Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 04 January 2021

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
basant
BRFite
Posts: 457
Joined: 20 Mar 2020 20:58

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 04 January 2021

Postby basant » 14 May 2021 22:40

Nothing much, looks recycled. But one thing I don't remember reading earlier.

Why Tejas is better than Pakistan's JF-17 Thunder (Ajai Shukla)

However, the Tejas has a problem with its air intakes design. This stems from initial confusion about its role, which was to replace the MiG-21 as the IAF’s light fighter.

Since the MiG-21 was designed for high-speed interceptions at speeds of Mach 2 (twice the speed of sound, or 2,500 km per hour), the Tejas designers worked for a top speed of Mach 1.8. However, they chose fixed air intakes, which are suitable only for speeds up to Mach 1.4.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12834
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 04 January 2021

Postby Aditya_V » 15 May 2021 07:31

Are you flamebaiting? You are quoting ever honest Ajai Shukla, and saying IAF ordered 123 fighter aircraft with a major design flaw,

Please also tell me about the variable intakes of the F-15, F-16, F-18, F-22, F-35, Rafale, Su, Mig 29 and venerable J-20, J-10 all intakes seem fixed like Tejas, are they restricted to Mach 1.4?. Regards

For what it is worth

https://hushkit.net/2020/03/16/how-all-fighter-planes-suck-an-idiots-guide-to-supersonic-air-intakes/#:~:text=These%20variable%20geometry%20intakes%20are,%2C%20or%20inside%2C%20the%20inlet.

or aircraft with side-mounted intakes (most aircraft not using a pitot intake) some of these issues arose from interactions between the flow on the aircraft fuselage and in the engine inlet. As a result, it was found desirable to stand the intakes off from the side of the fuselage, creating a passage to allow the fuselage boundary layer to flow past the intake without entering it and disturbing the flow to the engine. In many cases, further protection was achieved through the use of a splitter plate to ensure the separation of the boundary layer flow from the intake flow.


Next the Author will say Tejas does not have a splitter plate also? ADA, IAF, HAL are all fools no.

In fact the only Aircraft I see this design flaw might be in is

In developing the F-35, Lockheed-Martin has developed a diverterless supersonic intake, consisting of a shaped ‘bump’ on the fuselage side, which acts like a ‘rock’ in the fuselage boundary layer ‘stream’, causing the boundary layer flow to part and avoid flowing into the intake. The ‘bump’ is coupled with a forward swept intake cowl, and it is claimed this offers a light-weight solution to providing an efficient intake for a supersonic aircraft, with the added advantage of avoiding the radar signature of a boundary layer diverter. This approach has also been used on the Sino-Pakistani JF-17 Thunder aircraft.

It is, perhaps, worth noting that neither the intake, nor the diverter system has any variable geometry. Consequently, the intake system is likely to act like a pitot system in some ways, limiting efficient flight speeds. This is perhaps less of an issue for the F-35, because it has very low signature, and also because it will be limited to about Mach 1.6 by wave drag. One might wonder, however, about the trade off for the JF-17, where perhaps a F-20 Tigershark-like intake with a variable ramp might, with a suitable engine, allow higher performance in the Mach 2 range.

basant
BRFite
Posts: 457
Joined: 20 Mar 2020 20:58

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 04 January 2021

Postby basant » 15 May 2021 13:11

Aditya_V wrote:Are you flamebaiting? You are quoting ever honest Ajai Shukla,...

Never. :)

All I remember reading about intake was initially it was designed for Kaveri and was later adopted to the GE version. Thanks for the reply, BTW.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12834
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 04 January 2021

Postby Aditya_V » 15 May 2021 13:43

Sorry for my harshness, you could have asked your specific question, as unfortunately the retired Colonel has proved to have an agenda in the last few years

basant
BRFite
Posts: 457
Joined: 20 Mar 2020 20:58

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 04 January 2021

Postby basant » 15 May 2021 17:42

^^^
It's fine. And I think he wrote the same column probably several times. I should have been careful in asking. :)

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 1657
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 04 January 2021

Postby ks_sachin » 15 May 2021 17:58

Aditya_V wrote:Sorry for my harshness, you could have asked your specific question, as unfortunately the retired Colonel has proved to have an agenda in the last few years

Short of ADA the only one I would trust with anything LcA related is Indranil. So any talk of intake design has to be corroborated by him.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2696
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 04 January 2021

Postby Vivek K » 15 May 2021 19:05

India is cursed to have traitors like Ajai Shukla!

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55516
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 04 January 2021

Postby ramana » 17 May 2021 12:32

Logically the trainers should be built on the 4 planes line. Makes it clean.

jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5420
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 04 January 2021

Postby jamwal » 17 May 2021 13:33

Image
Tejas and J-11 (Su-27?) having fun.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 04 January 2021

Postby Philip » 17 May 2021 18:16

A Q.Why was VG not used for the Tejas intakes? A prototype could've experimented with them,given the limited power of the 404 engine.

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

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 04 January 2021

Postby Kartik » 25 May 2021 12:28

Finally found confirmation that the Tejas Mk1 fleet is being equipped with jamming equipment! This was one of my biggest concerns with the 2 Tejas Mk1 squadrons that would be moving to the frontline to replace MiG-21 Bison squadrons. And the confirmation comes from none other than the ACM himself, who is the most reliable authority on this.

He also mentions that the IAF will consider more Tejas to augment the fleet after the 83 Tejas Mk1A are delivered.

ACM Bhadauria's interview - SP's Aviation - 09/2020


SP’s: Please indicate on the plans for:

a: EW Jammers which are reportedly missing in Su-30 and LCA Mk1;
b: Long range BVR air-to-air missile for Mirage 2000, and Sukhoi;
c: Hawks in air to ground role.
CAS: The Su-30 MKI aircraft are equipped with EW capability which meets its operational roles.

The LCA aircraft fleet is also being equipped with jamming equipment. Astra BVR has been successfully tested on the Su-30 MKI and integration on the fleet is underway.

Mirage 2000 has been upgraded to fire the long range BVR missiles. The Hawks are currently used in a training role. Their utilisation during contingencies has been suitably catered in our operational plans.


and talk of possibly more LCAs..although he could be referring to the Tejas Mk2 since he doesn't mention it anywhere else.


SP’s: What all is being done to control the depleting number of fighter squadrons which are supposed to be 42 in number?

CAS: We are expecting the delivery of 24 remaining LCA aircraft to be completed in the next two to three years, after which the 83 LCA MK1A will start joining the IAF fleet. The two Rafale squadrons will be fully equipped in the meanwhile.

We could look at further LCA enhancements and procurement of the 114 MRFA through the Make in India to further augment the fighter strength.

AMCA programme is being vigorously pursued with the aircraft likely to be inducted from 2032 onwards or earlier based on D&D completion. To augment the existing fleet of Su-30 MKI and MiG-29 aircraft, AoN for 33 aircraft has been accorded and these will start flying with us in the next couple of years.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5001
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 04 January 2021

Postby srai » 25 May 2021 14:08

^^^

ACM (IAF) has been non-committal when it comes to MWF. He is for 114 MRFA though. AMCA also desired at the earliest.

Remains to be seen on MWF. Can it meet its very tight deadlines to supplant MRFA import? Babus will do their part slowing the import option. Financially there is room for either one only.

basant
BRFite
Posts: 457
Joined: 20 Mar 2020 20:58

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 04 January 2021

Postby basant » 25 May 2021 16:09

Probably EL/L-8222 ECM pod for LCA.

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

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 04 January 2021

Postby hemant_sai » 25 May 2021 17:23

With evolution of indigenous missiles, weapons and subsystems, there is no need of foreign platforms. And with financial constraints, it is even more so. This is so crystal clear yet IAF leadership prefers to drag on 114 MMRCA.

It is true that we need 100 planes/5sqdns to quickly fill the gaps by 2027. Which plane we can get that quick and cheap?

Mig29UPG except its engine issues which are argued for operational cost.
How many years it will take for 1st set of engine to be replaced?
In those years, can we put money to improve on those engines OR put french engines M88-3 on Mig29?

If news of M88 engines getting assembled in India is true, it is even better. Both 36 Rafale and 160 Mig29UPGs can share M88-3 engines.
Very good prospect for Safran, even if another 36 Rafales are not ordered.

But if Indian economy improves by 2025, we can go for another 36 Rafales - with F3R only so that we do not end up giving huge cost for F4.

100 Mig29UPG in 5BN is the right way. I would keep 1BN more for M88-3 engines and Uttam radar on Mig29s.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8322
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 04 January 2021

Postby Indranil » 25 May 2021 23:41

OT.

I have been away, sucked away by the lure of Twitter. But I need to get back to my roots aka BRF. I have learned a lot from here and I need to give back some.
1. I want to have more discussions here. But here are my rules. I will only discuss technical issues. I will generally see myself out of long winded discussions. I will call out crap. I won't mind when others call out my crap (don't worry about my moderator rights) 
2. I want to recruit for BRF. I want to invite retired folks here. And I want to invite some of the new photographers and illustrators.

dkhare
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 65
Joined: 10 Feb 2009 03:30

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 04 January 2021

Postby dkhare » 26 May 2021 00:14

Welcome back Indranil. Glad to see you will be posting here again. Please share any updates on progress being made on Mk1 or Mk2 - much appreciated...

hemant_sai wrote:In those years, can we put money to improve on those engines OR put french engines M88-3 on Mig29?

If news of M88 engines getting assembled in India is true, it is even better. Both 36 Rafale and 160 Mig29UPGs can share M88-3 engines.

100 Mig29UPG in 5BN is the right way. I would keep 1BN more for M88-3 engines and Uttam radar on Mig29s.


Based on many discussions here on BRF, fighter aircraft engines are not plug-and-play. It will take significant time, effort, and treasure to make that happen by which time LCA Tejas Mk2 may be available. Former IAF fighter jocks have figured out how to stop the MiG-29 engines from smoking when entering a fight - there was an article on Hushkit about that. Serviceability is a problem but they know how to get serviceability up as and when needed...

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

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 04 January 2021

Postby nachiket » 26 May 2021 00:48

Kartik wrote:Finally found confirmation that the Tejas Mk1 fleet is being equipped with jamming equipment! This was one of my biggest concerns with the 2 Tejas Mk1 squadrons that would be moving to the frontline to replace MiG-21 Bison squadrons.

SP’s: Please indicate on the plans for:

a: EW Jammers which are reportedly missing in Su-30 and LCA Mk1;
b: Long range BVR air-to-air missile for Mirage 2000, and Sukhoi;
c: Hawks in air to ground role.
CAS: The Su-30 MKI aircraft are equipped with EW capability which meets its operational roles.

The LCA aircraft fleet is also being equipped with jamming equipment. Astra BVR has been successfully tested on the Su-30 MKI and integration on the fleet is underway.



I don't know what to make of this. He makes no mention of what is specifically being equipped and the interviewer did not ask a follow up question to clarify. We have long since heard about the EL/M-8222 pod being integrated but have not seen it being flight tested on the Mk1 even once. Last we heard the integration was scheduled for the Mk1A with the expectation that it will be back ported to the Mk1. Until then the Mk1 squadrons will continue to operate with a disadvantage.

One of the issues of course is that the dual-rack outboard pylon is also not ready and won't be till after the Mk1A comes out. So carrying a jamming pod will mean carrying only 1 CCM. Same issue as on the Bison. Although I do recall AM Nambiar telling someone on twitter that they used to do that sometimes even on the Mirage-2000 (pre-upgrade) and carry a Remora pod instead of the second Magic-II despite the M2k having an internal jammer. So it's not as if the IAF is opposed to doing that.

Mirage 2000 has been upgraded to fire the long range BVR missiles. The Hawks are currently used in a training role. Their utilisation during contingencies has been suitably catered in our operational plans.

Again something lost in here I believe. I am quite certain the ACM is talking about the MICA-RF here which was integrated during the upgrade. The interviewer was possibly talking about the Meteor or something else. Lack of follow up/clarification in addition to the vague nature of the question again.

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

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 04 January 2021

Postby nachiket » 26 May 2021 00:56

hemant_sai wrote:Mig29UPG except its engine issues which are argued for operational cost.
How many years it will take for 1st set of engine to be replaced?
In those years, can we put money to improve on those engines OR put french engines M88-3 on Mig29?

What specifically is wrong with the Mig-29UPG's engines?

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

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 04 January 2021

Postby hemant_sai » 26 May 2021 02:27

nachiket wrote:
hemant_sai wrote:Mig29UPG except its engine issues which are argued for operational cost.
How many years it will take for 1st set of engine to be replaced?
In those years, can we put money to improve on those engines OR put french engines M88-3 on Mig29?

What specifically is wrong with the Mig-29UPG's engines?


I had read comments about same on this forum that one of the reason IAF is not willing to go for russian platforms due to engine issues.
Few online sources like,
https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2016/ ... -problems/

But you are bang on, I don't know what specifically wrong with current engines on Mig29UPG.
on same note, if that is not an issue then why not Mig29 UPG? It is an excellent platform for IAF which can hold the tide till 2035-40.

By then many indigenous platforms will be available. Of course provided no change of the regime.
Mig29 UPG also seems to be safe political bet - how?
It will be easy to justify 100 planes in 5BN and current covid crisis adding to financial limitations.

I am not against Rafale, provided GoI can afford 3 sqdns of Rafale and decision to order is made sooner.

We need numbers and though I am all for Tejas, I am also bit conservative on production rate. I am not expecting more than 10 per year till 2026.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55516
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 04 January 2021

Postby ramana » 26 May 2021 10:14

Kartik, My reading is not the same as yours on further LCA by ACM.

He wants enhancements ie more technology. Not more numbers.
I might be wrong.
One quibble I have is the phrase two or three years.

The 114 will kill future Indian-made aircraft.

basant
BRFite
Posts: 457
Joined: 20 Mar 2020 20:58

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 04 January 2021

Postby basant » 26 May 2021 11:35

Ramana garu, this occurred to me too. In all fairness, that's probably one of the worst interviews I have seen in recent times, that too in a defence journals. Some questions and answers looked like they were headings or subheadings and are not expected from a defence journo, let alone an Editor-in-Chief. It is quite possible that the published interview is a severely and terribly edited version of a proper interview by someone with no background in defence or general matters. From the context though, it cannot be enhancements of capabilities for the Tejas as that will not offset the number of squadrons which was the question. And "further augment the fighter strength" should be read as "fighter (squadron) strength" as it was clubbed with procurement of 114 MRFAs. No 'enhancements' on Tejas would be comparable with the procurement of MRFAs. Just my 2p.

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

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 04 January 2021

Postby Kartik » 26 May 2021 11:56

Indranil wrote:OT.

I have been away, sucked away by the lure of Twitter. But I need to get back to my roots aka BRF. I have learned a lot from here and I need to give back some.
1. I want to have more discussions here. But here are my rules. I will only discuss technical issues. I will generally see myself out of long winded discussions. I will call out crap. I won't mind when others call out my crap (don't worry about my moderator rights) 
2. I want to recruit for BRF. I want to invite retired folks here. And I want to invite some of the new photographers and illustrators.


Good to see this post from you IR.

I have been saddened to see the slow withering away of the lively discussions on BRF. Twitter has lured many of us and it's done no good for BRF, but I think that we need to loosen up some of the excessively strict posting here..not saying that the quality of discussions must drop but we must allow newbies to feel comfortable and not leave just because they feel they cannot contribute here.

Would be amazing if we could get some more good posters here.

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

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 04 January 2021

Postby Kartik » 26 May 2021 11:58

ramana wrote:Kartik, My reading is not the same as yours on further LCA by ACM.

He wants enhancements ie more technology. Not more numbers.
I might be wrong.
One quibble I have is the phrase two or three years.

The 114 will kill future Indian-made aircraft.


Ramana sir, I read another interview of the ACM from around the same time frame where he clearly said they would look at more LCA numbers if required, in addition to the 83 Tejas Mk1A. What wasn't clear was whether he was referring to Mk1A or Mk2.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5001
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 04 January 2021

Postby srai » 26 May 2021 18:26

basant wrote:Ramana garu, this occurred to me too. In all fairness, that's probably one of the worst interviews I have seen in recent times, that too in a defence journals. Some questions and answers looked like they were headings or subheadings and are not expected from a defence journo, let alone an Editor-in-Chief. It is quite possible that the published interview is a severely and terribly edited version of a proper interview by someone with no background in defence or general matters. ...

A lot of interviews are not direct in person. Journalists send in questions and they get typed response in return. Probably the IAF HQ PR team writes the responses. I know this because I’ve had those type of interviews in my time.

basant
BRFite
Posts: 457
Joined: 20 Mar 2020 20:58

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 04 January 2021

Postby basant » 26 May 2021 18:40

Thank you, nice to know. Even then I would be surprised if this isn't the edited version, and a bad one at that. Just a guess. Wish there was more meat to it.

LakshmanPST
BRFite
Posts: 449
Joined: 05 Apr 2019 18:23

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 04 January 2021

Postby LakshmanPST » 26 May 2021 19:06

srai wrote:^^^

ACM (IAF) has been non-committal when it comes to MWF. He is for 114 MRFA though. AMCA also desired at the earliest.

Remains to be seen on MWF. Can it meet its very tight deadlines to supplant MRFA import?


This tweet from SJha--->
https://twitter.com/SJha1618/status/139 ... 30690?s=19
"Understand this. There is no certainty as far as the future procurement of the Tejas MK2 is concerned. This is what they are not telling you amidst all the hoopla on your various forums."
-
My guess is since Tejas Mk2 is not really ready, IAF is putting MRFA as a back up plan...
Once the testing of Tejas Mk2 commences and preliminary results start coming in, we might see cancellation of MRFA deal... Atleast that is what I hope...
Fingers crossed...

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 11143
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 04 January 2021

Postby Rakesh » 26 May 2021 20:06

Kartik wrote:I have been saddened to see the slow withering away of the lively discussions on BRF. Twitter has lured many of us and it's done no good for BRF, but I think that we need to loosen up some of the excessively strict posting here..not saying that the quality of discussions must drop but we must allow newbies to feel comfortable and not leave just because they feel they cannot contribute here.

How many times must we point out to you that there is a Forum Feedback thread for posts like this? This point was made very clear to you the last time, but you are still continuing on this. Do NOT make posts like this in this thread or any other thread for that matter. Feel free to make posts like this in the Forum Feedback thread - that is the whole point of that thread.

This is your last reminder. And do not reply to my post in this thread. Feel free to do so in the Forum Feedback thread.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5001
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 04 January 2021

Postby srai » 28 May 2021 15:46

^^^

Admins please move the above discussion to the relevant thread. Thanks.

basant
BRFite
Posts: 457
Joined: 20 Mar 2020 20:58

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 04 January 2021

Postby basant » 01 Jun 2021 14:26

Amiet R. Kashyap @Amitraaz: LCA Tejas radome

LCA Tejas radome under the lightning tests at the CABS facility of the @DRDO_India.

#Lightning testing is typically separated into Direct and Indirect Effects.
Direct Effects include all the physical damage caused by lightning strikes such as burning, melting,arcing, blasting.


Image

Saichand K
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 7
Joined: 29 Sep 2016 21:41

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 04 January 2021

Postby Saichand K » 01 Jun 2021 15:52

This seems to be in IISc.

basant
BRFite
Posts: 457
Joined: 20 Mar 2020 20:58

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 04 January 2021

Postby basant » 01 Jun 2021 16:11

I think it is CABS, but difficult to judge from one pic.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2696
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 04 January 2021

Postby Vivek K » 02 Jun 2021 01:00

Is there any news about MK1 deliveries? Or has HAL stopped production?

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 25444
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 04 January 2021

Postby chetak » 02 Jun 2021 01:10

basant wrote:I think it is CABS, but difficult to judge from one pic.



there is a Central Power Research Institute near IISc. They do very high voltage work there.

I have seen setups like this in their facilities.

could be there or maybe even LRDE

basant
BRFite
Posts: 457
Joined: 20 Mar 2020 20:58

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 04 January 2021

Postby basant » 02 Jun 2021 01:18

Possible. My guess was based on this blog.

Image

mody
BRFite
Posts: 882
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Mumbai, India

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 04 January 2021

Postby mody » 02 Jun 2021 16:19

Is that for a new Quartz based radome or old footage of previous kevlar radome? Are we developing a new radome to replace the Cobham radome?

basant
BRFite
Posts: 457
Joined: 20 Mar 2020 20:58

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 04 January 2021

Postby basant » 02 Jun 2021 16:39

By color it looks like the old one. The new radome was already qualified by Chobam, but not sure if they'd repeat the tests.

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 1657
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 04 January 2021

Postby ks_sachin » 02 Jun 2021 17:22

basant wrote:By color it looks like the old one. The new radome was already qualified by Chobam, but not sure if they'd repeat the tests.

CABS. Saw a similar picture first when I had no grey hair..

Saichand K
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 7
Joined: 29 Sep 2016 21:41

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 04 January 2021

Postby Saichand K » 03 Jun 2021 11:02

sfsfsdvssd

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 24279
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 04 January 2021

Postby SSridhar » 04 Jun 2021 07:37

Saichand K wrote:sfsfsdvssd

What ?

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55516
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 04 January 2021

Postby ramana » 04 Jun 2021 07:44

Folks non Tejas posts should be in IAF thread or appropriate thread.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: anandsgh and 73 guests