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

ArjunPandit · Post by **ArjunPandit** » 26 Jun 2018 00:59

I suppose this would not be redone for mk1a but what about mk2?

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 26 Jun 2018 01:37

Flying boom vs Probe & Drogue

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 26 Jun 2018 07:40

I have been thinking about the CG issue with fuel top up. Admittedly it is a big issue for the flight control system to manage. But it should not be that difficult manage when you compare how the same system deals and compensates for the sudden stores separation. When dilivering munitions.

No.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 26 Jun 2018 11:15

Fuel should be more complex compared to stores because you dont just have to balance the fuel in the fuselage to manage to CG as you fly but also want to make sure that engines are not started of fuel in all regimes of flight and that can even mean while you are pulling 9G or going -ve and aircraft can carry tons of fuel internally.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 26 Jun 2018 12:09

But manuvering and aircraft and insuring the fuel reaches the engine's is different from insuring the the CG of the aircraft is maintained when internal fuel is used up.

As we can be sure that while refueling the recipient aircraft will be in straight and level flight.

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 26 Jun 2018 13:18

Austin wrote:Fuel should be more complex compared to stores because you dont just have to balance the fuel in the fuselage to manage to CG as you fly but also want to make sure that engines are not started of fuel in all regimes of flight and that can even mean while you are pulling 9G or going -ve and aircraft can carry tons of fuel internally.

They must be keeping the fuel under constant minimum pressure at all times with actuators and closed loop feedback from pressure sensors to keep the fuel flowing smoothly.
Also continuously restricting the amount of physical free space the fuel has at any given point of time. It then never has any space to slosh around and its CG is predictable.
That's how i imagine its done, don't know how its actually done.

Eric Leiderman · Post by **Eric Leiderman** » 27 Jun 2018 05:37

https://indianexpress.com/article/india ... t-5234903/

MOD sets up a comittee to check the High Price quoted for the 1A by HAL

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 27 Jun 2018 06:04

Looks like HAL has been making excuses about changes by IAF.

Something is wrong when Mk1A
Costs more than Su 30MKI both HAL and imported

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 27 Jun 2018 06:50

This is what happens when you let bureaucrats run these things. I won't be surprised if both HAL/IAF run rings round them and no real results appear.

For instance:

The ministry had also asked IAF about allegations that it had made constant changes in ASQR (Air Staff Quality Requirements), which could have led to the delay. They found that there have been no changes in the ASQR of Tejas Mark1A, since it was first formalised in 2014. Even in the case of Tejas Mark1, the IAF had given 135 concessions on the ASQR to HAL.

This is a perfect example.

First,
The Ministry should actually ask about ECR - Engineering Change Requests. Put under feedback ostensibly to help meet the ASQR which are very high level, these ECR have numbered in the highest numbers possible and have essentially contributed to significant re-work (due to the dysfunction of the HAL-IAF-ADA relationship where IAF joined the program late, and HAL treated the LCA as a 2nd child, versus its own programs) and continued way after the TDs.

Second,
Next, if the Ministry had deployed any proper expertise, they would have realized the flawed nature of the TD-PV-LSP-SP approach wherein delays were baked into budgetary approvals to move from one stage to the next and the TDs were effectively nowhere near the SPs or actual operational platforms and many systems were looked at later.

Without addressing the lack of user involvement (which means, according to one account, dozens of ECRs to meet ASQR) and the high-level detailed ASQR, the entire dysfunction has been brushed under the carpet. No policy which says an IAF D&D team must and should be integrated with national programs from day one, and the D&D team acting as program input providers, should be given proper progression and not treated as separate from IAF.

Third,
What about the ASQRs themselves? Has any detailed review been done to see how unrealistic some of them were? No.. its all been nicely sugarcoated as being futuristic enough to allow LCA to remain relevant even today etc. Has it struck our decision makers that by asking for the moon very early, you end up getting a protracted development cycle way beyond what is achievable at that point in time?
For instance, was it really necessary to ask for Mirage 2000 level equivalent capability in a Mirage 2000 sized package with STR/ITR etc aero capabilities brochure picked from multiple platforms as has often been pointed to (for instance Cdr Mao himself pointed to this glaring issue).

I am glad the Ministry is actually doing some basic work but it speaks volumes how clueless they appear to be about more complex issues that are common to programs of this nature.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 27 Jun 2018 07:00

To avoid this
- Our ASQR etc best be as detailed as possible and anchored in the real world. For instance, can you image the chaos when an aircraft like the LCA has its user interface under development and there is no clear platform to benchmark against with clear metrics? Every time a TP changes, functionalities can end up changing. Arjun had this issue in spades. ASQR should also be anchored to industrial capability and cost/time metrics
- User D&D teams need to be in program management from day 1 and sign off
- Back up plans need to be implemented and ringfenced from CAG/CGDA style beancounters. Provisioning for abackup even if its not used is sunk cost, and unavoidable
- Budget honestly, time and resources. Dont claim ridiculous underprovisoned numbers with a wink nod and nudge from the users and manufacturers to hoodwink MOF and get program cleared. Tomorrow, those guys who were your partners will retire, institutional memory will disappear, and what will remain are solid statements that your entire program is over time and overbudget and users didn't receive x in y.
- Instead of the TD/PV etc approach, systems engineering and subsystem development should be done in advance and funded accordingly. Not merely waiting for some TD to be done and then a new program launched.
- Fund TD programs independent of platforms, this will avoid the entire mess of having to develop tech only when main program is launched
- Fund vendors to develop capabilities beyond the program, they will then work with you for LSP items. Indian SMEs will do this for a few tens of crores, peanuts compared to what we spend on imports.

These are but a few of the issues that can be easily addressed. But our Ministry is completely driven by paperwork, risk averse and reputation protecting babus and led by politicians (at least pre NDA) who were more interested in paalitics rather than national security.

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 27 Jun 2018 09:52

One thing that i dont understand is the big deal being made about the 463 cr. It is not as if we are buying it from outside. Consider this at today's dollar price it is 68 million, cost of a 404 and the radar is about 8-10million. The rest of the 58 million should theoretically stay within the country. Moreover, HAL will anyways pay back the profits as dividend to the government so whats the big deal ?

Dileep · Post by **Dileep** » 27 Jun 2018 10:04

If I had Rs 10 every time the customer said "I didn't change any spec onlee. It is all there onlee"!! We yindoos are experts in this, whether employed in public sector, or in the Indian arm of a multinational.

The spec will be carefully written to be deliberately ambiguous. Details will be glazed over during technical discussions. Once tender is awarded, demands will start piling up. If delivery slips, LD clause apply. Happened to us several times.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 27 Jun 2018 10:36

suryag wrote:One thing that i dont understand is the big deal being made about the 463 cr. It is not as if we are buying it from outside. Consider this at today's dollar price it is 68 million, cost of a 404 and the radar is about 8-10million. The rest of the 58 million should theoretically stay within the country. Moreover, HAL will anyways pay back the profits as dividend to the government so whats the big deal ?

Big Deal is because Armedforces have limited amount to spend on CAPEX and if HAL is charging IAF eye watering price then it will have to spend more or buy less fighter for the same money assigned to the program , even if money changes hand IAF procurement gets impacted.

I was expecting Tejas to cost not more than $40-42 million max but $68 million is huge ask

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 27 Jun 2018 10:40

They better not delay and derail the program with endless bureaucracy.

In trying to save some coin, they could end up destroying the entire program costing the country far more than a few crores.

Also whittling down the price could result in a sub-standard shoddy product as cuts are wrecklessly made to the plane just to meet the price.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 27 Jun 2018 11:00

68 Mil is ok, far cheaper than Rafale or any other replacement. Just put the funds there. We need to ramp up local production.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 27 Jun 2018 11:22

Quoted for truth. Ambiguous high level specs and wide leeway in interpretation and constantly changing evaluation teams.

Dileep wrote:If I had Rs 10 every time the customer said "I didn't change any spec onlee. It is all there onlee"!! We yindoos are experts in this, whether employed in public sector, or in the Indian arm of a multinational.

The spec will be carefully written to be deliberately ambiguous. Details will be glazed over during technical discussions. Once tender is awarded, demands will start piling up. If delivery slips, LD clause apply. Happened to us several times.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 27 Jun 2018 11:30

I think this cost audit is welcome. I am sure Tejas is more economical than anything out there. Whatever the outcome of these findings, India will win.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 27 Jun 2018 11:45

The Chinese vendors are a breed apart though. Any minor change in specs = howls of protests = huge back and forth = some concessions extracted elsewhere + your own resources need to be roped in otherwise chinese will charge an arm and a leg.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 27 Jun 2018 12:08

Indranil wrote:I think this cost audit is welcome. I am sure Tejas is more economical than anything out there. Whatever the outcome of these findings, India will win.

It will also knock some sense into HAL. Their exaggerated cost estimates for the Rafale were one reason why that 126 aircraft deal collapsed.

Dileep · Post by **Dileep** » 27 Jun 2018 12:44

Karan M wrote:The Chinese vendors are a breed apart though. Any minor change in specs = howls of protests = huge back and forth = some concessions extracted elsewhere + your own resources need to be roped in otherwise chinese will charge an arm and a leg.

It depends upon who has the leverage. You are nothing for the chinese guy. You hold no leverage on him. You are at his mercy to get the stuff you want.

With govt also, you have absolutely no leverage. You can get the PO only after you submit a Bank Guarantee, which will be promptly cashed if you pull out of a project. You can get paid only after every Eena, Meena and Deeka signs off on the acceptance. They will hold you on ransom to implement that "little feature" that they claim can be done in 2 days, but actually will need a major architecture revamp.

Trikaal · Post by **Trikaal** » 27 Jun 2018 13:48

68 mill is way too expensive for Tejas. That's more than F-16 or Su-30. Compare this with JF-17 which pakis are popping out at 25 mill. No way we can export this aircraft in future if price is going to be so high.

barath_s · Post by **barath_s** » 27 Jun 2018 13:59

Eric Leiderman wrote:https://indianexpress.com/article/india ... t-5234903/

MOD sets up a comittee to check the High Price quoted for the 1A by HAL

This will delay the contract signing by at least a year, per the article. Without a contract, long lead item purchases including systems/subsytems will not proceed.

HAL has had high costs in the past, also (eg mmrca rafale labor quote by HAL). But the ministry should also look at how the IAF and MoD way of working also impacts costs. Creating uncertainty, having smaller lots, or uneven jump and drop in production, unpredictable process, unpredictable configurations, uncertain approvals and delays also impact costs significantly. The process needs revamp, not just hal.

The one good thing is that they are thinking of taking a leaf from the navy and put an IAF officer on the board of the 1A project. That helps keep IAF involved and accountable too, for moving things forward, and can nip issues early.

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 27 Jun 2018 15:24

We could well be witnessing the destruction of the entire Tejas program with this latest move.

Time is the biggest enemy of Tejas and the Defence Ministry looks on track to sabotage the entire program with more time wasting.

The more time wasted with negotiations, the more irrelevant the production of the jet becomes.

Eventually imports of foreign jets are going to occur as a result of time pissed away on price negotiations and the program will go the way of the Arjun tank. The imports meanwhile will result in a foreign exchange outflow 5 to 7X what Tejas costs.

If they delay this program another 3 to 6 months as a result of this, it could well be the last straw.

pandyan · Post by **pandyan** » 27 Jun 2018 15:32

68m is with performance & logistics package?

Sid · Post by **Sid** » 27 Jun 2018 15:38

I think the major components driving cost up are

1. AESA radar
2. HMDS
3. Python, Derby AAM
4. Listening 2 Pod
5. External EW pod

#1 to #5 itself will be above 10-20 million mark.

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 27 Jun 2018 15:40

Saar you left injun out ?

Kakarat · Post by **Kakarat** » 27 Jun 2018 15:55

Sid wrote:I think the major components driving cost up are

1. AESA radar
2. HMDS
3. Python, Derby AAM
4. Listening 2 Pod
5. External EW pod

#1 to #5 itself will be above 10-20 million mark.

From the list except for 1 & 5 all others are already existing
Aren't weapons and pods purchased by IAF directly under separate contracts?

Sid · Post by **Sid** » 27 Jun 2018 17:36

I think they are trying to absorb LCA-1A development cost in these 84 units. That will include integration cost for new radar, with all the above mentioned items.

Usually higher order will lowers the per unit cost.

So if LCA 1A base cost is “assumed” to be ~$40 million per unit, then it’s development cost will be close to ~1.5 billion dollars, assuming HAL is asking for $60 million per unit. “This is pure speculation”.

Has government sanctioned separate budget for LCA 1A?

Sid · Post by **Sid** » 27 Jun 2018 17:43

Kakarat wrote:
Sid wrote:I think the major components driving cost up are

1. AESA radar
2. HMDS
3. Python, Derby AAM
4. Litening 2 Pod
5. External EW pod

#1 to #5 itself will be above 10-20 million mark.
From the list except for 1 & 5 all others are already existing
Aren't weapons and pods purchased by IAF directly under separate contracts?

But those were never ordered in numbers, and current LCA fleet may not have them, except HMDS, and Litening pod. There should be a fresh contract for them, plus additional spares. $$$ is much stronger now, hence driving up the import cost.

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 27 Jun 2018 18:04

Again, the cost of Sukhoi is from 2006-7 contract, a new contract would cost significantly more than that.

If you want top of the line technologies like AESA radar, self protection jammer and carbon composite body it’s going to cost you. With that said, $68M/aircraft is a lot of money for a light fighter aircraft.

Kakkaji · Post by **Kakkaji** » 27 Jun 2018 20:12

suryag wrote:lots of updates
IAF, HAL end impasse over Tejas trainers

From this story on the last page:

IAF says there are more worries on its plate on the Tejas front even after forming the No 45 Flying Daggers Squadron in 2016. “As you know we started the Squadron operations with two aircraft in July 2016 and today after two years we have only added another seven more to the fleet. The SP-9 which came out in March this year has been only accepted now after lots of initial concerns. Operational criticality is key to our fleet and we look at it from all possible angles,” says the official

It seems SP-9, just like SP-5, had post-production 'concerns' that delayed acceptance into the squadron. So, the production quality is still an issue.

As for the production rate, 3 months have passed in this financial year and not a single new unit delivered yet. SP-10 was promised to be ready a month after SP-9, and it has not flown yet. At this rate, I don't see how HAL will deliver the 12 aircraft it promised for this financial year.

No wonder the IAF is upset, and wants to import the Gripen or F-16.

I am sorry to say this, but to me it looks like the LCA is going the Arjun way.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 27 Jun 2018 20:53

HAL is just extracting more money from IAF on Mk1A as it is the only entity that can produce it , IAF cant import or has any other private entity that would offer a competitive price , So HAL is just ripping of on this and would present a fat cheque to MOD as dividend.

MOD should sent a Never Exceed Price for Tejas when it gives a tender to HAL that should not exceed $45 million and profit for Government enntity should not exceed 8 % as Russian MOD does.

I agree with kaakjji which I rarely do that HAL wll screw up Tejas and IAF would be happy to go for more Gripen or F-16 , The same thing Vijainder K Thakur mentioned about HAL 3 days back before this news came up on IE and he was criticised for it and now it turning to be true

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 27 Jun 2018 21:08

Austin wrote:HAL is just extracting more money from IAF on Mk1A as it is the only entity that can produce it , IAF cant import or has any other private entity that would offer a competitive price , So HAL is just ripping of on this and would present a fat cheque to MOD as dividend.

MOD should sent a Never Exceed Price for Tejas when it gives a tender to HAL that should not exceed $45 million and profit for Government enntity should not exceed 8 % as Russian MOD does.

I agree with kaakjji which I rarely do that HAL wll screw up Tejas and IAF would be happy to go for more Gripen or F-16 , The same thing Vijainder K Thakur mentioned about HAL 3 days back before this news came up on IE and he was criticised for it and now it turning to be true

Wouldn't it make sense for MOD to not give the cheque in first place?
Why would MoD need money from HAL? Its their money in first place.

Tis logic doesn't compute.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 27 Jun 2018 21:17

Eric Leiderman wrote:https://indianexpress.com/article/india ... t-5234903/

MOD sets up a comittee to check the High Price quoted for the 1A by HAL

The euphoria within the defence establishment over the induction of the first indigenous Light Combat Aircraft into the IAF appears to have subsided with the Defence Ministry forming a committee to look into the “high price” demanded by Bengaluru-based public sector manufacturer, Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL), for Tejas Mark1A.

Sources told The Indian Express that in response to a request for a proposal for 83 Tejas Mark1A fighter jets issued by the IAF in December last year, HAL quoted a price of Rs 463 crore per jet in April. This raised eyebrows in the government, sources said, as the price compared unfavourably even with more modern foreign fighters. “The HAL supplies the more modern Russian Sukhoi fighter, which it assembles at Nashik, at Rs 415 crore. The Russians supply it at Rs 330 crore. The Swedish Gripen was offered to us for Rs 455 crore, and F-16 for Rs 380 crore, and both were to be made in India. The HAL itself gave us Tejas Mark1 at Rs 100 crore less. This price for an improved version seems high,” sources said.

{So even Tejas Mk1 is overpriced at Rs 463-100= Rs. 363 crores. What's going on in the way costs are allocated at HAL?}

READ | Rs 50,000 crore: Indian Air Force orders 83 Tejas aircraft from HAL

Concerned about the price for an indigenous fighter jet, which the government has been keen to promote under Make in India scheme, the committee set up by the Defence Ministry will look into the pricing of military equipment manufactured by defence PSUs. The committee is headed by Principal Advisor (Cost) in the ministry and is likely to submit its report in the next few weeks.

....

Once the committee submits its report, the ministry will form a commercial negotiations committee (CNC) to bring down HAL’s price for the jet. The contract for 83 jets, sources said, will take another year before it is finally signed.

According to sources, the Defence Ministry is also concerned about the delay in supply of the existing order of the first lot of 40 Tejas fighter jets. In last three years, only nine fighter jets in Initial Operational Clearance (IOC) mode were supplied against an order of 20. The order for another 20 Tejas jets in Final Operational Clearance (FOC) has not even begun, as the FOC has not yet been attained by the aircraft. The ministry has also agreed that the HAL will supply eight trainer aircraft out of 40, after the 36 Tejas Mark1 have been supplied. “The idea was that HAL will produce 18 Tejas fighters every year. That is the only way we can provide IAF to make up its numbers as its older fighters go out of service. But there has been a delay and we are in touch with HAL about it,” sources said.

The ministry had also asked IAF about allegations that it had made constant changes in ASQR (Air Staff Quality Requirements), which could have led to the delay. They found that there have been no changes in the ASQR of Tejas Mark1A, since it was first formalised in 2014. Even in the case of Tejas Mark1, the IAF had given 135 concessions on the ASQR to HAL.

“We were somewhat surprised to learn that contrary to the impression, there have been no changes in the requirements given by the IAF, except for items which had reached obsolescence. Mark1 had no Electronic Warfare capability and before Mark2 could be produced, Mark1A is meant to fill up that gap. Those were not additional requirements added later, but formulated in 2014 itself when HAL offered Mark1A,” sources explained.

The problem, sources said, are mainly of coordination and ownership of the Tejas project between the HAL, IAF and Aeronautical Development Authority (ADA). Borrowing from the successful Navy model of indigenous defence production, ministry is now asking for a senior member of IAF on the board of HAL for greater coordination.

The Tejas indigenous fighter project was first conceived in 1984, benchmarked against the Mirage2000, with a view to replace IAF’s ageing Mig21 fleet. The order for first 20 Tejas Mark1 (IOC) was placed in 2006, and the jet inducted in the IAF in 2016.

Awful Program management from MoD and IAF of ADA and HAL. All the reviews were passive oversight and chai biskoot sessions.
Who was monitoring the costs as the plane was being developed?

nam · Post by **nam** » 27 Jun 2018 21:19

Austin wrote:HAL is just extracting more money from IAF on Mk1A as it is the only entity that can produce it , IAF cant import or has any other private entity that would offer a competitive price , So HAL is just ripping of on this and would present a fat cheque to MOD as dividend.

MOD should sent a Never Exceed Price for Tejas when it gives a tender to HAL that should not exceed $45 million and profit for Government enntity should not exceed 8 % as Russian MOD does.

HAL is now a listed company. So it is riffing off it's captive client.. like any listed company would do.

Now GoI is in a bind. Regulating price means half share price will go down. It cannot bring competition, as it will drop the share price.

The easy way out.. MoD will agree for the price. Being the owner it will get the money back and share price will increase, so MoD can sell more shares.

Win win...win.

So somebody in MoD, who probably has discounted shares, came up with plan.

Kakkaji · Post by **Kakkaji** » 27 Jun 2018 22:00

When HAL had proposed Mk1A around 2014, it was touted as a quick 'interim' solution to get into service a product that the IAF was willing to accept. As per the promises at that time, it should have started entering service by now. The way things are going, I will be surprised if it enters service by 2025, if ever.

I am having a feeling of deja vu with the Arjun project, where:

LCA Mk1 = Arjun Mk1
LCA Mk1A = Karna (Arjun turret on T-72 chassis)
LCA Mk2 = Arjun Mk2

F-16/ Gripen = T-90

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 28 Jun 2018 00:06

Laughing = Pakis, Cheen, Firang suppliers
Sad= Fans of Tejas
Flummoxed = IAF ( all we asked was an EW suite), MoD (price)
No change= ADA and HAL (We will stick it to you)

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 28 Jun 2018 03:12

ramana wrote:Tis logic doesn't compute.

HAL playing games to increase Mk1A orders. If the number from 83 goes up, HAL will reduce the price. All this talk about price is that onlee.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 28 Jun 2018 03:27

https://twitter.com/strategic_front/sta ... 52416?s=21 —> 1. This is such misreporting it borders on propaganda.This is NOT how you calculate unit price,they have inferred cost by adding TOTAL weapons, support, training and aircraft costs dividing by number of units. Then compared to flyaway unit cost of others minus ANY additional costs.

https://twitter.com/strategic_front/sta ... 65504?s=21 —> 2. Result will ALWAYS be that the LCA will appear massively more expensive than its competitors but this is so absurdly inaccurate. Instead of comparing apples and oranges one should look at how fighter deals ACTUALLY occur, you are not just buying the plane.

https://twitter.com/strategic_front/sta ... 52480?s=21 —> 3.Using the IAF’s Rafale deal one can see exactly how fighter deals are structured and that here there were $5bn in additional costs excluding the actual jets.If you added these costs to the unit costs of the jets and divided by 36 this would provide you a very misleading picture.

https://twitter.com/strategic_front/sta ... 41856?s=21 —> 4. This is before we even get into the nonsensical idea that one can compare a BRAND NEW fighter jet that hasn’t even entered full scale operations yet with a jet that has been produced in the 100s (Su-30) and 1000s (F16) over many decades. Entire analysis is flawed.

https://twitter.com/strategic_front/sta ... 59457?s=21 —> Fact is the user knows the truth, these pieces reek of a disturbing amount of ignorance or a blatant sales pitch for imports.

https://twitter.com/strategic_front/sta ... 87520?s=21 —> Also needs to be clarified how the figures have been calculated, seems entirely plausible that the development cost of 1A are to be amortised over the first 83 units adding $15-20m per plane.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 28 Jun 2018 03:35

What development cost if 1A being amortized by HAL? Isn't DRDO funding ADA for that?