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


Brad Goodman
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2369
Joined: 01 Apr 2010 17:00

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

Postby Brad Goodman » 21 Jan 2019 18:20

If IAF does not want Tejas in huge numbers (big assumption IF) then I would say Govt needs to induct them into Army Aviation, coast guards and BSF. It can make these organizations more nimble less reliant on IAF. Tejas in basic configurations can provide air cover to their operations

Zynda
BRFite
Posts: 1541
Joined: 07 Jan 2006 00:37
Location: J4

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

Postby Zynda » 21 Jan 2019 18:29

JayS wrote:PS - 1 in 100 is not rare by Aerospace design standard. Even if its as low as 1 in 1000000, its a valid case for considering for design IMO. Anything lower than that can be aceeptable risk. Because the FoS on design wpuld give sufficient margin to counter that one off case and at the same time design for too rare event would not penalize the designed component unnecessary. Untimately, no design is foolproof. One has to go by what is acceptable risk and what is not. Make it too conservative and aircrafts will become so heavy they will never be able to fly, or too expensive.

I just threw that number out there without any prior or background info. Anyways, could you share a link to the DTIC article on canopy design for bird strikes. Was searching for articles on bird strike...

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3897
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby JayS » 21 Jan 2019 19:50

Zynda wrote:
JayS wrote:PS - 1 in 100 is not rare by Aerospace design standard. Even if its as low as 1 in 1000000, its a valid case for considering for design IMO. Anything lower than that can be aceeptable risk. Because the FoS on design wpuld give sufficient margin to counter that one off case and at the same time design for too rare event would not penalize the designed component unnecessary. Untimately, no design is foolproof. One has to go by what is acceptable risk and what is not. Make it too conservative and aircrafts will become so heavy they will never be able to fly, or too expensive.

I just threw that number out there without any prior or background info. Anyways, could you share a link to the DTIC article on canopy design for bird strikes. Was searching for articles on bird strike...


www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/779729.pdf

I hope this is correct link. Cant open and cross verify from this computer as this doesn't connect to DTIC server for some reason. just check.

Zynda
BRFite
Posts: 1541
Joined: 07 Jan 2006 00:37
Location: J4

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

Postby Zynda » 21 Jan 2019 20:56

^^Thanks. Yeah, for some reason, certain IP addresses from India cannot open/access DTIC server. Using a free VPN is a workaround.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6672
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Postby Rakesh » 22 Jan 2019 00:20

Brad Goodman wrote:If IAF does not want Tejas in huge numbers (big assumption IF) then I would say Govt needs to induct them into Army Aviation, coast guards and BSF. It can make these organizations more nimble less reliant on IAF. Tejas in basic configurations can provide air cover to their operations

Saar, not going to happen.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2226
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby Cybaru » 22 Jan 2019 09:34

:D Birdies only like LCA canopy! It must be invisible!

prasannasimha
Forum Moderator
Posts: 980
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 00:22

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

Postby prasannasimha » 22 Jan 2019 10:44

JayS wrote:
prasannasimha wrote:SP14 had its maiden test flight. SP13 to follow. SP 14 flew before 13

From two different lines.


Of course. From two different lines.

Dileep
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5491
Joined: 04 Apr 2005 08:17
Location: Dera Mahab Ali धरा महाबलिस्याः درا مهاب الي

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

Postby Dileep » 22 Jan 2019 10:53

I have second hand (my bro was on the early design team, and his then boss is my close friend now) anecdotes on the interaction between the "pilots" and "designers" during the early design/simulation and putting together of the TDs. I never heard an indication of unprofessional behaviour from the IAF folk. Not even from good old Matheswaran. He was adamant on his views. No one liked him for that. But he carried himself like what you expect from an officer.

That is what I heard.

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2567
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

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

Postby tsarkar » 22 Jan 2019 11:59

JayS wrote:
tsarkar wrote:The quoted part is a very Corporate Office based Executive Assistant/Management Consultant approach without understanding field operational aspects. No offence intended, Zynda Ji :D but that is how IAS / Management works.


Actually Sir, this is exactly how a design criteria shoukd be decided upon. And no, managers dont talk like this, this is very much like what a Engineer should thing like. And this kind of uestion seeks the right kind of real life data to base the technical criteria upon rather than based on some unrealistic theoretical stuff.

PS - 1 in 100 is not rare by Aerospace design standard. Even if its as low as 1 in 1000000, its a valid case for considering for design IMO. Anything lower than that can be aceeptable risk. Because the FoS on design wpuld give sufficient margin to counter that one off case and at the same time design for too rare event would not penalize the designed component unnecessary. Untimately, no design is foolproof. One has to go by what is acceptable risk and what is not. Make it too conservative and aircrafts will become so heavy they will never be able to fly, or too expensive.


Dear Jay, the reason I questioned the questions is because the data asked is extensively recorded by IAF Flight Safety Directorate since 1960 and at IAF Institute of Aerospace Medicine based at Bangalore like ADA.

http://indianairforce.nic.in/content/in ... dicine-iam

One does not need to start zero base. As Deejay explained, this is very common in India. I searched BR itself and found the following

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Datab ... qyear=2017
Wg Cdr Ravinder Ahlawat (26300-T) Flying (Pilot) has been on the posted strength of a front line Indian Air Force Establishment since 20 April 2013. On 26 Ju116, he was authorized to carry out a 'Range Instructional Technique' (RIT) sortie over Pokharan Range in Mirage 2000 Trainer aircraft as the captain of the aircraft, occupying the front cockpit. While carrying out "Pull Up Attack" circuit, at 500 ft above ground level at high speeds and in a tum, the aircraft experienced a Bird Hit. The severity of the impact shattered the canopy perspex completely and the bird hit Wg Cdr Ahlawat, damaging his helmet, breaking his visor and injuring his face, neck, arms and chest resulting in profuse bleeding and nearly incapacitating him. The bird also broke the glass separator between the front and the rear cockpit as well. The impact also damaged the front pilot ejection system. Due to the injuries, blood streaming down his face and bird remains, Wg Cdr Ahlawat had limited vision available from his left eye only. Despite the nature of his injuries, shock of impact, high wind blast and minimal reaction time since the aircraft was flying at low level, he took all the emergency actions correctly to save the aircraft and people of a village in close vicinity of the Pokharan range. During recovery, the rear pilot could not see the runway due to the perspex being obscured. Without the front pilot taking over and landing, the aircraft would have to be abandoned. There were significant chances of ejection system failure due to damage to the same. Displaying gallantry and upholding the virtues of "service-before-self", Wg Cdr Ahlawat used his one hand to open his left eye, took over the controls with the other hand and 'despite incapacitating injuries, limited binocular vision and with the canopy perspex blown off, he executed a safe landing on the nearest runway of an Air Force Base which resulted in saving of an expensive national asset and lives on ground. For this act of gallantry, Hon'ble President is pleased to award Vayu Sena Medal (Gallantry) to Wing Commander Ravinder Ahlawat.


Bird Strikes happen at high altitudes too. Here is another IAF incident https://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/b ... 476-1.html

DGCA data on civil aircraft https://www.hindustantimes.com/india/bi ... JcmNJ.html

Due to evolving nature of this threat, technology needs to be upgraded as well.

However, should it be linked to FOC? In my opinion, No. Maybe Dileep and Indranil can clarify whether this has been included as part of FOC or as an additional requirement delinked to FOC.

In addition, I also agree that a Foreign OEM would have either rejected this request or given it a low priority unless it originated in its home Air Force.

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2567
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

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

Postby tsarkar » 22 Jan 2019 12:26

Dileep wrote:There are a lot of such 'pilot demands' that they do not dare to ask the goras.

Real story: There is a small device that gives a backup inertial reference to get you home if the primary system fails. Some test points of this device 'failed'. Why? When the plane rolls at high rate, this device shows an 'unacceptable' level of error (of a few degrees off the real angle).

The question is 1) would you be doing such high rate maneuvers when the primary inertial system is failed? 2) Would you be actually looking at this backup reference when you happen to do that maneuver? Both answers are 'no'.

The system was accepted after adjusting the performance expectations accordingly.


There is a huge perception gap between a designer/engineer and an operator. A designer/engineer sees his KPA as an aircraft flying.

The scenario in his mind is the following two images -

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-XMpefBxgEds/T ... 0/A-10.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... r_1982.jpg

For a pilot, his KPA is completing his mission 1. Possibly in bad weather 2. Against an enemy fighting back ferociously for his survival 3. Returning home thereafter.

The scenario in his mind is the following two images -

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/a7/ce/46 ... 48e4b2.jpg
https://i.pinimg.com/736x/4a/ff/5c/4aff ... 29f7bb.jpg

Dileep wrote:1) would you be doing such high rate maneuvers when the primary inertial system is failed?

My answer would be - if the mission requires, then yes. I cannot abort mission because of primary INS has failed. Hence I need a reliable back up systems. The enemy fire wont decrease because primary INS has failed. Enemy fire will have same or even more intensity and hence I would be required to continue doing such high rate maneuvers.

Since joining NDA as a 16-17 year old boy, mission critically and the imperative to complete it has been been drilled into the pilot and he cannot let considerations like primary INS failure to abort mission. Aborting mission may result in his unit's losing the battle, the air force losing the battle or the nation losing the war.

An engineer failing on a project can just shrug it off and move on the next one. A pilot aborting mission will face a court martial and shame & derision among brother officers. His wife and children living in the cantonment will suffer the shame of "your father ran away".

During my sea time, despite equipment failure, we continued on missions with whatever best we had, because you cant leave an area undefended because equipment isnt functioning.

During the sinking of INS Andamans in the 90's, both the task force commander and ship CO delayed going back to base for this very reason.

CO Kukhri Captain M N Mulla and Engineer V K Jain hunted for Pakistani submarine with unproven experimental equipment for this very reason.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7125
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Postby Indranil » 22 Jan 2019 12:42

First of all, there is question about the legitimacy of this ask. It's required of all fighters. Unfortunately, IAF cannot ask for it on all its fighters. On Tejas, it can. My beef is not with IAF's ask. My beef is with why sit on this till the last moment? IAF has been with the program from its inception.

Also, I have had the good fortune to interact with many IAF officers. They are gentlemen par excellence.

This is not linked with FOC (which has been granted in principle). But IAF would like to and ADA would like to supply it from SP-21. So all FOC birds should have the new screen. It is of course pretty hard on HAL as the build of SP-21 has already commenced!

Dileep
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5491
Joined: 04 Apr 2005 08:17
Location: Dera Mahab Ali धरा महाबलिस्याः درا مهاب الي

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

Postby Dileep » 22 Jan 2019 14:03

Chetak, the GRU is a nth backup "take me home" device, just a step better than the good old magnetic compass. The primary INS is dual redundant, and given its position in the aircraft, the pilot would be mincemeat before enemy fire damage come to the INS. There are a hundred things that could fail which can kill the pilot if happens during a firefight. You can't bring redundancy beyond a point.

There is a movie quote "The escape pod IS a backup system" when passengers in an escape pod querying whether there isn't a backup system to the escape pod.

Secondly, ask your fighter pilot friends if they look at the INS when doing such heavy maneuvers. No human can. The built in biological INS and the training takes over, till a point where the plane comes to a reasonably stable state for at least a few seconds, where the pilot can start thinking again and co relation can be made between the instruments.

Thirdly, the argument I presented was convincing to the pilots long ago and accordingly the GRU is flying today. If it was a problem, there would have been a different GRU now.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3897
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby JayS » 22 Jan 2019 16:54

tsarkar wrote:
Dear Jay, the reason I questioned the questions is because the data asked is extensively recorded by IAF Flight Safety Directorate since 1960 and at IAF Institute of Aerospace Medicine based at Bangalore like ADA.


Saar, my reply was only against your statement that its like how a manger or admin guy would think. They don't think like this. I wish they did. The line of thinking displayed by Zynda's statements is very much how and engineer thinks or how he should think (unfortunately in India the engineers coming out of college have thinking which is far from reality. Their approach tends to be theoretical. But it should be grounded in realism. A good designer not only need to be able to design against requirements he needs to understand where and how the requirements originated from).

And you only bolster my point that IAF has been well aware of the safety requirement. They have the data. Then why is the disconnect in requirement specifications to LCA design team..? I don't think the bird hits got any particularly bad in last 10yrs or last 5yrs than they were back before that time. Its a critical safety requirement and it should have got utmost priority from IAF. I cannot believe IAF just recently realized the increased level of threat on this safety parameter.

To be fair, we do not know the history behind this. It might as well be that this requirement was raised earlier and is only being taken up now, with the consensus of all stakeholders.

But in any case, this is bad project management.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3897
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby JayS » 22 Jan 2019 16:57

Indranil wrote:First of all, there is question about the legitimacy of this ask. It's required of all fighters. Unfortunately, IAF cannot ask for it on all its fighters. On Tejas, it can. My beef is not with IAF's ask. My beef is with why sit on this till the last moment? IAF has been with the program from its inception.


Exactly.

Dileep
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5491
Joined: 04 Apr 2005 08:17
Location: Dera Mahab Ali धरा महाबलिस्याः درا مهاب الي

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

Postby Dileep » 22 Jan 2019 18:50

When a new lion takes charge of the pride it kill off all the cubs.

When a new person comes to a project, he brings in as many suggestions as he can muster. If the person is ina position of power, many gets carried.

SNAFU in all development projects.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3897
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby JayS » 22 Jan 2019 19:13

I guess I found an official source saying AESA is already integrated on LCA and is undergoing ground trials on one jet, second jet may also be employed. Which one might that be..? Uttam or ELTA..? Which ever it is, good news wither either way. More later.
Last edited by ramana on 22 Jan 2019 21:54, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: ramana

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 51081
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby ramana » 22 Jan 2019 21:54

Would be ELTA as that is part of Mk1A

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3897
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby JayS » 22 Jan 2019 23:32

So PAC report on LCA is out for sometime. I wonder how everyone missed it till now. Has some juicy tidbits. Let me quote. Note that the status is as on Nov 2017. So a bit further than what CAG report had.

The Vice Chief, IAF, while furnishing details regarding FSED Phase II, submitted during oral evidence as under:

"Sir, an aircraft first undergoes for trail and then it is upgraded. So, the first stage is Initial Operational Configuration (IOC) in which some weapons are cleared. Like, Chairman, HAL has brought out, clearing a weapon in an aircraft is a flight safety issue and it is a very complex process. In this process, currently we are happy to report that as IOC goes, Tejas is quite well-equipped. Yes, Sir. It is combat ready in Initial Operational Configuration (IOC). That means, it can fire dummy missiles; it can fire the laser guided bombs; it can fire the dumb bombs and rockets. Sir, for final operational clearance, these capabilities will have to be enhanced. It will be carrying the missiles that are now being developed by DRDO and other new weapons we are buying from outside. They will be integrated with it. It will have a jammer; it will have the new radar on it that DRDO is making and its Fatigue Life will be extended. This is the Final Operational Configuration. Even the Mirage 2000 upgrade that we are using, it comes as Initial Operational Configuration. Even the Rafale and all other aircrafts always come with Initial Operational Configuration and then are upgraded into Final Operational Configuration. "


The Vice chief was LCA test pilot once. He clearly has high regard for LCA. We saw that previously in the Rafail scam case too. He says LCA is combat ready even in IOC config.

The statement regarding Radar is confusing. He is talking about FOC config and DRDO Radar together. Even if we consider he is referring to the hybrid Elta2032 radar we have, its already integrated in IOC config. It cannot be Uttam too.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3897
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby JayS » 22 Jan 2019 23:41

Regarding the delay, the CMD-HAL, during oral evidence, submitted as under: "Sir, with regard to the road map for LCA, yes, we took time to develop the stateof-the-aircraft, 4 ½ generations straight away. Very few countries are there in the world who could claim this and we are proud to create such a product of 4 ½ generation fighter light weight aircraft. Sir, yes, there were delays. But today, the production agency, Hindustan Aeronautics Limited has spent money to create 32,000 sq. m. of controlled environment area, all the jigs and fixes are calibrated to 50 to 80 microns and these are the state-of-the-art facilities. We are ready now to produce 8 aircraft per year and we are enhancing the rate of production to 16 by spending ` 1,331 crore, 50 per cent by HAL, 25 per cent by IAF and 25 per cent by Navy. By 2019-20, the country will have the capacity of producing 16 aircraft deliverable per year. In addition, as a model, we are encouraging the ecosystem in the country, whoever the private vendor who could not make it, the major modules like wing, front fuselage, centre fuselage, rear fuselage, four pieces of an aircraft have already been contracted to four major vendors in India and if they start supplying us in the next eight to nine months, the capacity could be enhanced further more. By the end of 2020 or 2021, depending upon the requirement of the user and the improvements which need to be put on to it, we would be able to deliver about 16 to 24 aircraft. All the facilities are in place except the developmental work and the modifications which is required to be complied which is stage-wise. So, initially, you would appreciate, when the engineers of HAL and DRDO started making the aircraft, first the belief was not there. This is the second phase. So, that is how the programme might look to be a little longer, but the kind of an achievement where we are releasing beyond visual range missiles from this aircraft is the proof that Indian scientists and the engineers could demonstrate these capabilities. Today, we have a very clear road map. Depending on the requirement of our customer and depending on the performance achievements, the industry is ready to make; not only HAL, but in total India there are 200 agencies who have contributed in the development of LCA."



This is what I have been saying all along. 16 planned capacity on HAL's own accord and as the Tier1 suppliers come online HAL will be able to deliver 24-25 aircrafts per year. And hence no third line is required. That comfirms my hypothesis.

Rakesh, we can add the milestones in future plan in sticky post on page 1 - 16/yr for FY19-20 ans 24/yr for FY21-22.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3897
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby JayS » 22 Jan 2019 23:55

EADS has given consultancy on flight testing. Interestingly its based on their input that ADA adopted an approach for High AoA testing which didnt need separate additional aircraft (one with spin chute..?)

No changes in IAF ASR after it was initially formulated, except for weapons requirement (interestingly SPJ is a part of weapons package in this context and not primary system) Total 53 weivers given to LCA at the time of IOC wrt the ASR. 20 are permanent nature due to (thrust) limitation with F404 and being a Light Fighter. So they will remain applicable until MK2 can resolve them. 33 remaining are time bound concessions. 8 are already fulfilled my MK1. Rest presumably will be covered in MK1A.

The Ministry stated that at the time of IOC, 53 concessions were accorded by Air HQ/IAF. 20 out of 53 were permanent waivers provided by Air HQ/IAF were technologically unachievable and 33 remaining ones were not safety critical and had insignificant impact on the combat performance of the Aircraft towards service use. Out of the 33 concessions, 8 had been closed as they were applicable to IOC and out of the 8, 6 were closed. The remaining two concessions are linked with weapon accuracies above tactical Mach nos. which has no impact on combat potential of the aircraft as LCA MK-I had successfully demonstrated combat potential. 20 Permanent waivers are technologically unachievable because of the need of having a small light combat aircraft. Notwithstanding this, operational capability of LCA is comparable to any other contemporary aircraft of this class.


JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3897
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby JayS » 23 Jan 2019 00:03

Replying to the Committee's concern on the adverse impact on pilot training in absence of training aircrafts, the Ministry submitted that the present trend in fighter aircraft development is to use high fidelity simulators to train pilots. Towards induction and acceptance of Series Production (SP1) aircraft, IAF pilots are also being trained on high fidelity simulator. Also, IAF is funding for development of another Full Mission Simulator for LCA in 20 Aircraft IOC contract. Trainer PV6 aircraft has been built equivalent to Production standard Trainer and is being utilised for Squadron Pilot's training besides being used for FOC tasks. Also state of the art, full-fledged high fidelity mission simulator has been built for the Squadron for Pilot training. It may be noted that the proposal of handing over of Trainer aircraft - PV6 has been accepted by IAF and change in scope has been approved in 55th Governing Body and subsequent General Body. 49. The Ministry also stated that towards induction and acceptance of series production aircraft, IAF pilots were trained on high fidelity simulator. Hence, the nonavailability of trainer was not a serious concern towards induction. So far in LCA programme fifteen pilots had been trained on high fidelity simulator developed by ADA. Proposal of handing over PV-6 had been accepted by IAF and change in scope approved.



This answer some of our doubts on type conversion for LCA.

IIRC the Full Mission Simulator is already commissioned.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3897
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby JayS » 23 Jan 2019 00:11

The Ministry further submitted that Air HQ had specified changes in weapon suite for more than 10 occasions which indicated lack of clarity towards finalisation of weapon suite. New weapon integration is a continuous process occurring during life cycle of the aircraft. The continuous process of integration of newer and modern weapons has happened during the development of Tejas. As a result, LCA is one of the few aircraft in Indian inventory to have capability of firing the most modern BVR missiles. This process would have taken much longer for an aircraft already in service



9. Delayed development of LCA by ADA, coupled with delayed identification/goahead of specific BVR missile by IAF had impacted the FOC schedule of LCA, which was expected to be achieved by December 2015.

The Ministry furnished that the funding towards Derby integration was not available in the original sanction and re-appropriation of funds and sanctions thereof had further caused delay.


During oral evidence, the Vice Chief, IAF, submitted as under: "...........One of the reasons why LCA got delayed—I will be very candid to admit—is that the weapons have changed. The LCA started with R-60 MCOM air to air missile that I have flown as a pilot officer. Then, thereafter in 2005--of course, the project was delayed when this missile became obsolete--we asked them to induct R-73 missile. I am happy to report that unlike most of the aircraft that are in initial operational configuration, this particular aircraft can drop all 1000 pound of bombs. That can drop 250 kilogram bomb. That can drop LGB. That can fire an Astra, and it can fire a derby missile too. So, combination of missile and combination of radar, which is very important for this long range missile, has been done."


This last bolded part is very important. Which a lot of us here have pointed out. Typically Fighters are accorded IOC with only A2A capability. Rafale had bare minimum capability in F1 tranche with only A2A capability and it had to be given deep upgrade to F3 later. Only in F2 it got A2G capability.

The VCOAS mentions Astra missile there. :mrgreen: slip of tongue..?

The Ministry further submitted that IOC certification includes R73,1000 lb bombs, laser guided bombs, Drop Tanks and practice bombs. The SoP of the IOC series production aircraft will include the above weapon as agreed between AHQ and ADA. Further delay in realisation of Pylon and Drop Tank is due to the delays in procurement of Raw material. Vendor identification and establishment of manufacturing setup and Test environment by HAL. All IOC weapons and stores have been integrated and flighttested.


JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3897
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby JayS » 23 Jan 2019 00:29

Combat aircraft are equipped with Electronic Warfare (EW) capabilities to degrade the effectiveness of enemy radar and radio systems. ASR specified that LCA should be capable of carrying an Electronic Counter Measures (ECM) Pod. In addition, provision was to be made for an internally mounted Self Protection Jammer (SPJ) in the LCA with provision for future updates. In March 1997, Air HQ revised the EW capability on LCA to include SPJ, Radar Warning Receiver (RWR) and Counter Measures Dispensing System (CMDS).



As I said earlier these changes are considered as part of weapons suite.

The Ministry/IAF stated that internal SPJ was not part of FOC and shall be integrated on LCA AF MK II. Presently, Tejas is equipped with RWR and flares (CMDS). All the performance issues have been overcome and it is certified to use on SP Aircraft. EW suite draws more power and requires lot of real estate in fighter aircraft
.

This we know already. And MK1A will have external SPJ.
During oral evidence, the Secretary, DRDO, submitted as under
"As far as the avionics is concerned, the main thing is radar......... we failed to complete at that point of time. Even there, the present radar also, though the rest of the thing, that is the transmitter and the receiver and the senior person is from ELTA whereas the radar and the front end is within India. We are still producing those antennae. That antennae portion is within the country itself. Even in the existing one. As far as the radar is concerned, today we have got the next version not mechanical scanning, electronically scanning radar which is already established in the LCA which is also accepted by the services. The same type in a higher frequency band is already made and it is fitted on to the aircraft. The ground trials are going and it will be taken up for flight trials subsequently. We are also simultaneously trying to put another aircraft modified for this purpose so that we will get a much more flight trial type. So, to that extent, we are ready with that. The other main constituent is jammer. As you are telling about jammer, jammer comes under weapon category, not on the main system."


So one AESA radar is integrated and undergoing ground testing. Most likely ELTA2052. But then we have heard chaiwalla news that Uttam also is integrated. Then again Uttam is not likely accepted by the Services already. As I said, good news either way.

Supplementing the above, the Vice Chief, IAF submitted as under: "..... there is a radar that is being manufactured. That will have AESA technology, Active Electronically Scanned Array System. That will substantially improve its performance. In regard to both radar and jammer, first you have to develop the radar because both radar and jammer do not work together. Jammer can work only when the radar does not operate. Aircraft cannot do without radar. Radar has to be there......I said that radar has a mode. The aircraft’s radar, which is currently in 45 squadron, is working fine. There is absolutely no problem with those radars. If you want to improve the performance of the radar that is in 45 squadron further, we want to change the radome of the aircraft. That is also being done. So, from currently where I can pick up a Su-30 at 60 kilometres, I will pick up at close to 70 kilometres......Sir, the current radar is an Elta radar but our own radar is also being developed. .........As far as the jammer is concerned, first the radar has to be developed and then the jammer can be integrated with the radar. There are many jammers- radar available. Towed jammers and Towed Decoy jammers are available. They can be carried on the wing stores and that does not inhibit the aircraft’s performance in any way. Once we are getting a jammer with Rafale type, we could always see how it performs.


Frankly I didnt know this basic info that jammer and Radar dont work at a time. I always thought jammer is a separate unit.

The range at which Su30 being seen on LCA radar, are they real or dummy numbers given as an example?

The Ministry submitted that MK-I is equipped with RWR and Passive jammer. The podded active jammer was planned in MK-IA to meet the EW capabilities as agreed with AHQ.


JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3897
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby JayS » 23 Jan 2019 00:54

present Tejas is equipped with RWR and passive jamming with chaff and flares (CMDS), only Jammers deferred and all the performance issues have been overcome and it is certified to use on SP Aircraft. However, the external podded Jammer was planned to be integrated on LCA Mk1A variant and the same could be retro-fitted on LCA Mk1 if required. In addition to this MMR and communication system has built-in features of advanced features of ECCM to avoid jamming though LCA Tejas is not integrated with active self protection Jammers. It can be noted that major fighters of Air Force fleet like MIG 21BIS, MIG 29, Su 30 etc are not equipped with any EW systems. Russian combat doctrine has jammers escorting fighters.


As per the Ministry, the test results of Defence Avionics Research Establishment (DARE) EW suite which completed its first flight on Tejas PV1 LCA in early 2015 by furnishing as under:
"UEWS integration on LCA PV1 was successful and performance of the system was satisfactory against single and limited emitter environment (five emitters). It is to be noted that PV1 was specially modified to incorporate the EW suite by removing some LRUs. Moreover, the performance of the aircraft was highly compromised by the EW suite. Since this system was not feasible to integrate on production versions of LCA, due to space constraint, further upgrade and detailed evaluation of the upgraded system was carried out by DARE on other aircraft platforms of IAF".


nam
BRFite
Posts: 1876
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

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

Postby nam » 23 Jan 2019 01:15

So EW system has been developed, however not applied due to space constraints. I guess will come up in MK2.

Jammer will jam your radar, given that the aircraft is the nearest to the jammer and will receive the full power! Not sure, how can you provide ECCM, when you receive high power.

Saw a comment somewhere that DRDO may develop specialized nose cone which lets in only the frequency that it's radar transmit. This is for AMCA.

Astra got recently certified. It may have been integrated and fired on LCA, however probably not qualified. May happen for MK1A.

The AESA ground integration was definitely for Uttam on LSP2. It has not flown. No public news if 2052 was integrated. It may have been done, as 2052 was available during the Jag upgrade.

We also have the answer on why Su-30 don't have SPJ. They carry escort jammers!. So why is the major need for integrated SPJ on LCA?

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 51081
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby ramana » 23 Jan 2019 01:43

JayS, Thanks for the quotes as they clear many doubts.
I have two questions on this quote :
The Ministry stated that at the time of IOC, 53 concessions were accorded by Air HQ/IAF. 20 out of 53 were permanent waivers provided by Air HQ/IAF were technologically unachievable and 33 remaining ones were not safety critical and had insignificant impact on the combat performance of the Aircraft towards service use. ..... 20 Permanent waivers are technologically unachievable because of the need of having a small light combat aircraft. Notwithstanding this, operational capability of LCA is comparable to any other contemporary aircraft of this class.


1) Have the clarified the 20 permanent waivers that were given?
2) And how did they come about when it was technologically unachievable?

A side question about the 2 waivers on weapon accuracy above tactical Mach numbers? What does this mean?

Every weapon has drag and lift and at higher Mach numbers becomes significant. And will affect accuracy.
This would be weapon related not aircraft related.
Would like tsarkar comment on this item.

The 250 kg bomb is a brand new DRDO bomb. So lots of progress.
With the Tejas accuracy now many more targets are at risk.
I agree that Astra might have been trialed but not yet qualified for full envelope.
Remember the data-link on the plane transmits corrections to the Astra.

gaurav.p
BRFite
Posts: 114
Joined: 04 May 2018 23:02

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

Postby gaurav.p » 23 Jan 2019 02:27

Tejas fighter to get indigenous Laser Designator Pod to target the enemy
http://zeenews.india.com/india/tejas-fi ... 72996.html

LCA), is all set to get one of the most potent and advanced targeting systems in the world with the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) successfully developing Laser Designator Pods (LDPs)
...
Indian scientists P Suresh Kumar, NNSSRK Prasad and K Senthil Kumar were involved in developing and testing the LDP. The Indian LDP was able to achieve an average positioning accuracy in terms of azimuth and elevation computation for static and moving ground targets at +/- 2.3 metres


Is this a DDM? Will this be replacing the litening's? I thought the litening were the state of the art.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16046
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 23 Jan 2019 03:01

DDM, those specs are for a simulation they developed to mimic a real LDP for tests.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 51081
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby ramana » 23 Jan 2019 03:33

So they tested the LDP in a flight simulator?

Very commendable to have developed the LDP.
French Atlis was the first LDP.
USAF had their own LDP.
Then came the Israeli Litening series.

The average positioning accuracy is impressive especially for the moving ground targets.
Now Paki jernails can't even run away on their donkeys.
They will get the 250 kg bomb up their Musharraf.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16046
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 23 Jan 2019 04:33

Details are in a DSJ article. They were developing a virtual model of the LDP to be used for qualifying weapons on a rig before heading for actual flight tests, to minimize the need for actual LDP and test bed availability.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16046
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 23 Jan 2019 04:35

ramana wrote:JayS, Thanks for the quotes as they clear many doubts.
I have two questions on this quote :
The Ministry stated that at the time of IOC, 53 concessions were accorded by Air HQ/IAF. 20 out of 53 were permanent waivers provided by Air HQ/IAF were technologically unachievable and 33 remaining ones were not safety critical and had insignificant impact on the combat performance of the Aircraft towards service use. ..... 20 Permanent waivers are technologically unachievable because of the need of having a small light combat aircraft. Notwithstanding this, operational capability of LCA is comparable to any other contemporary aircraft of this class.


1) Have the clarified the 20 permanent waivers that were given?
2) And how did they come about when it was technologically unachievable?

A side question about the 2 waivers on weapon accuracy above tactical Mach numbers? What does this mean?

Every weapon has drag and lift and at higher Mach numbers becomes significant. And will affect accuracy.
This would be weapon related not aircraft related.
Would like tsarkar comment on this item.

The 250 kg bomb is a brand new DRDO bomb. So lots of progress.
With the Tejas accuracy now many more targets are at risk.
I agree that Astra might have been trialed but not yet qualified for full envelope.
Remember the data-link on the plane transmits corrections to the Astra.


They mention it's because of the engine, basically change the engine otherwise technologically unachievable.

Tactical Mach numbers are usually transonic range and next, slightly above transonic. I presume it meant weapons deliveries at edge of envelope which wasn't necessary.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16046
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 23 Jan 2019 04:37

Ramana regarding the pod.

https://publications.drdo.gov.in/ojs/in ... view/12994

A Novel Method to Develop High Fidelity Laser Sensor Simulation Model for Evaluation of Air to Ground Weapon Algorithms of Combat Aircraft

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16046
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 23 Jan 2019 04:39

Good news is that RWR has been fixed. Tarang works! Also, report notes, SPJ on Mk1A can always be retrofitted to Mk1A if IAF so decides.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 51081
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby ramana » 23 Jan 2019 06:38

Ok got it..This like hardware in loop.only with software so they can tweak all the parameters to refine actual design.
Did I get it?

Dileep
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5491
Joined: 04 Apr 2005 08:17
Location: Dera Mahab Ali धरा महाबलिस्याः درا مهاب الي

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

Postby Dileep » 23 Jan 2019 07:39

Thanks for posting these juicy nuggets.

The radar range given by the VCAS is just a numeric example. The actual number is friggin awesome.

Another thing I heard is that the Daggers are burning up Coimbatore sky logging sorties like a jackrabbit boning in spring. All those whining of "difficult to maintain onlee" is gone and forgotten.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10008
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

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

Postby Aditya_V » 23 Jan 2019 10:40

JayS wrote:
During oral evidence, the Vice Chief, IAF, submitted as under: "...........One of the reasons why LCA got delayed—I will be very candid to admit—is that the weapons have changed. The LCA started with R-60 MCOM air to air missile that I have flown as a pilot officer. Then, thereafter in 2005--of course, the project was delayed when this missile became obsolete--we asked them to induct R-73 missile. I am happy to report that unlike most of the aircraft that are in initial operational configuration, this particular aircraft can drop all 1000 pound of bombs. That can drop 250 kilogram bomb. That can drop LGB. That can fire an Astra, and it can fire a derby missile too. So, combination of missile and combination of radar, which is very important for this long range missile, has been done."



[/quote]

Has Tejas ever fired Astra?

gaurav.p
BRFite
Posts: 114
Joined: 04 May 2018 23:02

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

Postby gaurav.p » 23 Jan 2019 11:12

...

The radar range given by the VCAS is just a numeric example. The actual number is friggin awesome.

Another thing I heard is that the Daggers are burning up Coimbatore sky logging sorties like a jackrabbit boning in spring. All those whining of "difficult to maintain onlee" is gone and forgotten.


saar, jingo khush hua. :lol:

another op-ed focusing on tejas. Nuanced and straight from the customer of tejas.
IAF and HAL need to work together for Tejas to fly high
https://indianexpress.com/article/opini ... f-5550953/

The IAF plans to induct Tejas in all versions to arrest the depletion of combat squadrons. There is no ambiguity about IAF placing orders for more Tejas versions as the aircraft matures. But order for Tejas can only be placed following the due process
...
Air Staff Requirement (ASR) issued by the Indian Air Force ((IAF) in 1985. At all stages, the IAF has wholeheartedly participated and supported in this vital indigenous design and development project
...
Often said at times that Tejas production is getting delayed due to the IAF changing specifications...ADA the design authority, incorporates design changes based on observations made during test flights by the National Flight Test Centre and in consultation with HAL and other agencies...IAF participates in all these consultations, it is not authorised to issue “change notices”.
...
IAF has not changed the 1985 ASR, except for granting concessions after limitations were encountered during the design and development of the aircraft
...
Surprisingly, the ADA never complains of the IAF making any changes. In contrast, HAL off and on blames the IAF for changing specifications
...
Tejas’ flight envelope is still in the process of being expanded to its full capability

Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7069
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

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

Postby Prasad » 23 Jan 2019 11:29

Well ordering more numbers ideally shuoldnt be in the hands of the IAF. Nor advice on how to run a production line that needs 'flexibility to change as needed on-the-go'. That is god-knows-what thinking. IAF is only the customer?

gaurav.p
BRFite
Posts: 114
Joined: 04 May 2018 23:02

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

Postby gaurav.p » 23 Jan 2019 13:54

Summary of the PAC report

  • A total amount of 10397.11 crore (FE 3800.01crore) was sanctioned for the three FSED phases of LCA programme, against which, ADA had incurred a cumulative expenditure of 8294.39 crore (FE 2768.18 crore) in October 2014. Rest on Kaveri and Mayavi.
  • Point against decision making of ADA regarding the accelerating the development of two prototypes (PV1 and PV2) from FSED Phase-II to FSED Phase-I. While the sub-systems couldn't be developed for PV. Leading to use of LSP for flight testing and certification (LSP was supposed to be given to the IAF).
    PAC says ADA decisions lacked scientific basis by advancing building of prototypes overlooking the fact that neither the critical technologies were developed by then nor the Technology Demonstrators flight tested for specified 210 hours.

  • Notable failures in the project = MMR, Radome, Engine, Internal SPJ and ECM pod, delays in development of LSPs
  • Notable success in the project = R73E integration, drop tank integration, avionics architecture, C-C composites, open system arch, actuators*, digital FCS*, jet fuel starter, full mission flight simulator*, RWR, CMDS, Antenna of MMR
===================================================================================
  • IOC had shortcomings as noted in previous comments (53 permanent waivers = 20 impossible + 33 non-critical (8* from it closed)) + lead to sanction of mkII part of FSED-III
  • Trainers (2) = PV5 and (PV4 (single seat) converted into PV6 (twin seat)); yet to acheive IOC/FOC till jan 2015. Non availability of trainer not a serious concern towards induction as high fidelity trainers are used currently. Proposal to hand over PV6 to IAF was taken up (inspite of IOC/FOC).
    PAC says, reproving the Ministry for such baseless replies desire to be apprised of the correct and updated details regarding development of trainer aircraft. Trainer variant of LCA be productionized in a time bound manner, so that the pilots get the requisite exposure and training for flying the LCA.
  • Weapon integration = Air HQ had specified changes in weapon suite for more than 10 occasions which indicated lack of clarity towards finalisation of weapon suite. delayed identification/go- ahead of specific BVR missile by IAF had impacted the FOC schedule of LCA + delays due to HMDS integration.
  • EW Suite = ASR required SPJ + RWR + CMDS + ECM pod. Development of SPJ by DARE was not successful. EW suite draws more power and requires lot of real estate in fighter aircraft. podded active jammer was planned in MK-IA. external pod can be retrofitted in mk1 as well. Internal SPJ in mkII. UEWS integration on LCA PV1 was successful satisfactory against single and limited emitter environment. PV1 was specially modified and thus performance of the aircraft was highly compromised by the EW suite (not feasible due to space constraint. Thus, further upgrade and detailed evaluation of the upgraded system was carried out by DARE on other aircraft platforms of IAF)
    Vice chief : Sir, the current radar is an Elta radar but our own radar is also being developed(this is uttam :) ).........As far as the jammer is concerned, first the radar has to be developed and then the jammer can be integrated with the radar. There are many jammers- radar available. Towed jammers and Towed Decoy jammers are available
  • Engine = 9 full prototype engines and 4 core engines built. 2882 hours of engine testing completed. 73 hours of Altitude testing at CIAM, Russia and 57 hours of flight testing in IL76 aircraft at GFRI, Russia. Attained a technical maturity in engine technical audit by M/s Safran Aircraft Engine Ltd. Certification tests are under progress at GTRE test bed. 12 Materials indigenously developed and type certified. will be used for an Unmanned Aircraft.
  • Radome = Glass fiber and Kevlar fibre radome developed indigenously by ASL + HAL was not found suitable for LCA. Quartz Radome procured from Cobham UK, has been successfully integrated on LCA (from SP11 + retrofit from SP1-10). DRDO has initiated LCA quartz radome development with ASL Hyderabad and R&D Engineers Pune. These radomes will be integrated in LCA Mk1A when ready.
  • MMR = Delay in development of MMR despite consultancy from Ericsson and consequent import of three antenna. ADA decided to continue co-development with M/s ELTA with the indigenously developed Antenna Platform and antenna, sub-systems as a part of MMR. performance test with respect to imported Radome has been completed -> performance of the Radar is found to be excellent.
  • MFDS = Rejected by HAL(Korwa Division) for indigenisation, indicated that it is not economically feasible for 20 sets. Indigenous development of different MFDS called Smart MFDS had been initiated by ADA for further requirements.
  • Jet fuel starter (JFS) = operate under concessions in respect of the JFS until it was retrofitted with modified JFS. Three consecutive starts requirement by IAF had been successfully demonstrated by HAL. Successfully tested at Leh. Newer GTSU 110 M2 with self lubrication system is planned for integration and flight test on LCA AF MK1 during August 2018.
  • FCS Actuators = Indigenously developed flight worthy actuators were delivered to HAL by DALIA. ADA used consortium approach of Private industries Godrej & Boyce and Mumbai MTAR. HAL lucknow the nodal agency. Post FOC, activities on LSP2 modified for indigenous actuator fitment and the actuators will be type certified.
===================================================================================
  • Consultancy = Inadequate expertise in flight testing and subsequent consultancy with EADS (twice).
    PAC says could not be implemented during the period of contract as IOC schedules were shifted because of major snags, ejection related issues etc. first consultancy was rendered wasteful as ADA had to close the contract without implementing the recommendations. PAC admonish the ADA for not doing proper homework before engagement of consultants resulting in non-implementation of the task-wise recommendations of the consultant. (typical babudom :oops:)
  • Work packages = ADA had awarded 503 WPs. only 27 per cent of the WPs were completed within the schedule. ADA stated that it had no authority/control on the working of work centres. selection of vendor was very limited, thus had no choice but to go with the vendors who had past experience in the related field.
    What does this mean?
    Towards realization of future projects, the work packages are planned in a modular manner instead of sub-system approach followed for Mk-1
  • Lack of user involvement = strongly recommended early establishment of a standing Liaison Group between Air HQ and ADA to ensure closer interaction. No such liaison group was formed. active user participation only after the formation of an Empowered Committee (chaired by Chief of Air Staff and co-chaired by Secretary (DP) and SA to RM/DG ADA + met Quarterly). Another LCA-PMT headed by Air Vice Marshal
  • Absence of indigenisation plan = 70% of the LCA content in terms of value. Indigenous content of LCA worked out to about 35% only in the context of raw material of LCA airframe and not for the entire LCA development.
    Given that India has abundant brain power( :!: ) and is a shining star in the field of space with indigenously developed technology, the Committee desire that adequate financial support and encouragement from the Government of India be provided so that indigenisation of components/engine/systems be earnestly developed with the help of committed research and development.

  • Low availability = linked to concurrent development activities + each of the LSP aircraft had different standards. only specific aircraft could be used for specific test points.
  • Other lashings by PAC = https://imgur.com/a/H6Qkoz7
    "exhort the Ministry to imbibe the success stories of our own committed space scientists who are working steadfastly to achieve their targets" :roll:



Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests