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.
chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3091
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

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

Postby chola » 29 Jan 2019 13:02

Yagnasri wrote:Unfortunately if the report is correct it is the IAF which went to MoD this time. So we can not blame anyone else for this round.


You still can’t blame the IAF. They are not in the business of manufacturing or industry building. They want the best gear available so they could fight and win. It is the GOI who must determine the threat level and it is they who must make the call to place our MIC over the need of the IAF — to maintain a wider advantage over the PAF’s F-Solahs and Blunders and the PLAAF’s rump force in Tibet which can’t support more than a dozen or J-11s and J-10s anyways.

jpremnath
BRFite
Posts: 160
Joined: 18 Dec 2016 21:06

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

Postby jpremnath » 29 Jan 2019 13:22

It is this quest for the best gear that is the problem...We just can't afford it...They can either go for the best in lesser numbers or decent machine in numbers...But the IAF wants the best of both..They need to accept we don't have that kind of Money

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 64520
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

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

Postby Singha » 29 Jan 2019 14:02

PMO needs to exert its authority and stop being taken in by scare tactics and ppts.

india is in possession of the IAF, and not other way around. its other way around in TSP.

time has come where like $1000 iphones, stuff is too expensive to import in the numbers iaf wants.
either they have to live with less numbers and work on sensors and weapons to optimize or deploy the tejas in bulk and keep improving it.

just repeating in a loop "42 squadrons 42 squadrons sanctioned strength" from the hoary past should be shut down.
there is nothing magical about 42. they can order Tejas and ramp up to 60.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7920
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

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

Postby Pratyush » 29 Jan 2019 14:29

This is a procedural issue and can easily be resolved in the coming few months.

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 » 29 Jan 2019 14:34

I am amazed at the amount of emotional ranting on this page ignoring the facts on the ground, especially since most members on the forum claim to have engineering/technology background.

Here are the facts -

The IAF had issued a single vendor tender to HAL in December 2017 and HAL submitted its first technical and commercial response to it in March 2018.

“There were three major defects in their response to the RFP. The PSU offer on price and other aspects was valid only for 12 months whereas the procurement procedure mandates it to be minimum 18 months and the delivery schedule offered by the HAL was not in compliance with our requirements," top IAF officials told ANI.

“The endurance levels or the amount of time for which the aircraft can fly have also not been found to be very optimal. We had told the HAL that the ferry range of the aircraft was not compliant with requirements put in the tender by us," the officials said.

The top commanders of the force during their commander's conference in October last year had told HAL to rectify the problems in the tender proposal and get back with the right response.

“A fresh delivery schedule was submitted on January 16, 2019 while on January 22, HAL submitted that the ferry range of the aircraft is in compliance with RFP requirements. The Technical Evaluation Committee report has been finalised and the delivery schedule now proposed by HAL, however, remains a non-compliance, for which the IAF is approaching Defence Acquisition Council," they said.


Issue 1. Validity of proposal for 18 months as per DPP instead of 12 months submitted by HAL. Addressed in revised HAL proposal. In hindsight it seems HAL proposal team was unclear with DPP. Solved

Issue 2. Ferry Range mismatch. Addressed in HAL response 22-1-19 and Technical Evaluation Committee Report. Solved.

Issue 3. Delivery Rate. This is the only open issue that can be solved by ramping up production in the two lines at HAL, adding a new line at Nekkundi or converting the Nashik line. This is a decision for GoI to take and it can take this decision very well to resolve the impasse.

https://defenceupdate.in/hal-sets-secon ... tion-line/
HAL awaits the crucial Cabinet Committee on Security nod for the third Tejas production line. Around 30,000 sq meters of HAL land has been identified near Nekkundi for setting up structural assembly hangar, process shop and sheet metal shop, among others.


As per the above report, it is awaiting GoI decision.

And IAF has correctly gone back to GoI.

So why this emotional ranting of privatize HAL or IAF bad bad when a decision is required from GoI to ramp up Tejas production?

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 » 29 Jan 2019 14:59

JayS wrote:IMO, your argument about long sorties is tangential to the topic I feel


No sir, your feeling is not correct or substantiated by facts.

JayS wrote:I feel, as overwhelming majority of the bird strikes happen during TO and Landing


If you refer to accidents happened in 2018 posted by me earlier, Mirage 2000 happened at Pokhran while bombing and not while takeoff or landing

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Datab ... qyear=2017

A Su-30MKI also suffered a canopy burst during mission and not during takeoff or landing. Same for the MiG-29. While last two cases were not related to bird hits, they do make a case for strengthening of canopies.

JayS wrote:or at very low altitude. Bird hits above few thousand feet altitude are rare.


I had posted this link two pages back on high altitude bird strikes

https://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/b ... 476-1.html

A huge four-engine IAF IL-76 transport was flying at more than 22,000 feet when it struck a yet-unidentified bird.


JayS wrote:And second thing, we know that very serious canopy bird hits have happened even in past when the two arguments you put forth were not applicable as you yourself said its recent evolution. Jaguars have always been meant to fly rather low. I do not have to tell you about the higher risk that Jags would face in this particular respect. Doesn't matter how far and where they fly they would have literally no reaction time in case of canopy hit.


Absolutely true, very serious canopy bird hits have happened even in past when the two arguments I put forth were not applicable.

But these accidents happened within SAR Mi-8/17 range operating out of home base. I am sure you would have read Kempy's Nose SAR article written by WingCo Unni Kartha wherein he rescues a Gnat pilot.

https://cyclicstories.blogspot.com/2011 ... -nose.html

Because of long range sorties I mentioned, they fly beyond SAR range. Hence strengthened canopies gain more importance vis-a-vis short ranged sorties in the past because a pilot cannot fly back to base nor can a helicopter reach to rescue him.

I do research my posts with real people and thereafter corroborate it with scientific publications or factual media reports before I post.

Anyways this requirement is not tied to FOC that was given last year
https://m.economictimes.com/news/defenc ... 379924.cms
The Centre for Military Airworthiness and Certification (CEMILAC) has given the green signal to start manufacturing of Tejas Mk1 under Final Operational Clearance (FOC) configuration
Last edited by tsarkar on 29 Jan 2019 15:16, edited 1 time in total.

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 » 29 Jan 2019 15:13

We have upgraded our SAR as well.

For long range SAR, IAF Garud and medical staff fly on C-130/C-17 and paradrop at the crash site.

Similarly Indian Navy MARCOS and medical staff fly on IAF C-130/C-17 and paradrop at the crash site. IN has been requesting ShinMaywa US-2 as well for this very purpose. Cdr Abhilash Tomy was planned to be rescued in this manner after he got seriously injured in the Southern Seas if the French Ship wasnt in position.

But it is easier to strengthen canopies and reduce risk rather than do the above since the problem of extricating pilot + SAR team still remains.

ArjunPandit
BRFite
Posts: 1873
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

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

Postby ArjunPandit » 29 Jan 2019 15:44

^^ is there anyway to come up with a ballpark estimate of how much impact does this canopy thing have on the delivery timelines? Mk1 doesnt get impacted. The main question is will IAF/MoD accept Mk1s in the meanwhile, which can be upgraded to Mk1a in future. That question, while we may not an answer to, will show the intent of all concerned parties.

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

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

Postby JayS » 29 Jan 2019 15:59

tsarkar wrote:
JayS wrote:IMO, your argument about long sorties is tangential to the topic I feel


No sir, your feeling is not correct or substantiated by facts.

JayS wrote:I feel, as overwhelming majority of the bird strikes happen during TO and Landing


If you refer to accidents happened in 2018 posted by me earlier, Mirage 2000 happened at Pokhran while bombing and not while takeoff or landing

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Datab ... qyear=2017

A Su-30MKI also suffered a canopy burst during mission and not during takeoff or landing. Same for the MiG-29. While last two cases were not related to bird hits, they do make a case for strengthening of canopies.

JayS wrote:or at very low altitude. Bird hits above few thousand feet altitude are rare.


I had posted this link two pages back on high altitude bird strikes

https://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/b ... 476-1.html

A huge four-engine IAF IL-76 transport was flying at more than 22,000 feet when it struck a yet-unidentified bird.




Saar I never said, high alti bird strikes never happen. Only thing is they are rare compared to overall bird strikes. I have posted a link in reply to Zynda's post few posts back from which I quoted numbers in my prior post. Yes they are not for Indian conditions, but its reasonable to assume we will not see significant deviation in the % numbers.

Point related to SAR, I can agree to. Its valid point.

Re, canopy burst, It could have been a quality issue. IMO it doesn't necessarily should be a motivation for increasing design requirement unless the burst was known to have caused due to something hitting on the canopy. Just saying. The enquiry commission must have explored possible causes and relevant feedback given to the OEM.

Anyways let me just ask you a point blank question, I wanted to previously, I didn't, but since you mentioned you have talked to real people now - whatever rationale you provided is the rationale IAF actually had or this is your hypothesis on the possible rational based on the information at hand. If the answer is former, then we have nothing more to discuss, as you would be simply stating facts and no one can argue against that. Just to be clear whatever I have been talking is all speculation based on my knowledge.

PS: Found this article. It doesn't have date on it but from the content it looks like it must be around 2009.
http://www.sps-aviation.com/interviews/ ... Safety-IAF

<snip>
As far as anti-bird measures are concerned we have established an ornithology cell with a purpose to carry out bird survey and suggest bird prevention modules specific to airfields. Further, to ensure that flying environment is safe from birds, IAF is procuring avian radar to monitor real time data on bird movement at flying bases. (the tender for 45 Aviary radars only came out in 2015, dunno if IAF has got them now or not)
<snip>
We have also instituted environment management of airfield area (EMAA) which aims at outlining the steps for bird and wildlife management, vegetation control and provide generalised solutions for various airfields in different geographical grids of the country. This has been introduced to further improve the accident rate and bring it at par with other leading air forces of the world and the Government of India has already approved this step because it also involves participation by state governments.


SP’s: Bird hits have been another factor which contributed considerably to the IAF’s accident rates in the past. Could you explain as to what measures have been taken by the IAF to reduce this menace? What are the latest trends in this regard?

DG: To reduce bird hit cases, a dedicated ornithology cell has been established at the Directorate of Aerospace Safety. The cell has completed bird survey at 28 flying bases of the IAF & station specific anti-bird modules have been implemented. As part of anti-bird measure, environmental cleaning within the airbases is being undertaken on a war footing to deny a habitat for birds and animals so as to prevent their collision with the aircraft. Also, a project called solid waste management, which is aimed at systematic management of garbage from the township in the vicinity of our airfields so as to deny habitat for resting and roosting of birds has been started at 10 selected IAF bases with financial assistance from the Central Government. Subsequently, this scheme would be extended to all other airfields. Further, IAF is in the process of building of a DNA bar code library. This helps to identify the type of bird from the remnants on the ac and institute anti-bird measures specific to that particular bird and place. Also, application of Rule 91 of Aircraft Rules 1937 is resorted to enforce discipline about anti-bird measures in the civil locality surrounding our airfields. It is a powerful tool which legally permits invoking of penalties on violators. Some new initiatives like procurement/hiring of heavy duty earth moving/vegetation clearance equipment for effective management of airfield environment, procurement of avian radar (which helps in locating, tracking and monitoring movement of birds), procurement of microlites for carrying out survey of bird activities, monitoring of high rise structures, garbage and carcass disposal sites, etc have been taken up. Also, formalisation of a concept called environment management of airfield area (EMAA) which aims at outlining the steps for bird and wild life management, vegetation control and provide generalised solutions for various airfields in different geographical grids of the country is under way.


IAF is onto Bird hit related hazard reduction for a while now. From the measures listed above they must have got good data. Could the updated canopy design requirement a follow on result of this...?

This link has some good info on Aviary radar for airports. They help give heads up to pilots for near airport bird strikes and have range of 10-12km. Was heartening to see and Indian company was bidding for the tender.

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... ike-radars

From above link:

The Indian Air Force, which conducts many operational and training flights and often at very low level, attributes around 10 percent of accidents to bird hits.


Note than these are accidents and not necessarily lost aircrafts.

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

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

Postby JayS » 29 Jan 2019 16:05

tsarkar wrote:https://defenceupdate.in/hal-sets-secon ... tion-line/
HAL awaits the crucial Cabinet Committee on Security nod for the third Tejas production line. Around 30,000 sq meters of HAL land has been identified near Nekkundi for setting up structural assembly hangar, process shop and sheet metal shop, among others.


As per the above report, it is awaiting GoI decision.

And IAF has correctly gone back to GoI.

So why this emotional ranting of privatize HAL or IAF bad bad when a decision is required from GoI to ramp up Tejas production?


Saar, that is the "Second" line which is already approved. And its coming up in the hanger where Hawk assy line was.

There is a lot of confusion because HAL started line 1A (old Kiran Hanger) to augment line 1 (Original LCA div Line). And some called it Line 2 instead of line 1A. And then Line 2 became Line 3 in that nomenclature.

There was some chatter on "third" line in Nashik after Su-30MKI production is over. But I think its premature to talk about it as of now.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 18165
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

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

Postby chetak » 29 Jan 2019 20:08

After Repeated Non-Compliance By HAL Over Tejas Proposal, Indian Air Force To Approach Defence Acquisition Council



After Repeated Non-Compliance By HAL Over Tejas Proposal, Indian Air Force To Approach Defence Acquisition Council

by Swarajya Staff - Jan 29 2019,



Following Hindustan Aeronautics Limited’s (HAL’s) repeated non-compliance in terms of fulfilling requirements in the Tejas aircraft deal, the Indian Air Force (IAF) has decided to take up the matter with the Defence Ministry, reports ANI.

In December 2017, the IAF had issued a single vendor tender to HAL, and the latter sent back its first commercial and technical response to it in March 2018.

As per the report, there were three major shortcomings in HAL’s response.

The HAL's offer on price and other aspects was valid only for 12 months, however, the procurement procedure required it to be minimum 18 months. The delivery time offered by the HAL was thus not deemed acceptable.

As per IAF officials quoted in the report, it was also found that the aircraft range and the endurance levels were not in compliance with the requirements. Endurance level pertains to the amount of time an aircraft can be in the air.

The IAF officials thus told HAL to rectify the issues in the proposal and send a revised response. But non-compliance was also noted in HAL’s subsequent responses which were received in the last 15 days.

“The delivery schedule now proposed by HAL remains a non-compliance, for which the IAF is approaching Defence Acquisition Council,” IAF said.

Under the new responses, HAL complied with the ferry range but failed to solve the delivery schedule matter following which IAF has now reportedly decided to approach the Defence Acquisition Council.

The program is already said to have been delayed by over a year despite getting the Defence Acquisition Council (DAC) nod in 2016.

The Air Force had already placed an order for 40 LCA jets and had issued tenders to the HAL for another 83 Mark 1A LCAs to replace its old fleet of MiG-27 and MiG 21 aircraft but has had to postpone their retirement given the delays in the LCA and other fighter aircraft procurement projects.

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

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

Postby Indranil » 29 Jan 2019 22:59

George Fernandes passed away today. Stalwart for Tejas development and testing RIP sir.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3295
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

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

Postby Cain Marko » 30 Jan 2019 08:01

So the iaf should be blamed for taking hal to task for not meeting deadlines? Phuck kinda logic is this?

kvraghav
BRFite
Posts: 747
Joined: 17 Apr 2008 11:47
Location: Some where near the equator

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

Postby kvraghav » 30 Jan 2019 09:38

Have you also considered the fact that asking high production rate with only 20 confirmed orders may not be feasible? That is the only sticking point now.

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

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

Postby Indranil » 30 Jan 2019 10:02

With probe, ferry range is not much of an issue. I This may be IAFs bargaining chip for better 1A pricing.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 64520
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

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

Postby Singha » 30 Jan 2019 10:30

>> it was also found that the aircraft range and the endurance levels were not in compliance with the requirements. Endurance level pertains to the amount of time an aircraft can be in the air.

assuming the planned wet pylons are in place and fuel tank sizes cannot increase what more do they expect? the engine is not going to be replaced with a more economy one. neither can drag be improved now for significant improvement in range.

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 » 30 Jan 2019 11:38

The Govt needs to make a Soviet Stavka type decision, Order the MK1, Mk1A in numbers and order MK2 and AMCA research on the double. But I guess there must be many in the C-system folks, who as a policy believe we should an air force and military which is defensive and cannot go on the offensive, so that attacks like local train bombings in Mumbai can be explained away as Gujarati were travelling so they deserved it etc, 26/11 and a plethora of attacks can go unanswered because of lack of capability to attack.

Otherwise no reason for such slow going and even converting the M-2000 order into the MMRCA circus where nothing was ordered for 12 years and something was ordered after 12 years you are trying to cancel the deal. Hmm lets see if this can be resolved atleast after the post 2019 elections.

Blaming HAL and IAF is just blaming someone else, collectively our Governments are repeatedly failing in taking simple and obvious decisions.
Babudom at both sides can be twisted to take the correct decision if institutionally the babus decide that indegeniousation is the need of the hour.

Quite frankly as a country our level of preparation for war today which may be forced on us is as good as it was in 1965, which at best can result in a stalemate with a slight favour for us. But we have no overwhelming odds to defeat and disarm the enemy with shock and awe tactics. for that we need 10-15 years of serious rearming with adequate numbers which can only come from Indian designed and produced fighters and weponary, drop tanks etc. The western neighbor it is clear cannot allow us to live peacefully and everyone knows that.

Now we know that these people our intelligent and understand this very well, but everyone wants to put a spoke in the wheel rather than take the right decision. All I can say this works in International interests but not Indian Interests and I guess future of children in key places across Babudom are being secured to take such wrong decisions.

I just hope someday the correct decisions are made Tejas and its derivatives otherwise we are just ending why not to order than why we must produce and improve.

hemant_sai
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 42
Joined: 13 Dec 2018 12:13

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

Postby hemant_sai » 30 Jan 2019 12:28

What is this babudom really is? Is RM not part of it? What role does "Minister of State for Defence" and "Defence Secretary" have? If we assume RM can be influenced by advisors, who are those really? After all who is accountable?

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 » 30 Jan 2019 12:40

hemant_sai wrote:What is this babudom really is? Is RM not part of it? What role does "Minister of State for Defence" and "Defence Secretary" have? If we assume RM can be influenced by advisors, who are those really? After all who is accountable?


Definitely everyone has to take responsibility

hemant_sai
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 42
Joined: 13 Dec 2018 12:13

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

Postby hemant_sai » 30 Jan 2019 12:46

let me tell you a truth. So called "Everyone" never gets punishment. And expecting of everyone following morale principles is impractical. It is the leader who can make it or break it.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 64520
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

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

Postby Singha » 30 Jan 2019 12:48

including the PM. babus need to be brought in line and stop treating it as just a 'job' to enjoy and make contacts. MOD is a very strategic place just as DRDO, CSIR and ISRO top levels. we dont see low caliber people in the top echelons of these two but why are we willing to tolerate low quality in MOD?

engg team you want best quality but managers you are ok with poor.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3295
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

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

Postby Cain Marko » 31 Jan 2019 01:35

kvraghav wrote:Have you also considered the fact that asking high production rate with only 20 confirmed orders may not be feasible? That is the only sticking point now.

Read the article again. This had nothing to do with 20 mk1 orders. It has everything to do with 83 mk1a orders.
the state-owned Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) proposal for supplying 83 jets to the Air Force has been repeatedly found non-compliant with its requirements and the matter would now be taken to the Defence Ministry for deciding the future course of action, top IAF officials said
.

From what had been said...IAF issues single vendor proposal to Hal. Hal responds with unacceptable timeline, and price and range criteria. The latter have been resolved. But the timeline is not acceptable. Iaf blames HAL ....

IAF officials said programme had got delayed by more than a year after the acceptance of necessity accorded by the Defence Acquisition Council (DAC) for the Rs 50,000 crore programme in November 2016.
The negotiations for the terms of the plan between HAL and MoD acquisition continued for more than a year as a result of which the AON was revalidated twice that led to a delay in subsequent issue of RFP. The delay was primarily because of the delay in resolving the delivery linked payment terms," the officials said.


If the iaf has to protect the skies it needs timelines to be followed at least to some extent. So how can we blame them? And what does limited number of production numbers have to do with this? Mk1a has 83 orders, how is that limited?

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4830
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby Neshant » 31 Jan 2019 06:30


Wickberg
BRFite
Posts: 243
Joined: 01 Jul 2008 18:45

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

Postby Wickberg » 31 Jan 2019 06:31

So the LCA is dead now? IAF should have gone with the Gripen 25 years ago...
-----------------------------

Warning issued for un-subtle trolling. Wickberg, you have a long history of posting rubbish and trolling. Don't push it.

Karan M

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4830
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby Neshant » 31 Jan 2019 06:31

Indranil wrote:With probe, ferry range is not much of an issue. I This may be IAFs bargaining chip for better 1A pricing.



They are going to ruin the project altogether costing the country billions, if so.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16040
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 31 Jan 2019 06:36

Neshant, is there a particular reason why you post YouTube videos of newsreports that have already been posted much earlier?

Neshant wrote:

Kakarat
BRFite
Posts: 1571
Joined: 26 Jan 2005 13:59

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

Postby Kakarat » 31 Jan 2019 13:21

chetak wrote:After Repeated Non-Compliance By HAL Over Tejas Proposal, Indian Air Force To Approach Defence Acquisition Council

As per IAF officials quoted in the report, it was also found that the aircraft range and the endurance levels were not in compliance with the requirements. Endurance level pertains to the amount of time an aircraft can be in the air.

The IAF officials thus told HAL to rectify the issues in the proposal and send a revised response. But non-compliance was also noted in HAL’s subsequent responses which were received in the last 15 days.

The delivery schedule now proposed by HAL remains a non-compliance, for which the IAF is approaching Defence Acquisition Council,” IAF said.

Under the new responses, HAL complied with the ferry range but failed to solve the delivery schedule matter following which IAF has now reportedly decided to approach the Defence Acquisition Council.



If you reed the report properly the range is no more a issue the main issue is delivery schedule

So IAF wants Tejas and wants it faster than HAL wants to deliver

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3295
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

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

Postby Cain Marko » 31 Jan 2019 13:26

Kakarat wrote:[If you reed the report properly the range is no more a issue the main issue is delivery schedule

So IAF wants Tejas and wants it faster than HAL wants to deliver

Lawd, at last someone who actually read the report fwiw before writing instead of usual rnd of..iaf bad bad.

Thank you sir for some sanity

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 18165
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

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

Postby chetak » 31 Jan 2019 13:33

Kakarat wrote:
chetak wrote:After Repeated Non-Compliance By HAL Over Tejas Proposal, Indian Air Force To Approach Defence Acquisition Council

As per IAF officials quoted in the report, it was also found that the aircraft range and the endurance levels were not in compliance with the requirements. Endurance level pertains to the amount of time an aircraft can be in the air.

The IAF officials thus told HAL to rectify the issues in the proposal and send a revised response. But non-compliance was also noted in HAL’s subsequent responses which were received in the last 15 days.

The delivery schedule now proposed by HAL remains a non-compliance, for which the IAF is approaching Defence Acquisition Council,” IAF said.

Under the new responses, HAL complied with the ferry range but failed to solve the delivery schedule matter following which IAF has now reportedly decided to approach the Defence Acquisition Council.



If you reed the report properly the range is no more a issue the main issue is delivery schedule

So IAF wants Tejas and wants it faster than HAL wants to deliver


so, the customer is at the mercy of the supplier??.

A supplier who demands that orders be placed only with them and no other.

A supplier who demands that the customer accepts whatever crap that the supplier deigns to deliver, a supplier who has little concept of quality, no concept of customer service and no clue of customer support.

A supplier who will not deliver per customer requirements. Can't meet pricing, no clue of customer satisfaction criteria and vagabond delivery schedules and this is truly a navratna monster we have created ourselves.

why do we need such guys??

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 » 31 Jan 2019 14:02

Will we need to start producing aircraft in India and that in Fighter aircraft it is the case of all over the world. Can IAF behave Dassualt in a similar manner, demand Rafale be priced at say 1.5x Tejas, demand production without orders. What happened with Jaguars Landing gear.

Remember, the strengthening of undercarriage saga for carrying Bramhos, IAF got it done on the cheap with HAL.

Saar in Fighter Aircraft militarizes have always been at the mercy of suppliers, whether it has Russian, American, French or British. They decide everything what weapons, range etc.. IAF has always had to agree to their demands. It is just a huge lobby which probably has human resources in MOD, Politicians, Media, HAL, iAF is going to loose out is throwing road blocks all over the place.

No one thinks upgrading Mirages for USD 45 million each is problem, but spend money on Tejas- no no. I can bet there were elements employed in the HAL end to overquote and scuttle the deal.

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1410
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

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

Postby Khalsa » 31 Jan 2019 14:28

Reading the last two pages of this thread has been confusing and depressing at the same time.
Yes depressing not only at the state of affairs at HAL and IAF and MoD and India but at our ability to disseminate information and validate info.

Perhaps a clean up might be in order after some time.

hemant_sai
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 42
Joined: 13 Dec 2018 12:13

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

Postby hemant_sai » 31 Jan 2019 19:15

This one is interesting article dated July 2017,
https://idsa.in/idsacomments/tejas-one- ... raj_120717

It emotes same apprehensions what we have today. If this was really July 2017, there are serious questions on HAL's willingness to promote Tejas. Looking at recent trend of HAL chairman's comments w.r.t. Rafale despite horrible track record, they seem to be one-step ahead of politicians in what we call "Moti Chamadi".

Arun.prabhu
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 100
Joined: 28 Aug 2016 19:26

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

Postby Arun.prabhu » 31 Jan 2019 19:21

chetak wrote:so, the customer is at the mercy of the supplier??.

A supplier who demands that orders be placed only with them and no other.

A supplier who demands that the customer accepts whatever crap that the supplier deigns to deliver, a supplier who has little concept of quality, no concept of customer service and no clue of customer support.

A supplier who will not deliver per customer requirements. Can't meet pricing, no clue of customer satisfaction criteria and vagabond delivery schedules and this is truly a navratna monster we have created ourselves.

why do we need such guys??

Because in this case, by placing this order with this supplier we'll be producing our own aircraft? Because even though all of the components aren't made in India, it is a start and we can indigenize further with the Tejas? Because it is a step in ridding our dependence on allies who may be fair weather friends but refuse to supply us during war? The strategic reasons for pursuing Tejas come hell or high water are numerous. It is just that someone in the decision chain is not thinking strategically and very possibly isn't thinking at all.

Edited addendum: We need to remember that HAL isn't a foreign vendor where we're going for the best possible deal possible at the lowest cost. We are kickstarting a strategic industry with Tejas. Even if the Tejas were a flying coffin - and we know it is not - building Tejas is vastly more important than - and I'm sorry to say this - a few brave and heroic fighter pilots. Hmm... I'm probably going to get banned again for that statement, but it needs to be made.

Kakarat
BRFite
Posts: 1571
Joined: 26 Jan 2005 13:59

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

Postby Kakarat » 31 Jan 2019 19:32

Rakesh wrote:• Line 1 ... SP-14 ... LA-5014 ...


Tejas - LCA

14th series produced Tejas, LA - 5014 had her maiden flight yesterday. The 13th member will follow soon. The competition between the two assembly hangars is intensifying. Competition, in one sense, indicates better days are ahead.


SP-14 had maiden flight on 18th Jan 2019, the first page needs update

nash
BRFite
Posts: 804
Joined: 08 Aug 2008 16:48

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

Postby nash » 31 Jan 2019 20:21

Thats great, 2 more and first full operational squad is ready.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6658
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Postby Rakesh » 31 Jan 2019 20:52

Kakarat wrote:SP-14 had maiden flight on 18th Jan 2019, the first page needs update

Thank you Saar. Page 1 updated. Will google and find out who the pilot was.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6658
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Postby Rakesh » 31 Jan 2019 23:07

It was Group Captain KK Venugopal (Retd) who took up SP-14 on her maiden test flight. But date is showing up as Jan 20 or Jan 21.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6658
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Postby Rakesh » 31 Jan 2019 23:11

Three more SP aircraft to go and No 45 Sqn will have a full complement of 16 aircraft. One whole squadron before end March 2019.

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1410
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

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

Postby Khalsa » 01 Feb 2019 03:12

Attention bullet squadron, stand by now !!

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6658
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Postby Rakesh » 01 Feb 2019 04:34

https://twitter.com/delhidefence/status ... 6886302725 ---> Presenting the cockpit view of the Tejas, with the Martin Baker Zero-Zero ejection seat.

Image


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bart S, Karan M, nash, samsher, Shwetank, Vivasvat and 47 guests