LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
SiddharthS
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 62
Joined: 04 Sep 2017 15:45

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby SiddharthS » 20 Nov 2017 19:32

Dileep wrote:I will reiterate my call here. "IAF will buy as many Tejas as HAL can build over a big number of marks, blocks, upgrades and whatnot. The basic airframe/engine combination will not change".



1.The problem is that HAL will calibrate its production output (supply) according to the order placed by IAF/MOD/GOI (demand) , meagre order of 123 aircrafts doesn't incentivise HAL to deploy its full armamentarium of expertise - human capital,financial capital - into LCA production.

2. large orders would incentivise HAL to convert its current screwdriver assembly of different aircrafts into LCA production lines, private partners would also be incentivise to increase the rate of production.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4327
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby JayS » 20 Nov 2017 19:45



From this one:

“If I know the numbers, the investments can go (up). Rate of production can be increased to any extent. It depends on what cost economics you are looking at. I can create capacity for any number,” Raju said. Currently, HAL has the capacity to produce eight aircraft annually and Raju said it would go up to 24 aircraft per year by 2021


Though what HAL CMD says has less credibility that what it should really carry, but FWIW - this is according to the plan and so far HAL seems well on the path for last couple of years. And I have been saying this all along - HAL's production can be boosted to 24/yr or even to 32/yr if need be in say 5yr time frame. Its the question of cost and number of orders to spread that cost over. HAL currently has 8/yr capacity, second line with 8/yr is coming up (so HAL will make these 16/yr all in-house) and this outsourcing to Tier-1 companies represent additional 8/yr capacity as of now (sub-assemblies for 8/yr provided by Tier-1 companies to start with, HAL can offload more of its work when they pick up pace).

I must say this is little different that what I was expecting. I thought the outsourcing will be from the 1st and second line itself. But then it makes sense for HAL to keep making subassemblies on its own until pvt companies pick up pace, to derisk the MFG plan. Those companies will take 2-3yrs to get into the groove.

PS: The DDM journo has written WhAM for VEM. :lol: :lol:

ashishvikas
BRFite
Posts: 434
Joined: 17 Oct 2016 14:18

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby ashishvikas » 21 Nov 2017 00:03

Latest from Loksabha TV.

https://youtu.be/epdJRXA23o8

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53432
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby ramana » 21 Nov 2017 00:14

JayS, Let me get this straight.

HAL has a LCA line currently running at 8/year.
Its capability is 16/year?
They then added the Kiran/Hawk line of 4 ?
Next they plan on new assy line of 8 more/year.

What is their plan to get to 16/year and 24/year?
8, 12, 20, 24 -->

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4545
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Kartik » 21 Nov 2017 00:18

Indranil wrote:I don't like the present HAL CMD either.


Why? IMO, he's making an earnest attempt to address some of the issues that have plagued HAL's workshare on the LCA- he's opened it up to private players by out-sourcing it to them, he's batting for it openly in the media, whereas the ADA Chief Girish Deodhare is nowhere to be heard or seen. Not a word out of that gentleman. CD Balaji was outspoken and gave interviews to the media to make the case for the LCA, LCA Mk2 and LCA Navy Mk2.

It is under this HAL CMD that work began on the second assembly line, didn't it? It was under him that HAL proposed a Mk1A variant since the Mk2 was too far out and the Mk1 had maintainability issues that needed sorting out? And isn't it under him that HAL is now actually going around pitching for more orders and at least showing some urgency?

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53432
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby ramana » 21 Nov 2017 00:21

+108 to Kartik for pointing out the good and not just the bad.

HAL has given a production agency POV on the design of the LCA leading to Mk1A.

its sad that while the Mk1 was going through its birth pangs from Tech Demonstrator phase they did not take these factors into account.

Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2554
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Katare » 21 Nov 2017 00:32

Not that I doubt but anyone got a link that shows Raju making promises that he didn't keep. I looked at multiple you tube videos but can't find much.

They did deliver all the Su 30MKI on time or even ahead of time. The original deadline was 2017 for 140 aircrafts which was moved up but as of 2017 they have delivered more than 200 aircrafts. 100 hawks have also been delivered. I don't think we struggle with production (not counting OFBs), our issues are usually related to quality and R&D.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4545
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Kartik » 21 Nov 2017 00:59

And, it is not Suvarna Raju who said that SP-5 will fly in the next 3 days and SP-7 in the next 10 days. That was some other HAL employee, who was not named in the report.

As far as I can see, Suvarna Raju has kept his promises for the most part and has seemed the most invested HAL CMD in the Tejas program. If anything, the previous 2-3 HAL CMDS were rather lackadaisical in their approach to Tejas- after all, it was under their Chairmanship that the IAF placed the 40 Tejas Mk1 orders and they should have really chalked out a plan on how to get those 40 built. Also, don't forget that HTT-40 pretty much exists because of this CMD and his decision to back his team rather than bow down and not take up a fight with the IAF, which even in the PC-7 Mk2 vs HTT-40 case, gave rather misleading and dubious cost figures to the MoD and Def Min.

This is what stumps me now- the SOP for the trainers and FOC aircraft hasn't yet been frozen? I mean just what the heck is going on with that? Since the outer mould line and pretty much most of the parts had been designed and frozen, I assumed that most of the FOC work relates to software releases and not much else. I may be wrong, but long lead items orders should have been placed last year itself, otherwise just how is HAL going to be able to start building the 20 FOC standard Tejas Mk1s after they deliver the 20 IOC standard jets by 2019?

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53432
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby ramana » 21 Nov 2017 01:27

Kartik, I saw some IAF officer say the FOC is mainly software changes and there are no hardware changes from IOC-2. I saw that interview a few pages back in this thread.
I think they have time to tweak till they start building the 20 FOC Mk1s.

Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2554
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Katare » 21 Nov 2017 01:50

So Rtd Air marshal Gupta claimed that LCA Mk1 would cost Rs400 Corer, as much as a Su 30 MKI. What is the basis of it? What makes it go from $30 M to $60 million? An AESA radar may be twice as expensive as MMR, rest of the upgrades are minor and should not cost an arm and a leg.

He also claimed that current life of LCA airframe is 1000 Hrs which may go to 2-3K max later because the airframe is too heavy? I am sure as they complete fatigue studies the longevity certification would increase to better numbers. Seems we need a serious weight reduction program for LCA.

Was he referring to LCA Mk2 would cost Rs 400 corer.

These guys when they talk about 65% of the component in LCA are imported and than ask what is indigenous in it? They forget that raw material component in the product cost ranges from 10% to 30% max, so 65% of 30% is 19.5% which makes it 80% indigenous. See numbers can be twisted either way and still be correct.

Anyhow once you have design and integration capability the component suppliers would follow. Without that basic structure how would you create supply chain for aerospace grade parts?

Loved the way, the two civilians put the marshal and General in their place. 20 LCA ke liye engine ka karkhan lagoon kya?

In 2006 you order 20 aircraft, change the ASQR and expect what HAL should do? Establish a line for 16 aircraft/year for order of 20 aircrafts? It took a very influential cabinet minister's arm twisting for you to agree to add 83 more aircrafts again with new ASQR, which have not been ordered yet. IAF wants AESA radar in domestic light aircraft which it does not have in any of it's operational fighter planes.

vendors ko rulana theek hai but in the end you are also a looser. You got no howitzer for two+ decades, MRCA had to be canceled because you were busy in torturing all the world's vendors. You didn't have a AJT for decades costing couple of hundred aircrafts and pilots. You don't have a modern rifle because the best of the best in world were made to cry in front of your perfectionist approach but in all this it's the jawan/pilot and sailor's family that would have to cry for real while you preach on TVl!

DRDO should simply refuse the Mk2 lollypop unless Mk 1 is bought in substantial quantity first. JSF has produced near 300 aircraft before FOC and confirmed orders for 3000+ aircrafts. This is how you support your vendors not by making them cry and testing things for 10 years.

Rant mode off

Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2554
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Katare » 21 Nov 2017 02:01

Also 100 or 200 light tactical aircraft does not change national security of a country with nuclear bombs, ICBMs, 800 odd fighter planes, 1.3 million armed man and 140 ship navy. If you could not get national security with all the Su MKIs, Jaguars, Migs, Hawks and Mirages, I don't think 100 odd Grippen/F16 would get you there.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4545
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Kartik » 21 Nov 2017 02:57

ramana wrote:Kartik, I saw some IAF officer say the FOC is mainly software changes and there are no hardware changes from IOC-2. I saw that interview a few pages back in this thread.
I think they have time to tweak till they start building the 20 FOC Mk1s.


They may have time to tweak the software (actually they're running out of time for that as well, if the June 2018 deadline for FOC is to be met). But for the actual production, it is absolutely essential that long lead items production has to begin. Otherwise with an average 36 month timeline for the longest lead items, they might just run into idle time when the IOC Tejas' are delivered but FOC Tejas' will be on the assembly line, still waiting for the long lead items to be delivered.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4545
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Kartik » 21 Nov 2017 04:29

Read this in an article on AW&ST on the Raptor and more confrontations with the Russians in the Middle East. The part about the advantage of a HMDS struck me as very significant. Something that Tejas pilots who've transitioned from Mirage-2000H, Su-30MKI or MiG-21 squadrons will greatly appreciate. Since the Su-30MKI still lacks a true HMDS like the Elbit DASH on the Tejas. Situational awareness for Tejas pilots will be a lot better than those on any other IAF fighter, with all flight and radar info displayed right onto their helmet visor. When Dis-similar combat training begins between Tejas squadron No.45 and other fighter squadrons in the IAF, my gut feeling is that a lot of other IAF pilots will come around to appreciating the nasty claws and sharp eyes on the Tejas. Hard to pick up visually for an enemy pilot and with a smaller RCS than any other IAF fighter, it'll be a handful.

One factor that limits the Raptors’ ability to effectively monitor the Russian fighters is lack of a helmet-mounted cueing system, which equips many other fighters such as the F-35. Such a capability would make DCA operations more effective, particularly in congested airspace, Ox noted. In current operations, Raptor pilots lose time looking back and forth between the visual airspace and the information on the displays.

“It’s just that extra step, and now I’m having to look back outside and find this guy, and a lot of times I’m just looking where I last saw him instead of looking with the helmet and actually having some symbology that shows me exactly where he is,” Ox said. “It would be great to be able to keep our eye on the guy that you are watching and having all that information that is already known to the jet be presented to you.”


srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby srai » 21 Nov 2017 05:23

^^^

What would be an eye opener for junior pilots would be to have them do their Operational Flying Training (OFTU) on the LCA before posting them on to other fighter squadrons. That would feel like a downgrade :twisted: Nothing better to show that the Indian designed fighter is equal or better to foreign ones.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7725
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Indranil » 21 Nov 2017 07:19

The pace of Tejas production is going to really pick up from next year. The outsourced large sub-assemblies are going to start coming in from next year.

fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3084
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby fanne » 21 Nov 2017 07:56

FOC definitely involves hardware changes (some major if they don't work as planned)
1. DIFFERENT RADOME - done but was hardware changes
2. Gun firing - If the vibrations level are high, many things have to be changed, mainly mounting and qualifying may subparts at higher vibration rates
3.Refueling - Obvious, need an extra pipe, motors etc.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby shiv » 21 Nov 2017 08:36

fanne wrote:2. Gun firing - If the vibrations level are high, many things have to be changed, mainly mounting and qualifying may subparts at higher vibration rates


I think those of us who support the LCA should stop acting as if the world is going to end if gun firing trials are late or if the usage is initially restricted. We need to use BVR missiles or rockets for strafing and let the gun take its time. Gun firing has crashed a lot of planes and killed a lot of pilots.

The Gnat which we celebrate as "Sabre slayer" used to have ONLY guns as armament and they failed very frequently. Even Gnat guns used to cause things to come loose in the cockpit. The HF 24 could not go beyond 2-gun firing. MIg 23s have crashed from gun firing. So if we are going to trust our engineers we need to give them some leeway and not keep coming back and asking" have gun trials been done" "Are gun trials over?" "What news of gun trials?" We jingos are ourselves making a big deal and then we point a finger at the Air Force and say "Oh its not about us - the Air Force wants it"

Yeah maybe - but while we clamour for an air force requirement to be met we need to be considerate about engineering and safety issues

Eric Leiderman
BRFite
Posts: 363
Joined: 26 Nov 2010 08:56

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Eric Leiderman » 21 Nov 2017 08:44

the physical dimensions of the LCA as originally specked by the IAF were such that they could fit in the existing hardened structures that were built for the Migs
The SEF candidates are larger than the LCA or Mig 21's so there will be additional costs when they join our forces as far as ground structures are concerned.
I have read this a long long time ago , so it could not provide a link to above but some of our old timers could.

Also I am not sure how many air force bases have these Mig 21 hardened structures in place.

However if somebody has the inclination to number crunch I am quite sure this would be a substantial cost vis a vis incorporating the LCA at these bases. Might be a point to bring up when an article is written on the negative effects of going in for the SEF purchase.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7725
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Indranil » 21 Nov 2017 11:11

No more structural changes are envisioned in Mk1 FOC.

suryag
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3412
Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby suryag » 21 Nov 2017 11:12

Thanks Eric ji this hardened shelter thingie is Arjun bridge argument in reverse :( and still no more than 20 orders coming to HAL

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20112
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Philip » 21 Nov 2017 12:33

Look,guns are abso necessary,the Israelis insist upon it both for air combat as well as GA/CS.Now there's nothing preventing a gun pod being attached to Tejas, If memory serves me right,we had MIGs with gunpods earlier.This should make it easier to operate with less vibrations instead of an integral pair of guns/cannon.BVR AAMs are no magic bullet. If one successfully avoids a BVR attack,it ends up as a mano-a-mano battle using WVR AAMs and guns.testing of the Tejas guns must be carried out asap,regardless of current production.Look at how the JSF is being manufacttured with 270+ "critical" problems yet to be rectified.One is not advocating this for Tejas,but early MIG versions also had only missile armament.AS said ,a gun pod could be installed on the underbelly /fuselage hardpoint. The GSh 23mm cannon has actually been manufactured by the OFB for aeons! The GPL version could carry 200 ronuds for MIG-21s in a "gondola" type fitting.UPK-23s can carry 200-400 rounds. Since this type is already in servcie with us,why not use it for Tejas?

Well according to this excerpt,it is already on/or planned for tejas!

This cannon was standard fit on late-model MiG-21 fighters (M, SM, MF, SMT, bis), all variants of the MiG-23, the SOKO J-22 Orao, the HAL Tejas and IAR 93, and the tail turrets of the Tupolev Tu-22M bomber and some late-model Tu-95s. In that application, it had the unusual ability to fire infrared flares and chaff rounds, allowing it to function as both a weapon and a dispenser of anti-missile countermeasures

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2772
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby tsarkar » 21 Nov 2017 12:42

Katare wrote:They did deliver all the Su 30MKI on time or even ahead of time. The original deadline was 2017 for 140 aircrafts which was moved up but as of 2017 they have delivered more than 200 aircrafts

The 200 delivered as of 2017 is not 140 built from raw materials but CKD kit assembly of 32 (1996) + 40 (2007) + 18 (2007) + 42 (2012) orders and some of 140 manufactured from raw materials.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby shiv » 21 Nov 2017 14:13

Philip wrote:Look,guns are abso necessary,the Israelis insist upon it both for air combat as well as GA/CS.Now there's nothing preventing a gun pod being attached to Tejas, If memory serves me right,we had MIGs with gunpods earlier.

The Tejas has an inbuilt gun anyway. The only question is shooting trials which have to move from ground firing to firing in the air starting with a short burst, later 1/2 second burst and then 1 second etc. After each of these the plane will have to be inspected to see if anything has worked itself loose and if something has - that will need to be addressed. Not impossible - but it needs time. Recall that the Eurofighter itself started with no gun. The MiG 21 too started with no gun. Then gun pod and finally integral gun - over an evolutionary period that lasted years.

The other thing is that with gun trials they have to be prepared for exigencies like plume ingestion, engine surge etc. I am sure it will happen given time.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4327
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby JayS » 21 Nov 2017 14:54

ramana wrote:JayS, Let me get this straight.

HAL has a LCA line currently running at 8/year.
Its capability is 16/year?
They then added the Kiran/Hawk line of 4 ?
Next they plan on new assy line of 8 more/year.

What is their plan to get to 16/year and 24/year?
8, 12, 20, 24 -->


Currently there are two lines with 8/yr each.

1. Original Line in LCA hanger - 8/yr as [planned]. Since it was laggarding at 5/yr, HAL went ahead with an extension of this with a secondary line in Kiran hanger with 3/yr. So total 8/yr (I had confirmed these numbers with AKN over twitter once).

2. The new line sanctioned by GOI recently. Its coming up in Hawk hanger replacing hawk line. This has 8/yr.

My understanding initially was that the outsourcing is for all the lines including the very 1st one. But in recent multiple interviews TSRaju is repeatedly saying that HAL has established 16/yr capacity and whatever the Tier1 companies can provide will add to this. And with that the rate can go to 24-25/yr. So what I understand from this is that HAL has established manufacturing capability of 16/yr now including sub-assemblies for them. So even if they do not get anything from vendors, they can still make 16/yr. Whatever the vendors supply, HAL will integrate adding to this capacity that it over and above 16. I think HAL will off-load the subassemblies from these 16 as well eventually. But as of now I sense that HAL has inhouse capacity to churn out 16/yr even without the Tier-1 vendors supplying anything.

Given that original line was designed at 8/yr but was functioning at 5/yr due to bottlenecks in assembly and the secondary line is augmenting it, its not too much stretch of imagination that once the assembly process is streamlined the 5+3 could become 8+3 or 8+4 in future.

I have always been of the opinion that the production rate of LCA can be easily hiked to 25/yr or even 32/yr in short time frame. From all the indications it looks like that's the case afterall and HAL is well on its way to achieve it if need be.

But then we have things like pending SOP freeze of 4 trainers, no Go-ahead from IAF for metal cutting for FOC MK1 order. It looks like it this continuous, we will see production halting next year, or HAL slowing down the production. No one can blame HAL in this case, really.

fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3084
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby fanne » 21 Nov 2017 17:28

Hakim Sir,
I am guilty as charged. I was just replying to post above that was stating that FOC is only software, it is not. Though the point you make is very right, why diss our planes, it is a war of opinion/perception and these loose balls do no good to LCA 'side'.
I would further say, the second iteration of LCA should continue even if as a scientific program (while AMCA is the 'real' project). we should ditch LCAMK2, go for LCA mk3, using AL31 F engine (that we make for SU30MKI, 50 of them made from raw material). The engine is 1.5 times over F414 and almost double to the current F404, make a stretched LCA, it will have the size and volume (maybe internal weapon bay), some stealth shaping. It will be our own MMCRA, with ranges that will take care of TSP and Tibet. The possibilities on the lCA continued production is limitless. Shame if it is victim of someone shortsightedness or greed (read corruption).

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20112
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Philip » 21 Nov 2017 18:43

For more med. sized aircraft simply buy extra MIG-29s/35s.29s to exg. UG std. V,cheap,less than $30M for the RuAF.12 ex-Malaysian MIG-29s are available too.The IAF wants them in exchange for SU-30 spares.easily doable.60 more MIGs ,with weapons,will cost around $2 to $2.5B only.This is the fastest and cheapest manner in which to augment our med. bird capability.The MIG-29/35s are excellent bomb trucks and superb at air combat.They come in at 1/5th to 1/6th the cost of a Rafale too!

Developing a Tejas MK-2 with a Ru engine isn't my cup of tea! Not for any reliability reason but becos Ru engines are meant for shorter lifespans and better on twin-engined birds.The Tejas could use an EJ- with TVC shown in panels at prev. air shows.The same engine on the Eurofarter.This engine with mods could be a good choice for the AMCA later on. The Jag upgrade prorgamme should be accelerated to improve the strike capability of the aircraft.There was another report of old French Jags available,a large no. of them.These should also be acquired if they come cheap.Thus far eevrything French has been at 5*+ prices.

Tejas production as stated in one of the above posts can easily be ramped up IF the will is there in the GOI/MOD first.HAL can do the biz when pushed to the wall.The stumbling block appears to be the mindset of the IAF,who aren't thinking laterally at all and looking at cost-effective methods of augmenting numbers,replacing legacy aircraft and increasing availability of exg. aircraft in service which should be the prime priority.Otherwise,whatever aircraft we possess,non-availability of them will continue to dog the service.

X-posted from the raffy td.

https://idsa.in/idsacomments/tejas-one- ... raj_120717
The Tejas One Year After Induction – HAL must take ownership of the project
Sanjay Badri-Maharaj

Dr. Sanjay Badri-Maharaj was a Visiting Fellow at IDSA. He is an independent defence analyst and attorney-at-law based in Trinidad and Tobago. He holds a PhD on India's nuclear weapons programme and an MA from the Department of War Studies, Kings College London. He has served as a consultant to the Trinidad and Tobago Ministry of National Security.
More from the author

July 12, 2017
On 1st July 2016, No. 45 Squadron of the Indian Air Force (IAF) inducted the first two Serial Production models of the Tejas Mk.1 Light Combat Aircraft. More than a year has since elapsed since these first aircraft were inducted and they have now been joined by three more with a sixth scheduled to join shortly.1 Built to IOC (Initial Operational Clearance) standards, these aircraft are the first of 20 destined for No. 45 squadron while an additional 20 will be built to FOC (Final Operation Clearance) standard.2 Steady but somewhat slow progress is being made towards achieving FOC, with the Tejas Mk.1 crossing a major milestone on 12th May 2017 when aircraft LSP-4 successfully fired a fully-guided Derby Beyond Visual Range (BVR) air-to-air missile. Gun trials are scheduled to commence in August 2017.3
Yet, despite assurances from Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL), slow progress has been made in establishing adequate production facilities.4 HAL has not yet been able to meet the target of eight aircraft per year, much less an enhanced production target of 16 aircraft per year, although the establishment of a second production line using its BAE Hawk production facility will help in this regard.5 Furthermore, despite the prospect of having to produce 83 additional aircraft to an enhanced Mk.1A standard, HAL has not acted with the requisite alacrity to take control of this project and bring it to fruition in the shortest possible time.

HAL’s Stymied Opportunities
When the history of the Tejas is written, there will always be questions as to why HAL was not entrusted with the design of the aircraft and the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) not formed as part of HAL (rather than as a separate agency). Indeed, up until the late 1970s, HAL had a reasonable degree of success in aircraft design and was poised to achieve further levels of competence when its design efforts were abruptly, and, in the case of the HF-24, prematurely, ended.
*(precisely what I've maintained,to merge the ADA with either HAL or the IAF)
There's famous saying."two's company,three's a crowd".In the case of the LCA,the turd party,the ADA in between the IAF and HAL messed things up wholesale.

In 1948, HAL began work on a basic piston-engine trainer to supplement and then supplant the Tiger Moths and Percival Prentice aircraft then in service. The result was the Hindustan HT-2, which served with distinction from 1953 until its retirement in 1990. Over 170 of these aircraft were built, with a dozen being used to form the Ghanaian Air Force in 1959.6 Its successor, the HPT-32 was less successful, with a high accident rate, though with an otherwise respectable service record. HAL now pins its hopes on the HTT-40.
In 1959, HAL received permission to proceed with the development of a basic jet trainer to replace the Vampire T.55 and the T-6 Harvard. The resultant aircraft – the HJT-16 Kiran – first flew in 1964 and in a modified version continues to this day as the IAF’s basic trainer. Although the Kiran did have a somewhat protracted development period before entering service and its Mk.2 variant was late in coming, it was a success. It entered bulk production and serves the IAF competently.7

Simultaneously, HAL had laid the foundations for fighter production with a licence agreement for the Folland Gnat being signed in 1956, with production peaking at four aircraft per month. This light fighter formed a considerable portion of the IAF’s frontline strength until the late 1970s.8
The HAL Ajeet, while intended to improve on the Gnat’s performance, was only marginally successful since, by 1975, the desired performance could only be achieved with more powerful engines and advanced avionics. While four squadrons of the Ajeet served between 1975 and 1991, the type never achieved its potential. An attempt to turn the Ajeet into an Advanced Jet Trainer (AJT) failed thanks to a lack of support, a lack of reference to the Gnat T.1, and the loss of a prototype.9

HAL’s ultimate misfortune was the untimely demise of the HF-24 Marut. This promising aircraft saw service with three IAF squadrons and proved to be a very effective weapons platform, yet fate was unkind to it and HAL suffered as a result.10 The HF-24 was designed around the Orpheus B.Or.12 engine – rated at 6,810 lbf (30.29 kN) dry and 8,170 lbf (36.34 kN) with afterburning – which was being developed for the proposed Gnat Mk.2 interceptor and a NATO light-weight strike fighter. Unfortunately, the British authorities cancelled their requirement for this type. And India, unwilling to provide the modest sum required to complete development, was stuck with the non-afterburning Orpheus B.OR.2 Mk.703 rated at 4,850 lbf (21.57 kN).
Despite some half-hearted efforts to find a suitable engine for the Marut, the IAF was never entirely supportive of the project. An attempt to integrate Adour turbofans (used in the Jaguars and Hawks) was confounded by an IAF demand that the thrust of the Adour be increased by 20 per cent. In addition, a very realistic and cost-effective proposal to create a strike-fighter based around the Marut airframe and the R-25 engine (the HF-25) received no sanction. While efforts to procure RB.199 turbofans were seriously considered for a Marut Mk.3 – the HF-73 – the project itself failed to materialise.11

With this design pedigree, it might have been expected that HAL would be tasked with developing the Tejas. However, this was not to be. The ADA, formed in 1984, received the opportunity and resources to undertake this project. And that effectively decimated HAL’s design capabilities, while simultaneously robbing the ADA of the experience and infrastructure of HAL. The Tejas project has had to therefore overcome the obstacles that inevitably arise from a separation of the design and production agencies, while at the same time overcoming those that arise from an inexperienced design team.
Unfortunately, the Tejas has also been the subject of somewhat harsh and overbearing assessments from the Comptroller Auditor General (CAG), which has tended to overemphasise the negatives while inadequately appreciating the problems in re-creating the ecosystem required to support a fighter project.12 For this project to have achieved a level of indigenization equal to 59.7 per cent by value and 75.5 per cent by component is commendable and ought not to be downplayed.13

HAL’s New Opportunity – The Tejas Mk.1A
On 8th November 2016, the Ministry of Defence’s Defence Acquisition Council (DAC) cleared the production of 83 Tejas Mk.1A aircraft at an estimated cost of USD 7.5 billion.14 It should be noted that DAC approval does not equal authorisation of the requisite funds for production for which latter the approval of the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) is required. Nevertheless, at one stroke, the DAC approval offers HAL an opportunity to become an integral participant in the development of the Tejas – as opposed to remaining just the production agency. It also offers HAL the opportunity to develop variants of the aircraft which may prolong the production run beyond the total of 40 aircraft currently authorised (20 IOC authorised in 2006 and 20 FOC authorised in 2010) and 83 aircraft approved by the DAC.15

The Tejas Mk.1A – for which a prototype, previously designated Tejas Mk.1P, was proposed by HAL – is designed to correct many of the existing shortcomings in the FOC standard aircraft.16 Planned to be equipped with an Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar and electronic warfare systems currently missing from the FOC standard Tejas Mk.1, the Tejas Mk.1A may be the ultimate development of the basic Tejas airframe given its lack of internal volume without necessitating major redesign.17 While there is a proposed Mk.2 variant of the Tejas with upgraded General Electric F414 engines, this seems to be some time off in the future and remains a project essentially in potentia18.
It would appear, from statements emanating from HAL, that the Mk.1A has been proposed to the IAF by the company itself rather than the ADA.19 However, development of the Mk.1A will require close collaboration between HAL and ADA. To date, HAL has issued most if not all public statements regarding the project, with ADA working towards the FOC. However, despite HAL floating a tender for AESA radars for the Tejas Mk.1A and for jamming pods, it has not seemed to have moved with any degree of alacrity on the project.20
It is interesting to note that despite the statements of HAL’s Chief Managing Director T. Survarna Raju that tenders would be opened for AESA radars and jamming pods by the end of March 2017, no news in this regard has been forthcoming to date. This would suggest that meeting HAL’s timeline of flying the Mk.1A by 2018 with production starting by 2019 may be optimistic, though this may not necessarily impact the desired production target of 123 Tejas Mk.1 and Mk.1A in IAF service by 2025.21 In this regard, the question remains as to whether HAL has fully committed itself to developing the Mk.1A in a timely fashion. Indeed, it would be naïve to expect CCS authorisation for the 83 Tejas Mk.1A until at the very least the flight of the first prototype. :mrgreen:

Yet, HAL has an opportunity to reclaim its position of producing indigenously designed aircraft as well as be a participant in the further development of the Tejas. Besides the Mk.1A variant, which should be accorded priority, the two-seat trainer version of the Tejas offers the prospect of emerging into a Lead-in Fighter Trainer (LIFT) in the league of the Korean KAI T-50 Golden Eagle while retaining the core combat capabilities of its single-seat stablemate. This would fill a gap in the IAF’s existing training programme, which, while adequately equipped with basic and advanced trainers, is compelled to use two-seat variants of combat aircraft for roles more usefully satisfied by a LIFT. Moreover, HAL would invariably participate in any upgrade of IOC aircraft to FOC standard.

The stakes for HAL and ADA are very high. The Tejas project is a litmus test of the ability of Indian designers and production agencies to produce a viable combat aircraft. On the very threshold of success, it behooves both agencies to work in synergy to ensure that not only is production scaled-up to meet the target of 16 aircraft per annum, but also to ensure the successful and prompt completion of the Tejas Mk.1A project. The Tejas project has come too far to be allowed to stumble or fall at this stage.
Views expressed are of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the IDSA or of the Government of India.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4327
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby JayS » 21 Nov 2017 19:49

fanne wrote:Hakim Sir,
I am guilty as charged. I was just replying to post above that was stating that FOC is only software, it is not. Though the point you make is very right, why diss our planes, it is a war of opinion/perception and these loose balls do no good to LCA 'side'.
I would further say, the second iteration of LCA should continue even if as a scientific program (while AMCA is the 'real' project). we should ditch LCAMK2, go for LCA mk3, using AL31 F engine (that we make for SU30MKI, 50 of them made from raw material). The engine is 1.5 times over F414 and almost double to the current F404, make a stretched LCA, it will have the size and volume (maybe internal weapon bay), some stealth shaping. It will be our own MMCRA, with ranges that will take care of TSP and Tibet. The possibilities on the lCA continued production is limitless. Shame if it is victim of someone shortsightedness or greed (read corruption).


Can anyone vouch for reliability of Al-31 for single engine application...? I don't think even the Russians can. Lets not forget that even F404 had to be adopted for single engine application by increasing redundancy in its systems.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5228
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby ShauryaT » 21 Nov 2017 20:43

An IAF test pilot, who has flown the Tejas’s early prototypes and who is currently a senior decisionmaker at Air Headquarters, said: “The LCA doesn’t meet our expectations. It needs to be escorted by more capable aircraft to come back alive.” Consider: The LCA Tejas Mark-1A can carry an external load of 3 tonnes compared to 5-8 tonnes of Gripen and 6.7 tonnes of F-16. While Gripen and F-16 have escort ranges of 520 km and 645 km respectively, for the Tejas it is only 300 km. The Tejas can loiter without mid-air refuelling for 59 minutes; Gripen can be out for 2.49 hours, F-16 for 2.51 hours. It takes more than 60 minutes to prepare Tejas for the next mission; for Gripen it is 23 minutes; for F-16, 21 minutes.


While India must develop and promote its indigenous defence industry and the IAF must remain committed to LCA Tejas, the nation’s security is paramount. A right balance needs to be found — a mix of LCA Tejas Mark-1 and Mark-2, AMCA, and some foreign fighter aircraft. A decision must be made before the IAF’s fleet has depleted to critical levels, and India is forced to make emergency imports at very high costs. The IAF last had its full complement of 42 fighter squadrons 15 years ago, in 2002, and it is not going to reach those numbers again for the next 25 years.
Unless and until we develop a strong lobby for defense and accountabilities these lackadaisical approaches with NO political consequences will continue.

Tejas and beyond: How short the IAF is of fighters, what options it has now

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53432
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby ramana » 21 Nov 2017 23:34

Philip, This is LCA thread. Please get on the program. It does not help to say go buy more Russian junk to make up shortfall. IAF mess is because of the alternative of cheap Russian planes which have short life span. Had they insisted on buying those M2000 and not fallen for Mig 29s this sudden drop in 20 squadrons in 2002 would not happen.
So please stop.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4545
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Kartik » 22 Nov 2017 00:11

fanne wrote:FOC definitely involves hardware changes (some major if they don't work as planned)
1. DIFFERENT RADOME - done but was hardware changes
2. Gun firing - If the vibrations level are high, many things have to be changed, mainly mounting and qualifying may subparts at higher vibration rates
3.Refueling - Obvious, need an extra pipe, motors etc.


point #1 doesn't qualify as major hardware changes since the radome has already been qualified and doesn't entail any changes to the structure. It will be supplied by Cobham and simply has to be attached. the plumbing for refueling should have been in place for IOC Tejas Mk1 itself, but perhaps it wasn't. Maybe someone can confirm with their sources. Else, it'll mean that upgrading the 20 IOC Tejas Mk1s to FOC Tejas Mk1s will entail modifying the fuel plumbing and that is quite a bit of work.

the probe attachment is a point of concern. We haven't yet seen or heard much about how the IFR trials are going and whether initial reports of possible aerodynamic issues with the probe placement are true or not, or how they're proceeding and what the results are.

Gun firing trials on the ground were conducted couple of years ago itself. Doubt that trials in the air will show any higher vibration levels. Gun gas ingestion issues is what must be a bigger concern.

But none of these should in any way stop the placing of orders for the long lead items.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4545
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Kartik » 22 Nov 2017 00:13

Indranil wrote:No more structural changes are envisioned in Mk1 FOC.


That should mean that the SOP for structural items should be frozen ASAP. HAL must get on this and quickly move on to ordering parts for the 20 FOC Tejas Mk1s.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4327
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby JayS » 22 Nov 2017 00:44

Just replugging one of my old posts when we this turnaround time for LCA was being discussed on this thread some time ago:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7112&p=1923210#p1923210
JayS wrote:
rohitvats wrote:Karan - the statement by the HAL person is misleading and he seems to using the words loosely. No a/c can be back in the air after mere 14 minutes or 20 minutes of landing. And while actual transfer of fuel might take four minutes, the whole process of fuel transfer will take more than 4 minutes.

Here is an extract of typical time required for various Turn Around Tasks from USAF - this is basis their study of deployment in 80s and 90s for F-16 and F-15.

Time given against each point is in minutes.

Land and Taxi: 10
Make Aircraft Safe for Ground Ops: 5
Shut Down Systems: 2
Conduct Post-Flight Inspection/Debrief: 15
Re-arm: 50
Service: 20
Refuel: 30
Conduct Pre-Flight Inspection: 15
Start Engine: 5
Perform Final Systems Check: 5
Arm: 5
Taxi: 10
Wait in Queue: 5
Take Off: 3

TOTAL: 180 minutes or 3 hours

It is my contention that HAL personnel is most likely talking about time required for one of the procedures above. Pre-flight inspection or Post-flight inspection.

Now, assuming for fighter like Tejas, we take 2 hours and not 3 for full TAT, then with 1 hour of flight time, we're simplistically talking about 8 sorties over a 24 hour cycle. However, an a/c will require more time as with each flight hour, there will be maintenance requirement as well. So, your total sortie generation ability will depend on flight time, TAT and Maintenance hours required for an a/c after X number of flight hours.


Rohit, I don't think there is any error in the statement as such. Gripen advertises its turn-around time to be 10 min (with 5 men i think). It is well known that Gripen had this requirement as design goal right from start. (One link i posted yesterday, says this 10 min is for A2A mode. For A2G its 20min for Gripen-E)

But of coarse this is a desperate measure under desperate conditions. The list you have put up is compiled using Desert Strom-I data. USAF wasn't really desperate there, was it?? I saw this exact table yesterday while googling about ICT, its given in a doc related to "Sorty-rate model". The doc says,
While it may appear that substantial time could be saved by performing the post-flight inspection, re-arming, service, and refuelilng operations in parallel, safety considerations prevent doing so. When refuelling or re-arming operations are in progress, only fuels and munitions personnel are
permitted near an aircraft.

During war, for rapid turn around, most of the pre- and post-flight checks would be deleted, hot refuelling would be used, men will work simultaneously on multiple things on the jet (definitely they would have a well rehearsed algorithm for all this). Pilot won't even come out of the cockpit. Now this 10min would be best possible rate in ideal situation, realistically may be 20 mins is realizable (This is like quoting mileage for a vehicle which was demonstrated only under an ideal condition in lab, in reality it will be always less on road.). But of coarse its not sustainable for one aircraft to do this sortie after sortie. Generally a/c components, particularly engine components have limits on continuous operation. So one particular jet will perhaps be doing only 2 or max 3 such rapid sorties in one day. After that it will have to be kept on ground for usual maintenance which will be many long hours.

Also as Karan has mentioned, this data is quite old now, systems have become much better now. That surely has reduced a lot of time for many activities. (But Karan the data is for F-15/F16 from DS-I as per the paper I saw, not for F-4 era). Also if this is a requirement, then the a/c will have bulit in features facilitating this procedures at rapid pace. The Gripen video posted above highlights this well enough.

So, its doable in quite short time, given the a/c has been designed accordingly with required features. But it could be done only once or perhaps twice at max per jet per day in my opinion, that too throwing all safety procedures in dustbin. Its a risk and it will be taken only during desperate times by the AF. And of coarse any airforce worth its salt would have a well thought of and well rehearsed algorithm for this process.

Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2554
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Katare » 22 Nov 2017 01:05

tsarkar wrote:
Katare wrote:They did deliver all the Su 30MKI on time or even ahead of time. The original deadline was 2017 for 140 aircrafts which was moved up but as of 2017 they have delivered more than 200 aircrafts

The 200 delivered as of 2017 is not 140 built from raw materials but CKD kit assembly of 32 (1996) + 40 (2007) + 18 (2007) + 42 (2012) orders and some of 140 manufactured from raw materials.


Not sure where you getting this information but as per Raju's Aeroindia interview earlier this year 236 Su MKI have been delivered and remaining 36 will be delivered by the end of next finanicial year and after that the line would close. I would guess that these 36, that are yet to be built, must be from the last batch of 40 that were ordered by UPA2. But it is possible that they put on hold 36 aircrafts from the raw material batch of 140 order, to quickly assemble the SKD kits from Russia. 2012 order if it was for SKD would have been delivered between 2015-2016.

Anyhow I have not seen any authoritative account that clearly indicates that 2012 order was for SKD kits. Neither I have read anything that indicates that the remaining 36 aircrafts are from raw material phase. But I can't claim that I read everything that was published so share the source, if you have the information.

Even if you are completely right still HAL substantially delivered on it's promises.

sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1697
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby sudeepj » 22 Nov 2017 02:11



The two armed forces gents keep on repeating that indigenous products have X Y and Z% imported components.

Do the good air marshal and the general realize the cost of IP and design? A collection of carbon fiber, engine, weapons does not make a fighter plane! Its the design that puts them together that makes a fighter plane, while subcomponents can be replaced by the designer because he owns the IP and the design! Can Indians replace the AL31F in the Sukhoi with a different engine without support from the OEM if they need to? Hell No!! Can Indians replaced the Ge404 in the LCA with a different engine without support from GE? Hell Yes!!

To count the percentage of imported components in desi products is a kabadiwala approach at arriving at the value of complex systems. They will look at the BOM cost of an iphone and claim its not an American product!

Finally, there is confirmation that the army sabotaged the Arjun trials by driving the tank 1000km in reverse ( https://youtu.be/epdJRXA23o8?t=1632 ) and then claiming that the engine packed up! This is utterly shameful and disgraceful behavior. My personal respect for the armed forces has gone down several notches.

Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7366
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Prasad » 22 Nov 2017 03:02

Prasad wrote:
srai wrote:Image


Can somebody fix that to show Dynamatic technologies instead of Dynamic please? Gagan was it you who did the graphic?

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53432
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby ramana » 22 Nov 2017 03:15

shiv wrote:
Philip wrote:Look,guns are abso necessary,the Israelis insist upon it both for air combat as well as GA/CS.Now there's nothing preventing a gun pod being attached to Tejas, If memory serves me right,we had MIGs with gunpods earlier.

The Tejas has an inbuilt gun anyway. The only question is shooting trials which have to move from ground firing to firing in the air starting with a short burst, later 1/2 second burst and then 1 second etc. After each of these the plane will have to be inspected to see if anything has worked itself loose and if something has - that will need to be addressed. Not impossible - but it needs time. Recall that the Eurofighter itself started with no gun. The MiG 21 too started with no gun. Then gun pod and finally integral gun - over an evolutionary period that lasted years.

The other thing is that with gun trials they have to be prepared for exigencies like plume ingestion, engine surge etc. I am sure it will happen given time.


Shiv,
I think the LRUs near the gun are qualified for structural loads to a power spectral density function. What they do is mount shock and vibration sensors on similar mounts near the gun and measure. Then they put a 1 in 100 probability loads envelope and run the LRUs on a shaker table.
My suspicion is that there is a difference between the initial and now measured loads. Could happen due to mounting stiffness etc. However, if the 1 in 100 loads philosophy is used this should be no problem. The other issue is the LRUs are being re-located for improving the turnaround time. So could have some changes which need to be verified.

Gun is nice but if the Derby/Astra work as advertised would not need this. Besides the 23mm shell doesn't have much energy as the 30 mm Aden or the GSh in the Su-30MKI.


Putting it in a pod brings new headaches as SPJ will be in a pod also.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53432
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby ramana » 22 Nov 2017 03:22

fanne wrote:FOC definitely involves hardware changes (some major if they don't work as planned)
1. DIFFERENT RADOME - done but was hardware changes
2. Gun firing - If the vibrations level are high, many things have to be changed, mainly mounting and qualifying may subparts at higher vibration rates
3.Refueling - Obvious, need an extra pipe, motors etc.



1. Is Cobham quartz radome. Needed to qualify radar and BVR. Done
2. A ground test was done. Need aerial firing.
3. Refueling probe has to be demonstrated.
4. SPJ tender issued. Is ELTA ELL-2222 with IAF?

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5228
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby ShauryaT » 22 Nov 2017 03:24

^Sudeepj: The armed forces are articulating exactly what they have been asked to do. Articulate requirements on what they need for national defense. They are simply doing their jobs. The issue here is systemic, mostly at the ministry and political levels. The forces have not been told, you will buy Indian only and nothing else, have they? This type of a directive and getting people to work together is the job of the ministry. It takes a committed set of people and processes to build a MIC. Empower the users to shake things up and see the magic happen. Empower them with budgets, decision-making power, and accountabilities. In my view, the problem has always been the bureaucracy at the MoD led by the political class. No point in blaming the forces, DRDO, HAL or other OFB's even. For even, the decision to not involve the private sector earlier or even after NDA I allowed private sector participation but has not worked in a major way yet is due to MoD not able and willing to make it work. Put the blame squarely, where it belongs. Tejas can be made to work, it is up to MoD to make it happen.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53432
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby ramana » 22 Nov 2017 03:29

Just to recap, Col Ajai Shukla wrote

LINK



The SoP-18 Tejas fighter will have a turn-around time between missions of 14 minutes

By Ajai Shukla
HAL, Bengaluru
Business Standard, 28th Oct 15


In New Delhi on September 23, decades of friction came to an end when key stakeholders in the Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) finally agreed on the specifications of a fighter that would join the Indian Air Force (IAF) in large numbers, starting in 2018-19.

Termed “Standard of Preparation - 2018” (SoP-18), these specifications were agreed between four agencies. Besides the IAF, they include the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA), which oversees the Tejas programme; Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL), which builds the fighter, and the ministry of defence (MoD).

SoP-18 involves four major, and several minor, improvements. As Business Standard reported yesterday (“Cutting edge Israeli radar wins air force approval for Tejas fighter”), a crucial enhancement in the SoP-18 Tejas will be “active electronically scanned array” (AESA) radar, which Israeli company, Elta, will develop with HAL.

Besides AESA radar, the SoP-18 Tejas will be equipped with the capability for air-to-air refuelling; a “self-protection jammer” (SPJ) mounted in an external pod to confuse enemy radar, and an improved layout of internal systems to ease maintenance.

HAL is currently building 20 Tejas fighters to the initial operational certification (IOC) standard. HAL chief, T Suvarna Raju says, over the next three years, production will ramp up from four aircraft this year; to seven in 2016-17; and eight in 2017-18, thus completing the order for 20 IOC fighters. From 2018-19 onwards, 16 SoP-18 Tejas fighters will roll off the line each year.

“Ramping up production to 16 Tejas per year will cost us about Rs 1,252 crore.
We have mutually agreed that HAL will provide half the cost, and the IAF and navy will together pay the other half,” says Raju.

Meanwhile, ADA will continue developing the Tejas Mark II, replacing the current General Electric F-404IN engine with a new GE F-414 engine. The IAF remains sceptical about the Tejas Mark II, but the navy is certain the Tejas must have the more powerful F-414 engine to enable it to get airborne from short aircraft carrier decks.

That means that, along with the SoP-18 Tejas that would remain in production till 2024-25, the Naval Tejas Mark II would have to be somehow produced alongside.

Air-to-Air refuelling

The integration of air-to-air refuelling has been regarded as essential to give the Tejas enough reach. Currently, its internal tanks carry just 2,300 litres of fuel, with another 2,400 litres carried in external pods. However, external pods cannot be carried into battle, and they take up two weapon stations, reducing the fighter’s punch. Without external fuel tanks, the Tejas has a combat radius of barely 300 kilometres.

Air-to-air refuelling will step up combat radius to 500 kilometres. Towards that, a late prototype of the Tejas, numbered LSP-8, was fitted with an external fuel probe.
This is being integrated and will soon undergo flight-testing.

Says a veteran fighter pilot: “As important than the ability to fight is the ability to turn up at the fight. That requires long legs and, for a light fighter, that requires air-to-air refuelling”.

External jammer pod

Tejas designers admit the absence of a jammer to throw enemy radar off the scent is a key vulnerability of the Tejas. While designing the fighter, they simply ran out of space for an internal jammer. With the IAF dropping its insistence on an internal jammer, ADA and HAL have now offered an “external jammer pod”.

While this threatened to reduce the Tejas’ weapons carriage by occupying one of its seven hard points, HAL is overcoming that problem by fitting a “twin-arm” at that hard point. “One of the arms will carry the jammer, while the other will mount an air-to-air missile”, says the designer.


Maintainability

For the IAF, which must mount multiple missions everyday with each Tejas fighter, easy “maintainability” and “low turn-around-time” are key attributes. The HAL chief says the IAF wants the fighter to take maximum 14 minutes between landing after a mission; and taking off for the next mission, fully checked, rearmed and refuelled. Currently, the Tejas takes about 20 minutes.

“The IAF has carried out a ‘maintainability evaluation’ on the Tejas, and provided requests for action (RFAs) to HAL. Each RFA deals with a particular way to improve maintenance. We will be making 27 modifications in the fighter”, says Raju.


The Tejas already has built-in-test-equipment (BITE), which is a software programme that automatically checks the functionality of every crucial system. In case an aircraft system is not working optimally, the BITE flashes a warning light.

On the other hand, if no warning lights are evident, maintenance engineers know that all systems are working satisfactorily. The need to check each one manually is no longer there
.

This also involves fitting “pressure refuelling” of the kind that exists in Formula One racing cars, which requires fuel to be pumped under pressure into the fuel tanks. Refuelling the Tejas takes just four minutes, and two more to fill drop tanks as well.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53432
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby ramana » 22 Nov 2017 03:33

So what do we know about LSP 8 and its flights?

When was FOC supposed to start production?


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 26 guests