Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

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.
Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9873
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Aditya_V » 29 Sep 2018 12:31

You can always as contract with variations based on price of inputs, its not that but a lot of people with be pressurized by Make in India in various ways.

Eric Leiderman
BRFite
Posts: 358
Joined: 26 Nov 2010 08:56

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Eric Leiderman » 30 Sep 2018 00:47

In What stage of our procurement process the possibility of 40 more sukhois stuck, Or has it even commenced.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2829
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby chola » 30 Sep 2018 14:33

JTull wrote:
chola wrote:
The crux of the issue is those last three tweets. Payments for 40 is not enough to convince suppliers to invest in capital equipment to ramp up output of parts which in turn makes them expensive being small batch orders.

The GOI/IAF needs to confirm large orders and set aside a budget so the suppliers know that money is available and they can be confident that capital expenditure will pay off.


What about spares for aircraft in sqn service?


Like that for any product in small batch production. Short of supply and brutally expensive.

RKumar
BRFite
Posts: 996
Joined: 26 Jul 2009 12:29
Location: Evolution is invention, explosion is destruction.

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby RKumar » 01 Oct 2018 00:52

Eric Leiderman wrote:In What stage of our procurement process the possibility of 40 more sukhois stuck, Or has it even commenced.


I highly doubtful if this order will be placed. But who knows what surprise may come from Modi-Putin summit? Normally, such events are protocol driven but Mr. Modi keeps surprising us :mrgreen:

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1349
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Khalsa » 01 Oct 2018 01:17

I am learning more about Su-30s in this thread than in the Su thread.
:)

prasannasimha
Forum Moderator
Posts: 881
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 00:22

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby prasannasimha » 01 Oct 2018 09:32

Please stop Sukhoi discussion here. Will delete any Sukhoi discussion if it continues here.

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 684
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby ks_sachin » 01 Oct 2018 10:02

prasannasimha wrote:Please stop Sukhoi discussion here. Will delete any Sukhoi discussion if it continues here.

You should not give warning. Just do it otherwise people dont learn.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50757
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby ramana » 01 Oct 2018 10:10

Don't do that. Please transfer the posts to the right thread. Or report them.and I will do the needful.

sankum
BRFite
Posts: 553
Joined: 20 Dec 2004 21:45

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby sankum » 04 Oct 2018 11:20

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95TxsfyauCU
CAS interview .Total 12sq of Tejas 231nos planned 2sq mk1(40nos)+ 4sq mk1a(83nos)+6sq mk2(108 nos)

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50757
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby ramana » 04 Oct 2018 19:31

Now that IAF has made an overt commitment, ADA should be on track to complete the FOC.
What is their ECD now for FOC standard?

Trikaal
BRFite
Posts: 499
Joined: 19 Jul 2017 08:01

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Trikaal » 04 Oct 2018 20:36

sankum wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95TxsfyauCU
CAS interview .Total 12sq of Tejas 231nos planned 2sq mk1(40nos)+ 4sq mk1a(83nos)+6sq mk2(108 nos)


Nice vote of confidence from the CAS. But I can't help but notice that he has already slashed Mk2 nos by half(original plan was for 201 IIRC). Maybe this was done to make room for MMRCA procurement?

sankum
BRFite
Posts: 553
Joined: 20 Dec 2004 21:45

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby sankum » 04 Oct 2018 22:26

Yes IAF is committed to 6sq MMRCA (110 nos) as it wants to end Su 30 mki at 272 nos and have reduced the Tejas mk2 numbers.

nam
BRFite
Posts: 1575
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby nam » 04 Oct 2018 23:55

230 is more than enough to provide scale to LCA production. It is going to take us 15 years( if not more) to produce these numbers.

It is very important that IAF has foretasted a need of 230 LCA, so the suppliers know it has a firm future.

In 15 years time, we don't know what things are going to be. If IAF needs, it will ask HAL to continue the production.

Trikaal
BRFite
Posts: 499
Joined: 19 Jul 2017 08:01

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Trikaal » 05 Oct 2018 02:07

^It is a death sentence for the sale of '324 t-shirts' though :rotfl: On a serious note, yes, the vote of confidence in Tejas is very nice. Now hopefully the numbers won't go down any further. 231 is good enough too and in 15 years we might be talking about AMCA orders. (Hopefully!!!)

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50757
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby ramana » 05 Oct 2018 03:46

Also means the 108 Mk2 will have F414 engine imports.
No one can justify Kaveri engine mfg line for that.

Maybe HAL should start negotiating price for GE to supply the 404 and 414 engines and get option contracts.

For example price the 404 now and add escalation factor and exercise the options as they obtain funds from MoD.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36074
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby SaiK » 05 Oct 2018 07:49

that is a significant one-liner info on mk2. /will post a ref in that thread.

Trikaal
BRFite
Posts: 499
Joined: 19 Jul 2017 08:01

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Trikaal » 05 Oct 2018 14:16

I have a question for the more knowledgeable folks here:

Why were canards not included in the Tejas design?

I know that the Tejas's delta wing was shaped so that it would generate more lift and it was thought to be sufficient at that time. But what was the rationale behind excluding canards altogether? Surely extra lift above requirements would have been beneficial. What were the advantages for excluding canards from the design? I know stealth was one but Tejas wasn't designed in the 80's and 90's as a stealth bird so that couldn't be it.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9873
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Aditya_V » 05 Oct 2018 14:33

From what I remember Canards also increase the radar signature of an aircraft significantly, for a small fighter it can matter in A to A engagements

Trikaal
BRFite
Posts: 499
Joined: 19 Jul 2017 08:01

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Trikaal » 05 Oct 2018 16:14

Aditya_V wrote:From what I remember Canards also increase the radar signature of an aircraft significantly, for a small fighter it can matter in A to A engagements

Yes, but Tejas wasn't conceptualized as a stealth aircraft. So this shouldn't have been a problem during design. Remember, at that time it was only meant as a Mig-21 replacement. And if I am not wrong, every fighter jet designed during that time had canards.

Raveen
BRFite
Posts: 443
Joined: 18 Jun 2008 00:51
Location: 1/2 way between the gutter and the stars
Contact:

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Raveen » 05 Oct 2018 19:12

Trikaal wrote:I have a question for the more knowledgeable folks here:

Why were canards not included in the Tejas design?

I know that the Tejas's delta wing was shaped so that it would generate more lift and it was thought to be sufficient at that time. But what was the rationale behind excluding canards altogether? Surely extra lift above requirements would have been beneficial. What were the advantages for excluding canards from the design? I know stealth was one but Tejas wasn't designed in the 80's and 90's as a stealth bird so that couldn't be it.


Where there is lift, there is drag - the issue with the Tejas Mk1 is that it is already too draggy and they already made improvements to reduce the overall drag for the IOC version, and furthermore with the Mk1A version, it would be counterintuitive to add another drag element for the Mk2 after going through an exercise to reduce drag for the first version.

Trikaal
BRFite
Posts: 499
Joined: 19 Jul 2017 08:01

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Trikaal » 05 Oct 2018 19:22

^Thanks! So drag is the reason they decided to drop the canards.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3599
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby JayS » 05 Oct 2018 19:48

Trikaal wrote:I have a question for the more knowledgeable folks here:

Why were canards not included in the Tejas design?

I know that the Tejas's delta wing was shaped so that it would generate more lift and it was thought to be sufficient at that time. But what was the rationale behind excluding canards altogether? Surely extra lift above requirements would have been beneficial. What were the advantages for excluding canards from the design? I know stealth was one but Tejas wasn't designed in the 80's and 90's as a stealth bird so that couldn't be it.


Because ADA evaluated the canards and they didn't find any particular advantage of having canards as against added complexities in FCS.

Tejas MK2 is going to have Canards.

suryag
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3151
Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby suryag » 05 Oct 2018 19:53

Jays sir if the earlier reasons are still valid why add canards now ?

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 684
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby ks_sachin » 05 Oct 2018 19:56

Trikaal wrote:^Thanks! So drag is the reason they decided to drop the canards.

Trikaal,
All this has been discussed umpteen no of times. Please read through Jay or Indranils posts over the past year. You will get a lot of other useful info. Every thing and i mean pretty much every thing about the LCA has been addressed in this thread previously...
Yet....

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 684
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby ks_sachin » 05 Oct 2018 19:59

suryag wrote:Jays sir if the earlier reasons are still valid why add canards now ?

Again this was discussed previously Mr Moderator Sir.

I quote IR
The canards on LCA will allow envelop expansion beyond what is possible with LCA Mk1/1A."

Trikaal
BRFite
Posts: 499
Joined: 19 Jul 2017 08:01

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Trikaal » 05 Oct 2018 20:40

ks_sachin sir,
There are 100s of pages worth of discussion and posters like Indranil Sir have 1000s of posts. It is a little intimidating, not to mention time-consuming, to go through so much material. But will do, so thanks for the suggestion.

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 684
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby ks_sachin » 05 Oct 2018 20:46

Trikaal,

I understand but i picked up IRs post from the first google search.

Canards + lca mk2 + bha... rakshak!!!

Actually Trikaal the br archives is not only a treasuree trove on LCA but IR, JS, Dileep, Maitya et all have contributed greatly to general aerodynamics knowledge as well and engine dev.

I gained a lot..

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6980
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Indranil » 05 Oct 2018 21:41

Thank you Sachin sir for your kind words. I have learnt a lot along the way. I got away with writing a lot of crap in the beginning just because the knowledgables let it fly under the radar.

Returning to canards and LCA. It is not about drag. Yes canards increase frontal area and weight which increase drag, but canards allow you to distribute the wing area more uniformly along the length giving better drag profile for most of the flight envelop. Also at high alpha close coupled canards can decrease L/D ratio by actively controlling vortices over the wing.

At the very beginning, they were studying various combinations: three from within ourselves, one from the French, one from the British and one from the Russians. Out of these, 2 had canards. In the end, they found that they did not need a control canard (like in EF) because the large flaperons were always effective in providing the nose pointing ability. The advantages for the close coupled canard were not significantly higher than 3 active slats and a cranked delta. Also, the cranked delta gives excellent performance in the supersonic domain in the presence of a sideslip. So they decided to go for simplicity given that they were already taking enormous risks. They wanted to keep the FCS simple.

Now, they have a very good handle on the aerodynamics of the LCA and the FCS. So, now they are refining. Mk2 will have canards. They studied 3 configs and chose the best one.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6980
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Indranil » 05 Oct 2018 22:01

On Mk1, I came to know of something yesterday which made my lungi flutter quite a lot. I wanted to share it with you, but I was told to hold back a little longer till the TPs can explore that part a bit more. Will let you know as soon as I know. Will make all of you very happy. And then IDRW can go write an exclusive about it :P.

The ferry range of Mk1 without refueling was over 2000 kms with three tanks. With two tanks, they used to fly nonstop from Bangalore to Jodhpur with 500 kgs of fuel left in the tank. I will leave it to you to imagine the range when it is refueled.

FOC is very close now. They are going for the last set of flight test for validating the latest CLAW, avionics and weapon profile. They can finish this in about a month and feel comfortable of clearing the tests. Of no NEW demands come, FOC seems likely by year-end or therabouts.

SP-11 is getting close to get to the air SP-12 and 13 in equipping phase. They should be able to deliver Sp-16 by March of next year.

Zynda
BRFite
Posts: 1480
Joined: 07 Jan 2006 00:37
Location: J4

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Zynda » 05 Oct 2018 22:04

The kind of influence LCA program has had on current & future aerospace programs is immense. To appreciate it, one has to hear it from experts & rookie scientists who are on the beneficial receiving end. From my recent interactions, learnt that now "experts" from ADA are being consulted in Aerodynamics, FCS, Simulation, Structures, Propulsion (mainly GTRE folks here) etc., by other DRDO labs & HAL entities for on-going current programs. There has been an immense push to record the lessons learnt from ADA's experience & develop SOPs for various engineering & testing aspects...sort of do Knowledge Based Engineering. And such SOPs will be made available to other Indian Govt labs (& academic institutions as required). Although there is no one formula that can be applied to range of programs across the board, having such SOPs will cut down wastage on efforts to a large extent. One can imagine the kind of efforts (engineering & testing) that went in to acquiring them vast pool of knowledge by ADA over the 90s & in to 2000s. The ADA folks themselves sound confident (not cocky) about LCA Mk.2 given that they are now familiar extensively with the airframe.

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 684
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby ks_sachin » 05 Oct 2018 22:11

Indranil wrote:On Mk1, I came to know of something yesterday which made my lungi flutter quite a lot. I wanted to share it with you, but I was told to hold back a little longer till the TPs can explore that part a bit more. Will let you know as soon as I know. Will make all of you very happy. And then IDRW can go write an exclusive about it :P.

The ferry range of Mk1 without refueling was over 2000 kms with three tanks. With two tanks, they used to fly nonstop from Bangalore to Jodhpur with 500 kgs of fuel left in the tank. I will leave it to you to imagine the range when it is refueled.

FOC is very close now. They are going for the last set of flight test for validating the latest CLAW, avionics and weapon profile. They can finish this in about a month and feel comfortable of clearing the tests. Of no NEW demands come, FOC seems likely by year-end or therabouts.

SP-11 is getting close to get to the air SP-12 and 13 in equipping phase. They should be able to deliver Sp-16 by March of next year.


IR why not keep producing MK1 and then upgrade to mk1a when that is ready....
Also how diff Ji would it be to add probe and areas to mk1 as an upgrade?

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1100
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Gyan » 05 Oct 2018 22:34

Indranil wrote:On Mk1, I came to know of something yesterday which made my lungi flutter quite a lot. I wanted to share it with you, but I was told to hold back a little longer till the TPs can explore that part a bit more. Will let you know as soon as I know. Will make all of you very happy. And then IDRW can go write an exclusive about it :P.

The ferry range of Mk1 without refueling was over 2000 kms with three tanks. With two tanks, they used to fly nonstop from Bangalore to Jodhpur with 500 kgs of fuel left in the tank. I will leave it to you to imagine the range when it is refueled.

FOC is very close now. They are going for the last set of flight test for validating the latest CLAW, avionics and weapon profile. They can finish this in about a month and feel comfortable of clearing the tests. Of no NEW demands come, FOC seems likely by year-end or therabouts.

SP-11 is getting close to get to the air SP-12 and 13 in equipping phase. They should be able to deliver Sp-16 by March of next year.


That will mean only 6-7 LCA in one financial year ie 2018-19?

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6980
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Indranil » 05 Oct 2018 22:38

Frankly, I don't know why Mk1s can't be upgraded to Mk1A-standard. HAL is now claiming the refueling as Mk1A capability. Well, it is part of Mk1-FOC!. An external SPJ can be added to an Mk1. The radar can be upgraded from 2032 to 2052. The only thing left is redistribution of LRUs. I don't know how much of redistribution they will do, so can't comment.

I also have other questions too: When the hell will the OBOGs get integrated. DEBEL "officially" handed over the system to ADA in 2014!!!

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6980
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Indranil » 05 Oct 2018 22:41

Gyan wrote:That will mean only 6-7 LCA in one financial year ie 2018-19?

Yes, 7. They are behind schedule. But they will catch up soon. If they deliver 11-16 in (Oct to March), that's 6 aircraft in 6 months.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3599
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby JayS » 05 Oct 2018 22:58

please no Sir-ing guys. We belittle here those who really deserve respect at drop of hat.

suryag wrote:Jays if the earlier reasons are still valid why add canards now ?


1. Mk2 != MK1. Its bigger, longer, more refined and less draggy.
2. We can deal with any added complexity in FCS easily now for even relatively small gain in capability.

Raveen wrote:
Where there is lift, there is drag - the issue with the Tejas Mk1 is that it is already too draggy and they already made improvements to reduce the overall drag for the IOC version, and furthermore with the Mk1A version, it would be counterintuitive to add another drag element for the Mk2 after going through an exercise to reduce drag for the first version.


Guess what ADA did the counterintuitive thing. :D Canards reduce trip drag. Unless you specify what drag you are talking about, it makes no sense to say canards increase drag. One should take statements like "Canards increase drag" or "Canards reduce stealth" with pinch of salt.

Zynda wrote:The kind of influence LCA program has had on current & future aerospace programs is immense. To appreciate it, one has to hear it from experts & rookie scientists who are on the beneficial receiving end. From my recent interactions, learnt that now "experts" from ADA are being consulted in Aerodynamics, FCS, Simulation, Structures, Propulsion (mainly GTRE folks here) etc., by other DRDO labs & HAL entities for on-going current programs. There has been an immense push to record the lessons learnt from ADA's experience & develop SOPs for various engineering & testing aspects...sort of do Knowledge Based Engineering. And such SOPs will be made available to other Indian Govt labs (& academic institutions as required). Although there is no one formula that can be applied to range of programs across the board, having such SOPs will cut down wastage on efforts to a large extent. One can imagine the kind of efforts (engineering & testing) that went in to acquiring them vast pool of knowledge by ADA over the 90s & in to 2000s. The ADA folks themselves sound confident (not cocky) about LCA Mk.2 given that they are now familiar extensively with the airframe.


LCA is the little guy with giant shoulders.

The knowledge and tools from ADA and other such labs should be made available to all desi companies (only pure desi companies) at little or no cost.

Indranil wrote:On Mk1, I came to know of something yesterday which made my lungi flutter quite a lot. I wanted to share it with you, but I was told to hold back a little longer till the TPs can explore that part a bit more. Will let you know as soon as I know. Will make all of you very happy. And then IDRW can go write an exclusive about it :P.

Any teaser or hint for jingos till then..?

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6980
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Indranil » 05 Oct 2018 23:17

Envelop

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 684
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby ks_sachin » 05 Oct 2018 23:22

AoA?

I know you had said something around last AI re low speed handling.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3599
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby JayS » 06 Oct 2018 00:12

Indranil wrote:Frankly, I don't know why Mk1s can't be upgraded to Mk1A-standard. HAL is now claiming the refueling as Mk1A capability. Well, it is part of Mk1-FOC!. An external SPJ can be added to an Mk1. The radar can be upgraded from 2032 to 2052. The only thing left is redistribution of LRUs. I don't know how much of redistribution they will do, so can't comment.

I also have other questions too: When the hell will the OBOGs get integrated. DEBEL "officially" handed over the system to ADA in 2014!!!


There have been indications in past that either the 20 FOC jets would be upgraded to Mk1A standard or they will directly be built as MK1A standard. We will have to wait and see on some official confirmation on exact status, or its so that the status might change based on situation.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50757
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby ramana » 06 Oct 2018 01:11

JayS, I too recall that part about 20 FOC jets would be close to or the Mk1A standard.

dkhare
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 28
Joined: 10 Feb 2009 03:30

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby dkhare » 06 Oct 2018 02:05

Indranil wrote:Envelop


AoA 24 > 26 > 28?


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: brar_w and 26 guests