LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

pralay · Post by **pralay** » 17 Oct 2016 10:46

Rakesh wrote:LCA Tejas Mk 2 testing by 2017: DRDO Chief

Wow, does that mean a prototype will be ready and flying? or does it mean just design will be ready?

Arjunn · Post by **Arjunn** » 17 Oct 2016 11:01

When people come and discuss issues in a forum, it is understood that there will be differing opinions. People who don't have the testicular fortitude to engage in a debate on which they have a differing opinion, should refrain from debating, because they end up behaving like children, who when they have irrational fears often cling to momma and call for poppa, as is happening with the reportitis being exhibited by certain members. Having the cojones to at least listen to a differing opinion even if you don't agree with it, instead of throwing tantrums and appealing to authority figures such as moderators to delete a post in order to escape from participating in the debate, is what separates adults from children.

Kashi · Post by **Kashi** » 17 Oct 2016 11:07

Arjunn wrote:....

And what does this have to with LCA?

sum · Post by **sum** » 17 Oct 2016 11:08

pralay wrote:
Rakesh wrote:LCA Tejas Mk 2 testing by 2017: DRDO Chief
Wow, does that mean a prototype will be ready and flying? or does it mean just design will be ready?

Just hoping and praying that this isnt another remark which will come back to haunt him when 2017 is ending.
Ton loads of timelines seem to be thrown around most of the time and then complete silence when the date is approaching. Hope its different this time( for the sake of the LCA itself) esp with staements like:

given the recent statement by Air Chief Marshal Arup Raha to the media: "As of now we are not interested in Mk 2."

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 17 Oct 2016 11:10

pralay wrote:
Rakesh wrote:LCA Tejas Mk 2 testing by 2017: DRDO Chief
Wow, does that mean a prototype will be ready and flying? or does it mean just design will be ready?

Let us hope it is not just high-speed taxi trials.

Kashi · Post by **Kashi** » 17 Oct 2016 11:13

But if indeed a prototype is ready, that will be brilliant. Well a jingo can dream can he?

Has the delivery of F414 commenced?

ks_sachin · Post by **ks_sachin** » 17 Oct 2016 11:19

Arjunn wrote:When people come and discuss issues in a forum, it is understood that there will be differing opinions. People who don't have the testicular fortitude to engage in a debate on which they have a differing opinion, should refrain from debating, because they end up behaving like children, who when they have irrational fears often cling to momma and call for poppa, as is happening with the reportitis being exhibited by certain members. Having the cojones to at least listen to a differing opinion even if you don't agree with it, instead of throwing tantrums and appealing to authority figures such as moderators to delete a post in order to escape from participating in the debate, is what separates adults from children.

So leave then....

Arjunn · Post by **Arjunn** » 17 Oct 2016 11:29

Vivek K wrote:Why are Indian entities unable to reverse engineer components? In todays times with laser based systems geometries of components can be accurately replicated. Metallurgy seems to be a problem but there I cannot believe that a country that can send probes to the moon and Mars cannot produce the required metallurgy.

Where there is a will there is always a way. Everything comes down to implementation and getting organized to implement a task. We have highly capable engineers but sadly lack people with vision at the helm who can direct them and we have a bureaucracy and political apparatus that is so apathetic that it actually hinders new ideas from being implemented. Everything is so compartmentalized and red tape so rampant that instead of partnering with each other and cooperating, our scientists often work at cross purposes. No wonder that a country that sends probes to the moon and Mars is having difficulty producing the required metallurgy.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 17 Oct 2016 11:39

Guys we are all on the same team here. We all bat for the same team. So stop arguing please guys.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 17 Oct 2016 11:54

What is mk 2?

I thought it was the NLCA with IAF specific modifications. Is my understanding correct.?

Dileep · Post by **Dileep** » 17 Oct 2016 12:42

We are worried about the injin being phoren and unkil having a tight grip on it.

But remember that even if we have the Kaveri flowing at full force, all the unkil need to do is to block sale of some 'silicon' and 'glass' to screw us completely.

Almost 100% of the BOM of avionics is unkils that we take for granted. Every time we fill in an "end user certification" I am made to remember this fact.

sum · Post by **sum** » 17 Oct 2016 13:06

^^ How does Cheen work around this?

Akshay Kapoor · Post by **Akshay Kapoor** » 17 Oct 2016 13:16

Arjunn wrote:When people come and discuss issues in a forum, it is understood that there will be differing opinions. People who don't have the testicular fortitude to engage in a debate on which they have a differing opinion, should refrain from debating, because they end up behaving like children, who when they have irrational fears often cling to momma and call for poppa, as is happening with the reportitis being exhibited by certain members. Having the cojones to at least listen to a differing opinion even if you don't agree with it, instead of throwing tantrums and appealing to authority figures such as moderators to delete a post in order to escape from participating in the debate, is what separates adults from children.

You have 20 posts of which at least 5 I can see are just you talking about your 'cojohones' and a couple doing 'kejriwal ki jai'. What are you adding to the debate except trying to intimidate people following the rules. Yes its a DNA problem with Faujis..we follow the rules. Why are you so scared if people follow rules and report you ?

Re Tejas, you will notice I agreed with your points on both Babus and Tejas and gave examples of both. I have said on the previous page (or the one before) that tejas is the only solution for us and given exact reasons why F16 and Saab make no sense. I personally did an analysis a few months ago on this very thread that radius of combat in xyz configuration hits the ABC targets in PAK...and I did that for multiple configurations. Tejas does the job and as Deejay pointed out it makes strategic sense to have it. However when you started bringing political aspects ...Delhi Govt vs Ltg Governor to make a point that Modi govt is terrible then I checked you. Not because it doesnt have issues (I have written to PM about need to revamp or even abolish IAS , IPS) but because the alternatives are far worse. And you are suggesting AAP comes in?

Abe mamu bana raha hai kya hame ?

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 17 Oct 2016 14:10

Arjunn banned for a month.

ks_sachin · Post by **ks_sachin** » 17 Oct 2016 14:33

Well said Sir

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 17 Oct 2016 14:51

Great to hear NLCA MK2 coming up next year. Would that be NP5?? I vaguely remember something like NP3/4 were cancelled and NP5/6 would be MK2 config as per new plan.

If indeed its so near, HAL/ADA should aggressively pitch for MK2 for IAF (some stripping down will be needed from Navel to AF version). They should put up a plan for 25/yr for MK1A followed by MK2 for IAF for total number of 80+120 or something like that. Expand teams aggressively to fast track work. Hiring some suave marketing people and bringing out some shiny brochures like LM/SAAB and publishing periodic news items on how MK2 makes sense, could also be tried.

MoD could think of solutions like setting up completely independent line for MK2 in a HAL+pvt JV totally outside of PSU framework. HAL brings in experience, technology and seed skilled manpower and pvt industry brings in agility, better administration, better management and autonomy to the company.

We have enough experience now that we can freeze aero config, aerostructure and HW config for all long lead items (with enough allowance for some needed changes in coming time) somewhere around 2020 such that production set up can be started post that and by 2024 first SP can be rolled out.

vina · Post by **vina** » 17 Oct 2016 14:53

sum wrote:^^ How does Cheen work around this?

Buy Russian & localise as much as possible and think they are "indigenous" . Just like us. They are realists. Until the mid 90s they were cosying up with the Americans, and if not for Tiananmen square incident , a huge proportion of their weaponry would be American. When the Russian tap opened again for dollars after communism fell, they paid and got what they wanted.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 17 Oct 2016 15:17

sum wrote:^^ How does Cheen work around this?

Where there's a will...

Akshay Kapoor · Post by **Akshay Kapoor** » 17 Oct 2016 15:29

I would love to see how the envelop opening as mentioned in Walk the talk is coming along.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 17 Oct 2016 15:32

Some numbers for Jingos:

LCA control surfaces' max deflections:

Rudder = +-30deg
All 4 Wing TE surfaces = +-25deg
LE slats (inner to outer) = 0deg to 17.5deg , 27.5deg, 30deg

Wing Thickness/Chord ratio - 3-4%

rakall · Post by **rakall** » 17 Oct 2016 18:59

Kartik wrote:
rakall wrote:Here is what intrigued me in the WalkTheTalk at HAL.. when Coupta asked Air.Cmde.Muthanna about integrating Meteor BVRAAM, he said LCA can't carry meteor as it is too heavy.. But why?

The innermost pylons (station numbers 1 & 2) are qualified for 1000lt drop tanks, BVRAAM, Bombs & LGBs. In the WalkTheTalk at HAL we r told the innermost pylons used a tandem pylon to drop 2*1000Lb bombs (weight equal to 1000lt drop tank). so when innermost pylons can carry 1000Kg load each, and also able to fire AAMs why cant we put a Meteor BVRAAM (only 185Kgs) there?

Surely it is possible!!!
Yes it is possible, but the question really relates to whether the radar on the Tejas Mk1 can exploit the full range of the Meteor..after all, the Gripen C, which is a Tejas Mk1 class aircraft is integrated with the Meteor, so carrying the missile is not really going to be the issue.

But it can be launched in a Lock On After Launch mode using co-ords fed to Tejas by an AWACS or Su30MKI.

A Su30MKI from a stand off distance can vector a Tejas (low RCS)+Meteor towards target for Tejas to fire the missile.. (Similar to what Su30MKI & Mig21 did on F15C in CopeIndia).

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 17 Oct 2016 19:20

- Do we have enough Meteors??
- When we have Rafales which are supposed to penetrate further than any of our fighters currently in inventory, why put extra efforts on integrating it with LCA??
- We are also developing our own Meteor equivalent. Wouldn't it be wise to integrate that one instead??

I don't see why (in my limited knowledge) otherwise we shouldn't/Couldn't integrate Meteor with LCA.

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 17 Oct 2016 20:37

Gleaning stuff from Tejas FB

When will the AoA be increased to 26 deg?
Like · Reply · 1 · October 15 at 5:58pm
Tejas - LCA
Tejas - LCA Already flight tested. Will be in the final version for FOC.
Like · Reply · 3 · October 15 at 9:36pm
That's a great news! Does that also mean control laws have been flight tested for 9G? Or is there no correlation at all?
Like · Reply · October 15 at 10:14pm · Edited
Tejas - LCA
Tejas - LCA That only means the turns will be tighter and low speed flying will be more achievable

=====

ir , What is the combat radius of tejas ....is it 300km ????
Like · Reply · Yesterday at 1:26am · Edited
Tejas - LCA
Tejas - LCA approximately, yes.

Can you plz tell which aesa radar & ew suit selected for LCA mark 1a?Are they make in India product or is being going to import from israle?
Like · Reply · 5 hrs
Tejas - LCA
Tejas - LCA Uttam will take sometime to be completely proven. It is designated for 1A however there are interim proposals.

The wing : spars rib upper and lower skins , are they manufactured inhouse by HAL ?? Or are they manufactured by L&T and supplied to the Tejas SUV who performs final integration and assembly?
Like · Reply · Yesterday at 6:17am
Tejas - LCA
Tejas - LCA all in HAL

Tejas air force day 2016 demo

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 17 Oct 2016 23:39

sum wrote:
pralay wrote: Wow, does that mean a prototype will be ready and flying? or does it mean just design will be ready?
Just hoping and praying that this isnt another remark which will come back to haunt him when 2017 is ending.
Ton loads of timelines seem to be thrown around most of the time and then complete silence when the date is approaching. Hope its different this time( for the sake of the LCA itself) esp with staements like:
given the recent statement by Air Chief Marshal Arup Raha to the media: "As of now we are not interested in Mk 2."

Here is what I know from some source- some work on the Mk2 is being done, but I'm not really certain if a 2017 timeline is realistic or not. For the program's sake, I fervently pray that it is true and that a Mk2 variant for the IAF and the Navy roll out in 2017.

Bhaskar_T · Post by **Bhaskar_T** » 18 Oct 2016 00:13

Rakesh - I read this statement, this news came around SP2 delivery Q1 2016. I remember, no one gave any bhav to it. I am not sure if this was a credible news. I will be more than happy to be proved wrong next year and I put a Chivas-18 year old as a bet on table.

The reason of disbelief is that not many defence media reported it. There is hardly any buzz for Mk1A, how can Mk2 come next year. The resources from HAL NAD ADA are already stretched between NLCA, Mk1, Mk1A, AMCA teams. If this would be true, normally MOD and chaiwala info by now would have come out sure.

PS - Please do not use Saar or Jee. I am from non-defence world, just an Abdul.

Rakesh wrote: It appears your wish has come true Saar. Check it out...

LCA Tejas Mk 2 testing by 2017: DRDO Chief
http://www.ibtimes.co.in/lca-tejas-mk-2 ... ief-667693

ranjan.rao · Post by **ranjan.rao** » 18 Oct 2016 00:30

Karan M wrote:Ranjan, my take is this - and note this is just my take......

Thanks Karan, on this note, I hope this is a ploy by the govt to buy time for LCA production rates to ramp up and in the meanwhile see if we get anything tangible on engine tech or strategic space.
Any kind of negotiation on such prized technology can not be completed in a short time unless of course there are pre-approved offers.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 18 Oct 2016 00:36

first of all, no chief should say: "as of now, we have no interest in LCA Mk2".

That ain't encouragement at all. Besides, DRDO must learn to speak truth about schedules ahead in time.
Throwing out schedules is not security threat to the project at all

Bhaskar_T · Post by **Bhaskar_T** » 18 Oct 2016 00:39

And also either Air Chief or Parrikar ji said "There is no Plan-B".

SaiK wrote:first of all, no chief should say: "as of now, we have no interest in LCA Mk2".

That ain't encouragement at all. Besides, DRDO must learn to speak truth about schedules ahead in time.
Throwing out schedules is not security threat to the project at all

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 18 Oct 2016 00:42

It is funny there was no Plan B when it came to buying 126 Rafales. It was 126 Rafales or the sky would fall on our heads. Then Modi came in and said only 36 are coming. Then the IAF came up with Plan B

Unfortunately Plan B involves Block 70 or Paper -NG

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 18 Oct 2016 01:25

This doesn't look like much of a fixed plan or strategy. One is likely to emerge in a couple of years though and will most likely involve simply buying or building more Rafale's. The F-16 would have worked in the MRCA context only if capability was allowed to be traded away for cost..Under a new competition it makes NO sense at all.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 18 Oct 2016 01:47

1. LCA can easily carry Meteor on midboard, inboard and centerline pylons. But it is not envisaged, and rightly so. Meteor is an extremely expensive missile. I see no reason to integrate it with LCA. Astra Mk2 is more than enough. When our SFDR comes onboard, it might be considered.
2. There is renewed interest in Mk2 due to IAF, ADA and MoD. HAL is pushing back. There is no way that we will see an Mk2 take to the air before 2020.
3. Mk1A is HAL's baby.
4. I keep getting this again and again. ADA and HAL are not one team. They are pulling in different directions.

disha · Post by **disha** » 18 Oct 2016 02:39

indranilroy wrote: 4. I keep getting this again and again. ADA and HAL are not one team. They are pulling in different directions.

Professional tug-of-war over expectations? And both HAL & ADA may have genuine concerns. The design still has to meet the engineering and production. I will not be surprised if HAL wants to commit to Mk1A since it provides an "upgrade" path for Air force., is low risk and is an evolutionary change. Mk2 on the other hand is an altogether new design - or a next generation.

If I were HAL chief., I will drag my feet as much as possible to get the Mk1 and Mk1A sorted out first before committing to Mk2.

If I were ADA chief., I will push for Mk2 as soon as possible.

---

We jingoes forget that this planes are not some jugaads that can be fit together - yeah go get a wing from there, an engine from here and wheels from somewhere else and voila - we will have a plane! A fighter jet! A swing role that too!! and a Naval version to boot!!

It is not easy., case in point - look at how many nations can design and fly a swing role fighter jet and a naval variant to it.

Personally I think both Rafale and F-16 production line with full T-O-T including manufacturing of engines in India will not kill the LCA or rather the Indian fighter jet. I will not be surprised if it gives impetus to AMCA if F-16 were to happen today.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 18 Oct 2016 02:47

HAL is probably concerned that the LCA Mk2 prototype and flight testing would take so long that the forces (especially the IAF) would lose interest and push the government into buying the Gripen NG or whatever else catches their fancy, and they're not wrong. So they would lose business beyond the original 40 already contracted.

Their answer is to push for the Mk1A that has less radical changes would be ready much sooner (Acc. to them). But in their zeal to propose an alternative, I think they are over-promising. Their claim of shaving 600kgs of weight sounds especially ludicrous. They will have only themselves to blame if the final product does not live up to expectations.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 18 Oct 2016 04:01

Someone asked on the LCA FB page about the radar and EW suite for the Mk1A and the reply came that it is eventually supposed to be Uttam AESA, but for now no firm decision has been made. If the Elta 2052 has not yet been finalized and no integration work has begun, I would have some reservations on whether the Mk1A schedule would be met by HAL or not.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 18 Oct 2016 04:11

Bhaskar_T wrote:The reason of disbelief is that not many defence media reported it. There is hardly any buzz for Mk1A, how can Mk2 come next year. The resources from HAL NAD ADA are already stretched between NLCA, Mk1, Mk1A, AMCA teams. If this would be true, normally MOD and chaiwala info by now would have come out sure.

There is something weird in that article. The first para states that it will be years before Mk 2 will take off from the airport at HAL. Then second para states that Mk.2 will be available for testing from 2017 and will not be ready before 2024. What testing that entails beats me and what the DRDO Chief means by it will not be ready before 2024 is equally puzzling. Does he mean it will not enter IAF service before 2024 or that the first flight will be ready only by 2024? Can someone refer to the Vayu Aerospace and Defence Review magazine/journal to find out what exactly has been quoted?

JayS wrote:- Do we have enough Meteors??
- When we have Rafales which are supposed to penetrate further than any of our fighters currently in inventory, why put extra efforts on integrating it with LCA??
- We are also developing our own Meteor equivalent. Wouldn't it be wise to integrate that one instead??

I don't see why (in my limited knowledge) otherwise we shouldn't/Couldn't integrate Meteor with LCA.

I believe the Meteor is going to be limited only for Rafale use. Too expensive to use otherwise. Since the Rafale is planned for the nuclear role, having a defensive weapon like the Meteor will ensure that the Rafale will not face aerial threats in completing its role of nuclear delivery.

brar_w wrote:This doesn't look like much of a fixed plan or strategy. One is likely to emerge in a couple of years though and will most likely involve simply buying or building more Rafale's. The F-16 would have worked in the MRCA context only if capability was allowed to be traded away for cost..Under a new competition it makes NO sense at all.

I hope and pray that scenario only plays out.

SaiK wrote:first of all, no chief should say: "as of now, we have no interest in LCA Mk2".

As per wiki (on their Fundaar page) - Chairman of PAC, Air Marshal Javaid Ahmed said: "We will hand over 16 Block-II JF-17s to the PAF every year", and that the manufacturing plant has the capacity to produce 25 units in a year. The PAF is now planning for Block 3 and a JF-17B (twin seater) model. The latter is expected to join the PAF in 2017.

The IAF is like a three year old child who has been let loose in a candy store by his daddy - who is clueless of the dangers of eating too much candy - and all the while ignoring his mother who is busy preparing dal-roti for him.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 18 Oct 2016 04:15

I can only speak for myself. Mk1A and Mk2 are both required. But, both HAL and ADA's timelines published thus far are ridiculous. Let's have a look:

1. If the production of the Mk1s ramps up to 16 by middle of 2018, the last of the Mk1s are to be produced by the end of 2019. Therefore, the first Mk1As should be rolling off the pipeline in early 2020. For that to happen, the design must be frozen by the end of 2018. I can't see how that is possible unless that Mk1A prototypes are already in production now. So, let us look at more realistic timelines. At best ,Mk1A specification can be finalized by second to third quarter of 2017. Production of the first prototype can commence earliest by late 2017/early 2018. The first flight can only happen in late 2019. If everything goes according to plan the design can be frozen by late 2020. The first of LSP/SP Mk1A cannot roll off the pipelines before 2022. If this actually happens, it will be a stellar job done. If anybody else is presenting to you an earlier deadline, he is selling you a dream.

2. So what does HAL do with the Mk1 pipeline in 2020, 21, 22. It either never increases production rate beyond 8 per year (achieved by the end of 2017. Or HAL gets orders for 2-3 more squadrons of Mk1s.

3. If Mk1As are to be produced at 16 per year starting in 2022, the last of the 4-5 squadrons worth of Mk1As will roll off the assembly line in 2027. ADA has time till mid 2026 to finalization of specs for Mk2. For that to happen, the first Mk2 prototype has to take to the air by 2020-2021. This means that the production of the first Mk2 prototype has to begin by late 2018/early 2019.

So you can see that there is hardly any time for anybody to drag their feet. The "revised" timelines that I am suggesting are extremely optimistic. Although, I have heard that work on Mk1A is going on with some steam, but Mk2 is still looking for Mk2. Thanks to Parrikar, it has found some in IAF recently. On top of that, HAL engineers and management is doing everything to say that there is no need for Mk2. They don't much talk to the ADA designers. It is a little bit of a mess.

In my view, the DM should make it a national mission to produce 1 squadron of LCA per year from 2018 onwards.
1. 2016-2018 : 1 squadron of IOC LCA
2. 2018-2022 : 4 squadrons of LCA Mk1
3. 2022-2026 : 4 squadrons of LCA Mk1A
4. 2026-2035 : 9 squadrons of LCA Mk2

India does not have the time or money to indulge in any other single-engine fighter. He should try to bring all parties to the table and ask them to come up with a mission to achieve the goal within 6 months. The LCA-design-teams of IAF, IN, HAL and ADA should be brought together as a team which report directly to the DM/PMO.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 18 Oct 2016 04:27

nachiket wrote:HAL is probably concerned that the LCA Mk2 prototype and flight testing would take so long that the forces (especially the IAF) would lose interest and push the government into buying the Gripen NG or whatever else catches their fancy, and they're not wrong. So they would lose business beyond the original 40 already contracted.

Their answer is to push for the Mk1A that has less radical changes would be ready much sooner (Acc. to them). But in their zeal to propose an alternative, I think they are over-promising. Their claim of shaving 600kgs of weight sounds especially ludicrous. They will have only themselves to blame if the final product does not live up to expectations.

Where did you see the 600 kg weight reduction claim? What I had read on IndiaStrategic was that the overall weight gain would be ~50 kgs, since 200 kg ballast in the nose would be gone and a 250 kg AESA radar and its back end would go there in its place

Bangalore. India’s Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) Tejas programme has been delayed indeed, but to make up for it, HAL is now working on developing a new variant, LCA-I P, which will be equipped with an advanced AESA Radar and an electro-optic Electronic Warfare (EW) sensor suite.

The timeline for this variant has been set at 2017, two years from now. The AESA radar will be supplied by Israel’s ELTA Systems, a subsidiary of Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI).

..

HAL has in principle support from the Government, and is now working on the proposal with the IAF (Indian Air Force) in this regard. This variant will be developed on the existing LCA-MkI model, and will meet IAF’s requirements till the larger LCA Mk II is developed by 2021 with the more powerful GE 414 engine.

..

The bolded part is what I hope comes true..that the work on IAF version of the Mk2 variant is going ahead as planned and has not been abandoned thanks to Mk1A.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 18 Oct 2016 05:08

Okay I am getting confused. I thought the Mk -1P was Mk 1A. What changed?

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 18 Oct 2016 05:25

Shukla - his anti Modi ranting apart, had called out the details what led to Mk1A.

HAL wanted firm production orders for Tejas and said it could be improved, weight wise. MOD said ok and guaranteed the project to 120. The Mk2 it appears may continue on the side.

Weight reduction, LRU change etc.
Which is why I said Mk1A is not a small jump, its a serious change - many LRUs requal'ed, new radar etc.

http://www.business-standard.com/articl ... 951_1.html
HAL has aimed a serious blow at the Tejas Mark II Light Combat Aircraft (LCA), with a letter telling the Indian Air Force (IAF) that it does not have the manpower to work on developing an improved version of the current Tejas Mark I.

The Bengaluru-based public sector aviation monolith says its engineers are already stretched with existing projects, including the Tejas production line, design and prototype manufacture of a basic trainer aircraft, the Hindustan Turbo Trainer - 40 (HTT-40); and the testing and production of the Sitara Intermediate Jet Trainer (IJT).

HAL has suggested that, instead of waiting for the Tejas Mark II the IAF should buy 80 Tejas Mark I-A, an interim fighter that would be more capable then the Mark I, but less than the Mark II will be.

Business Standard has learned of a heated debate under way between the user of the Tejas, the IAF; its designer, the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA); and its manufacturer, Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL).

The IAF has already committed to buying 40 Tejas Mark I. In addition, the air force has indicated it will buy four-to-five squadrons (80-100 fighters) of the Tejas Mark II when it is ready.

HAL worries about the future of its production line after it delivers 40 Mark I fighters by end-2019. It plans to build four Tejas Mark I by March 2016; another eight by March 2017; and crank up production to 16 fighters annually by March 2018. After 2019, the production line would idle till the Tejas Mark II enters production.

Senior HAL and ADA officials agree the Tejas Mark II is unlikely to enter production till 2023-24.

Developing the Mark II involves fitting in a more powerful engine --- the General Electric F-414INS6 replacing the current F-404IN --- and upgrading avionics and weaponry. With prototype development likely to take till 2019, another three to four years would go in flight-testing the Tejas Mark II and preparing production drawings.

HAL, therefore, wants the IAF to buy 80 Tejas Mark I-A to keep the production line occupied from 2020 to 2023-24.

The Mark 1-A would be faster and more agile than the current Mark I. Developing it would involve shaving off 800 kilogrammes from the current fighter, especially from systems like the landing gear, which are currently "over-engineered", or built heavy, for safety. HAL also proposes to remove 300 kg of dead weight distributed across the Mark I to balance it evenly.

HAL argues that the Mark I's GE F-404IN engine, which generates 84 kiloNewtons (kN) of peak thrust, would meet the IAF's performance requirements, if one tonne is shaved off the Tejas Mark I's empty weight of 6,500 kg.

In that case, the GE F-414INS6 engine's 98 kN of thrust would be needed only for the naval Tejas, which must take off from the short runway of an aircraft carrier deck.

The IAF and ADA are taken aback by HAL's reluctance to participate in developing the Mark II. Even though the Tejas project is managed by ADA --- a branch of the Defence R&D Organisation (DRDO) --- HAL has developed important components. Besides many smaller systems, HAL designed the Tejas structure, its undercarriage and electrical supply system. It would have to upgrade these for the Mark II.

"We have completed the preliminary design of the Tejas Mark II, but now the detailed design will be done. HAL would have to refine and upgrade the systems it developed for the Tejas", points out a senior ADA official.

HAL's withdrawal stems from its deep-rooted concern over the Tejas assembly line, which was established at a cost of Rs 1,556 crore, with HAL paying half and the remaining shared between the IAF and navy. Keeping the line running is essential, so that skilled manpower does not have to be redistributed; and a steady flow of orders can be placed on sub-vendors.

HAL sees a four-year gap between the last Tejas Mark I and the first Tejas Mark II as seriously disruptive. Building 80 Tejas Mark I-A is a way of bridging that gap.

However, the IAF and ADA point to HAL's poor record of adhering to manufacturing schedules. They say HAL, which is more than a year late in building the Tejas Mark I, is unlikely to build and deliver 40 Tejas Mark I by 2019. So far, the Tejas line has built just one fighter.

"We can assure HAL that, if it accelerates the delivery of fighters to the point where it seems likely to deliver 40 Tejas Mark I before the Mark II is ready, we will certainly place orders for more Mark I fighters. The assembly line will not be kept idle. That is our assurance," says a senior IAF officer.

To overcome HAL's difficulties with building and assembling the Tejas Mark I, ADA proposes to adopt a new production model for the Mark II. The DRDO's aerospace chief, K Tamilmani, tells Business Standard that seven private sector companies will be chosen to manufacture the fighter's modules (systems and sub-systems). HAL will be responsible for integrating them and testing and delivering them to the IAF.

"If we have to accelerate production and build the Tejas Mark II to the requisite quality and quantity, HAL cannot be saddled with responsibility for everything. Instead, private companies will build modules, while HAL will be lead integrator," says Tamilmani.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 18 Oct 2016 05:35

http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/nation ... 90424.html

Sources told The Tribune that a decision has been taken to produce 106 “Tejas Mark 1-A” jets and the same has been conveyed to the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), besides the manufacturer — Bangalore-based Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL), a public sector undertaking owned by MoD.

The MoD has set a 2018 deadline for the first aircraft to be ready with a target to complete its production by 2022-2023. In September, new specifications were agreed upon and the IAF accepted 43 modifications that could be carried out without changing the existing design.

On the list of modifications are five major improvements, including an AESA (active electronically scanned array) radar, which the HAL will co-develop with Israel firm Elta; air-to-air refuelling facility; externally fitted self-protection jammer to prevent incoming enemy missiles from homing in using radar signature; and a new layout, involving 27 modifications, of internal systems to iron out maintenance issues.

The plane will be 1,000 kg lighter than the existing version, which currently weighs 6,500 kg, but will use the same engine — General Electric’s 404. “The power of the engine is more than enough,” said a senior functionary. Fitting the newer and more powerful GE-414 engine would entail fresh design and airframe studies.

The HAL has been asked to produce 16 jets annually and a Rs 1,252-crore modernisation plan has been okayed to ramp up capacities from the present six-seven planes annually.