisa koun dega for double engines?
BTW, this dhoti shivering doesn't make much sense.

sankum
BRFite
Posts: 1003
Joined: 20 Dec 2004 21:45

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

Postby sankum » 09 Nov 2020 14:48

F404/414 have long service life and we will be having 20% spare engine. A short period ban will have no effect. No need to worry. The planners would have already factored in the scenario.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2611
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

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

Postby Vivek K » 09 Nov 2020 20:21

Really? Pray enlighten us what the “planners” options would be besides dhoti shivering?

By not taking such events seriously, India risks its MIC development. This is not dhoti shivering - we debase ourselves by flippantly hiding the true potential fall out of such eventualities. India should gear up diplomacy and every other possible action to safeguard its interests.

sankum
BRFite
Posts: 1003
Joined: 20 Dec 2004 21:45

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

Postby sankum » 09 Nov 2020 20:25

They are getting the best tech economically possible.
Will also develop indigenous tech. Can't stop aero programs for lack of some critical tech.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2611
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

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

Postby Vivek K » 09 Nov 2020 21:22

Really? An aircraft without an engine is like an omelette without the egg!

Ponder on the meaning of critical in your post.

Already the IAF is dragging its feet in signing the order for LCA. This will be the perfect excuse.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8207
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

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

Postby nachiket » 09 Nov 2020 22:32

Vivek K wrote:Really? An aircraft without an engine is like an omelette without the egg!

Ponder on the meaning of critical in your post.

Already the IAF is dragging its feet in signing the order for LCA. This will be the perfect excuse.

How is the IAF dragging its feet? The Mk1A order is pending with the MoD. It is up to them to allocate funds and sign a contract with HAL. They either don't have the money or it is some typical bureaucratic nonsense holding things up.

suryag
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3851
Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14

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

Postby suryag » 10 Nov 2020 03:07

Guys whats up with all R R&D, did someone announce sanctions ? please India is not the India of late 90s. As much as we need the US the US also needs us if it intends to keep its top spot, people across the board on both sides ae sensible

fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3589
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

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

Postby fanne » 10 Nov 2020 04:48

Yep for now a US sanction on India is very very very slim.

Barath
BRFite
Posts: 209
Joined: 11 Feb 2019 19:06

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

Postby Barath » 10 Nov 2020 06:54

nachiket wrote:The Mk1A order is pending with the MoD. It is up to them to allocate funds and sign a contract with HAL. They either don't have the money or it is some typical bureaucratic nonsense holding things up.


A small nuance. The DAC, which is essentially the MoD has approved it.

It is pending with the CCS. Ignoring the MoD and Foreign affairs, it's essentially the prime minister and the treasury.

Conclusion same as yours..

Rishi_Tri
BRFite
Posts: 505
Joined: 13 Feb 2017 14:49

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

Postby Rishi_Tri » 10 Nov 2020 07:05

Moved post to Biden presidency impact.
Last edited by Rishi_Tri on 10 Nov 2020 08:31, edited 1 time in total.

LakshmanPST
BRFite
Posts: 345
Joined: 05 Apr 2019 18:23

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

Postby LakshmanPST » 10 Nov 2020 07:24

USA won't sanction us just like that...
I doubt there will be any sanctions unless we do something big that antagonizes the West (like nuclear tests or declaring war unilaterally)... And if that happens, sanctions may come even from France and Britain...

If the new US regime sanctions us for puny things like Human Rights violations, it will be the most stupid administration ever...
-
Yes, we need engine tech for strategic independence... But we need not worry about sanctions for now unless we plan to do something big...

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8207
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

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

Postby nachiket » 10 Nov 2020 07:29

Mod Note: No US elections related talk here. There is a separate thread for the Biden presidency's impact on India. Take it there.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2611
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

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

Postby Vivek K » 10 Nov 2020 10:39

Why do we hang on to semantics? When funds can be made available for the Rafale, GOI cannot find funds for LCA? Hard to believe? And what is the reason that an order cannot be inked? Short on pens? Orders can specify delivery periods later than immediate. So why the delay - especially with forces arrayed on two borders?

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 10629
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Postby Rakesh » 10 Nov 2020 21:48

Vivek: You should be in politics. The way you spin words is amazing!

Not a single thing you have said above is true.


Return to “Military Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests