Tejas Mk.2 News & Discussions: 25 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.
Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6615
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Tejas Mk.2 News & Discussions: 25 February 2018

Postby Indranil » 10 Mar 2018 04:22

Kartik wrote:the IN could ask Dassault and Boeing to prove out their studies of being able to launch from STOBAR carriers by first demonstrating it off INS Hansa's land based test facility and then prove it aboard INS Vikramaditya.

Dassault asked for $50 million to upgrade each Mirage 2000. You can imagine what they would charge for demonstrations like INS Hansa. None of the planes would be STOBAR capable as is. They have to be studied, possibly modified and definitely certified for STOBAR operations. And it is not cheap.
Kartik wrote:the MiG-29K fault rectification is sort of going by the set trend now. Buy Russian ware, find out issues in the field and then after being told by Russian firms to either pay ransom to fix issues that shouldn't have arisen, or being given the run around, find a local DRDO agency to fix their faults. MiG should be the one paying for the issue rectification. They are the IP owners. I mean the RuN is also going to find out that the MiG-29KR has issues, so it will eventually need to be fixed for their fleet as well.

There are numerous instances of this. Brahmos-A integration, T-90 guns, etc. etc. And it is not just Russians. Our western ware fare better in availability, but try asking for modifications. They will either not do it, or ask for something exorbitant.
Kartik wrote:Who is going to be responsible for certifying the fixes that ADA/DRDO will likely come up with? CEMILAC?

Too early to say whether ADA/DRDO will be formally tasked to solve the problems. If they are CEMILAC will certify. Continuing to operate the Mig-29ks in their current form is unsustainable.
Kartik wrote:Only good thing that will come out of this experience is that it will pretty much completely rule out any MiG-29K derivative from the MRCBF contest.

Mig-29k is out of the picture anyhow. It doesn't have CATOBAR capability.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3860
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Tejas Mk.2 News & Discussions: 25 February 2018

Postby Kartik » 10 Mar 2018 04:52

Indranil wrote:Dassault asked for $50 million to upgrade each Mirage 2000. You can imagine what they would charge for demonstrations like INS Hansa. None of the planes would be STOBAR capable as is. They have to be studied, possibly modified and definitely certified for STOBAR operations. And it is not cheap.

That was for a contract for which the IAF had no other option but to go to the OEM. Not the case with the MRCBF. If the IN made it a per-requisite to participation in the tender, Dassault would have no choice but to bring in a Rafale to test, validate and prove their hypothesis that the Rafale is capable of STOBAR ops. So would Boeing. And the IN can do so at no charge to themselves. Akin to how the MRCA contestants had to bring their jets for testing in Indian conditions with no IAF obligation to pay for the costs.

Indranil wrote:There are numerous instances of this. Brahmos-A integration, T-90 guns, etc. etc. And it is not just Russians. Our western ware fare better in availability, but try asking for modifications. They will either not do it, or ask for something exorbitant.

Yes, that is understandable when the product works as initially advertised but requires modifications that weren't originally envisaged as part of the contract. But when the product has deficiencies as the MiG-29K clearly does, it is the OEM's responsibility to fix it.

What irks me about this whole issue is why did the IN go in for the 29 options for the MiG-29Ks without having MiG fix the defects in the structures? Didn't they see these issues with the first 16 MiG-29Ks? Was it because they were all land-based back then and the issues surfaced only after actual deck ops began?

Indranil wrote:Too early to say whether ADA/DRDO will be formally tasked to solve the problems. If they are CEMILAC will certify. Continuing to operate the Mig-29ks in their current form is unsustainable.


Shocking to say the least. And rather depressing.

Indranil wrote:Mig-29k is out of the picture anyhow. It doesn't have CATOBAR capability.


Did the MRCBF RFI specifically ask for CATOBAR capability? I must have missed that.

srin
BRFite
Posts: 1543
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: Tejas Mk.2 News & Discussions: 25 February 2018

Postby srin » 10 Mar 2018 08:19

What makes an aircraft CATOBAR-incapable ? At a superficial level, the CATOBAR aircraft must have some sort of hook at the nose-landing gear for the catapult sled to hook on to ?
My expectation is that it would be harder for a CATOBAR aircraft to be STOBAR (because of the thrust requirements) than the other way around.

What am I missing ?

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 62364
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Tejas Mk.2 News & Discussions: 25 February 2018

Postby Singha » 10 Mar 2018 09:29

Omens are good. Namo gave macron a good welcome

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6615
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Tejas Mk.2 News & Discussions: 25 February 2018

Postby Indranil » 10 Mar 2018 09:34

srin wrote:What makes an aircraft CATOBAR-incapable ? At a superficial level, the CATOBAR aircraft must have some sort of hook at the nose-landing gear for the catapult sled to hook on to ?
My expectation is that it would be harder for a CATOBAR aircraft to be STOBAR (because of the thrust requirements) than the other way around.

What am I missing ?

There are two main differences.

1. TWR: A STOBAR aircraft requires higher TWR to carry the same load off the ramp.
2. Landing gears: Unlike a conventional aircraft, a naval aircrafts landing gear faces sudden expansion when the aircraft leaves the ship. It is like the earth suddenly falls off beneath them. This expansion shock is significantly lesser on a CATOBAR aircraft because the load on the LG while leaving the ramp is significantly lower (the aircraft is already generating lift to support its weight when it leaves the ramp). But the STOBAR aircrafts OLEO expansion is very sudden. In fact, there have been cases where the LG just fell off. NLCA went through many tests to carefully, check whether the OLEO was expanding at just the right speed(it did not on the first ramp exit). On the other hand, a CATOBAR aircrafts NLG has to be strong enough to pass the force from the sled to the airframe without shearing off.

Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6788
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: Tejas Mk.2 News & Discussions: 25 February 2018

Postby Prasad » 10 Mar 2018 09:46

If we go back to earlier pages, one can find comments from Mao sir (I think) about the landing gear during testing of the NLCA in Goa.

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4299
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Tejas Mk.2 News & Discussions: 25 February 2018

Postby Neshant » 10 Mar 2018 16:36

Make the Tejas MK2 an open-architecture system.

An open-architecture system is where third party countries who purchase the plane can develop & add-on their own weapon systems and gadgets without the involvement of India.

Have it such that they can integrate & validate their additions on their own without seeking India's permission. This is unlike India's relationship with Russia where despite paying tens of billions, India has to beg for & pay insane prices to access Russian source codes for adding just about anything.

Countries like Singapore with an efficient, high tech defense sector will definitely purchase MK2 - more so for geo-strategic reasons but this would be a welcomed add on. So too would Vietnam.

Their 3rd party add-ons will help promote Tejas' sales further.

Don't make it a closed system unless you want to kill all innovation - a lot of which will be 3rd party, small private company initiatives in the future.

srin
BRFite
Posts: 1543
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: Tejas Mk.2 News & Discussions: 25 February 2018

Postby srin » 10 Mar 2018 17:37

Neshant wrote:Make the Tejas MK2 an open-architecture system.

An open-architecture system is where third party countries who purchase the plane can develop & add-on their own weapon systems and gadgets without the involvement of India.

Have it such that they can integrate & validate their additions on their own without seeking India's permission. This is unlike India's relationship with Russia where despite paying tens of billions, India has to beg for & pay insane prices to access Russian source codes for adding just about anything.

Countries like Singapore with an efficient, high tech defense sector will definitely purchase MK2 - more so for geo-strategic reasons but this would be a welcomed add on. So too would Vietnam.

Their 3rd party add-ons will help promote Tejas' sales further.

Don't make it a closed system unless you want to kill all innovation - a lot of which will be 3rd party, small private company initiatives in the future.


I don't understand why it is in our self-interest to make Tejas an open architecture. Even the exports of Tejas must be in our self-interest: primarily strategic and only secondarily commercial. No reason to bend over backwards to let them integrate all sorts of weapons for Tejas - unless they pay extra for the privilege, of course.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6615
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Tejas Mk.2 News & Discussions: 25 February 2018

Postby Indranil » 10 Mar 2018 20:18

Neshant wrote:Make the Tejas MK2 an open-architecture system.

An open-architecture system is where third party countries who purchase the plane can develop & add-on their own weapon systems and gadgets without the involvement of India.

Have it such that they can integrate & validate their additions on their own without seeking India's permission. This is unlike India's relationship with Russia where despite paying tens of billions, India has to beg for & pay insane prices to access Russian source codes for adding just about anything.

That is a decision choice, not a design feature. Till now no country has done it. Will India do it? Remains to be seen.

Vivek K
BRFite
Posts: 1877
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Tejas Mk.2 News & Discussions: 25 February 2018

Postby Vivek K » 10 Mar 2018 20:24

India SHOULD not open its software in export versions. That is foolish and will lose money. India has had to go through painful experiences with integrating other stores on M2K etc.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6511
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Tejas Mk.2 News & Discussions: 25 February 2018

Postby brar_w » 10 Mar 2018 20:34

You do not need to provide open source aircraft software to a potential customer in order for it to more easily develop weapons and integrate them into it. Others who have looked at this problem have adopted common protocols and standards. One example of this is the Universal Armament Interface (UAI/NUAI). Nations around the world simply design their weapons to be UAI compliant and if the aircraft is made UAI compliant then it the only integration expense that takes time and resources is the flight certification that will be needed in all cases as you need to establish an envelope for the weapon and platform.

This has shortened the total-integration cycle (from planning, funding integration work, developing and executing a TEMP and finally fielding the capability) from years to months if not weeks. France, for example, has modified its AASM to be NUAI compliant and therefore offers it to potential F-16 and F-15 (E) customers. Likewise, for Norway with the Joint Strike Missle, and Turkey with the SOM-J. You, therefore, avoid having to share the entire software code, which is and should be a protected commodity, in order for others to integrate weapons into the mission system with minimal OEM hand-holding. Flight testing is and will continue to be a limiting factor. Not all nations that buy the LCA or other Indian defense exports will have the range-infrastructure or technical know-how to execute a flight test program without the involvement of the host nation that has built up a vast repository of test data and knowledge base of that help it better integrates future capability (not to mention that generally host nations tend to maintain dedicated test aircraft, instrumented for future testing needs pretty much throughout the life of the program).

So far, UAI exists for A2G munitions but there are plans to extend it to Air to Air weapons and eventually to sensors/pods as well so there is no reason as to why basically handing over the software is the only option for HAL in order to make its aircraft more upgradable. There is no reason why AdA, HAL et al can come up with something similar and share it with those buying weapon systems designed by these organizations so that they too can design their weapons and sensors to be compatible.

Nations do not hold on to software codes and only reluctantly open it up for select customer just because they want to control what and how something is integrated with it. They also do so for security reasons and this is even more important now given how much cyber-testing has become a core element of any new developmental program that extensively relies on it. Not only do you need to be comfortable with your relationship with a Nation X, as far as assurances that the sensitive software codes would be handled with the same or better amount of sensitivity and security as you would for your own systems, but you also need to be reasonably well assured that any modifications or enhancements done to the software would not have vulnerabilities that open up the entire system to exploitation i.e. their own internal quality control and cyber-testing needs to be u to your standards.

http://www.iqpc.com/media/6729/4428.pdf
Last edited by brar_w on 10 Mar 2018 22:33, edited 3 times in total.

yensoy
BRFite
Posts: 777
Joined: 29 May 2002 11:31
Location: USA

Re: Tejas Mk.2 News & Discussions: 25 February 2018

Postby yensoy » 10 Mar 2018 22:11

Neshant wrote:Make the Tejas MK2 an open-architecture system.


That is so cool! I could 3-D print my own Tejas MK2!! And the Chinese could print theirs and quickly figure out its RCS, noise characteristics, performance envelope and all the good stuff...

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2490
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Tejas Mk.2 News & Discussions: 25 February 2018

Postby kit » 10 Mar 2018 22:20

Neshant wrote:Make the Tejas MK2 an open-architecture system.

An open-architecture system is where third party countries who purchase the plane can develop & add-on their own weapon systems and gadgets without the involvement of India.

Have it such that they can integrate & validate their additions on their own without seeking India's permission. This is unlike India's relationship with Russia where despite paying tens of billions, India has to beg for & pay insane prices to access Russian source codes for adding just about anything.

Countries like Singapore with an efficient, high tech defense sector will definitely purchase MK2 - more so for geo-strategic reasons but this would be a welcomed add on. So too would Vietnam.

Their 3rd party add-ons will help promote Tejas' sales further.

Don't make it a closed system unless you want to kill all innovation - a lot of which will be 3rd party, small private company initiatives in the future.


i want only India to innovate the Tejas within its IPR. Did anyone else pay for its development to be so magnanimous? :shock: .. its not software that was developed in someones free time !!

prasannasimha
Forum Moderator
Posts: 714
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 00:22

Re: Tejas Mk.2 News & Discussions: 25 February 2018

Postby prasannasimha » 10 Mar 2018 23:31

Why all this open source business. We have IPR and product and should sell it as well as r AMC or ekse we are fools.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 49688
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Tejas Mk.2 News & Discussions: 25 February 2018

Postby ramana » 11 Mar 2018 00:26

+108 No more discussions

Akshay Kapoor
Forum Moderator
Posts: 1627
Joined: 03 May 2011 11:15

Re: Tejas Mk.2 News & Discussions: 25 February 2018

Postby Akshay Kapoor » 11 Mar 2018 01:35

prasannasimha wrote:Why all this open source business. We have IPR and product and should sell it as well as r AMC or ekse we are fools.


Was wondering if there was any strategic advantage to this 'open architecture'. Can't see any either. Infact my view is that we have proved our capacity in overall design, aerodynamics, materials, fly by wire, systems integration (MKI is a good example too) and now need to prove our capacities in production, avionics , radar, weapons. We should slowly indigenise these capacities (weapons, sensors) across all platforms both AF and Navy. So why would we not allow this to develop and let others come in and plug and play.

Infact strategically its quite important to have well developed radar (Karan radar update sometime soon ?) , sensor and weapons eco system.

Akshay Kapoor
Forum Moderator
Posts: 1627
Joined: 03 May 2011 11:15

Re: Tejas Mk.2 News & Discussions: 25 February 2018

Postby Akshay Kapoor » 11 Mar 2018 01:37

Vivek K wrote:India SHOULD not open its software in export versions. That is foolish and will lose money. India has had to go through painful experiences with integrating other stores on M2K etc.


There are serious espionage concerns as well....software must be absolutely sacrosant.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6511
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Tejas Mk.2 News & Discussions: 25 February 2018

Postby brar_w » 11 Mar 2018 01:44

Akshay Kapoor wrote:Was wondering if there was any strategic advantage to this 'open architecture'.


Actually, the original member who posted this usedthe term Open Architecture in a different context. OA uses a set of standards incorporated in order to make integration of things easier even for the designers and developers like AdA and HAL. You can have proprietary systems where IPR is protected and still use Open Architecture to develop them so that enhancing them is easier. The Tejas, much like any modern weapon system, makes use of Open Architecture in order to make upgrades simpler and more cost-effective. One example is in its mission-computers.

This is different from basically handing out the data rights and software codes to export customers out of goodwill without either being compensated for it or without any security considerations so that end-users are free to do what they want.

Anyhow, last from me on this.

http://www.tejas.gov.in/technology/open ... onics.html

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4299
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Tejas Mk.2 News & Discussions: 25 February 2018

Postby Neshant » 11 Mar 2018 03:33

Open architecture exists in many modern cars, trucks and buses where the data flow from sub-system can be read by third party add-ons. That's how you design and integrate after market electronics for those vehicles onto the data network. The critical areas are fire-walled off where network traffic can be snooped but to which no data can be written.

This enables rapid additions to the system but has limitations.

There is nothing wrong with making parts of the Tejas open source, beyond just open architecture. This is not some desktop software that someone copies and uses on other laptops. It's highly specific to the plane. There is nothing any country can do with it beyond modify it for use on the Tejas.

There is no way for instance to deliver high band-width data to the cockpit. Nor is data from the radar available onto which such high speed data may be co-related/mapped. Nothing much can be changed other than reception and issuance of commands on a slow data network running through a central choke point.

If you want innovation, make it open source. Here's a thought experiment. What level of open-ness would you need to enable the Tejas to operate autonomously (without a pilot) in combat. It sure as hell isn't just a slow interface to a set-in-stone system of operation.

Tejas MK3 is going to be pilotless and this is the stepping stone to that end.

prasannasimha
Forum Moderator
Posts: 714
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 00:22

Re: Tejas Mk.2 News & Discussions: 25 February 2018

Postby prasannasimha » 11 Mar 2018 07:48

^ man rated and more importantly man limited aircraft is going to be made pilotkess. Whatever for.? Humans on planes impose far more physiological limitations limiting design. UCAV's are designed with a differing philosophy. Simple question what is the G limitation for a human rated aircraft ?

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 62364
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Tejas Mk.2 News & Discussions: 25 February 2018

Postby Singha » 11 Mar 2018 08:32

if we want a stealth dpsa ,the dedicated ghatak air frame is already being worked on.

Vivek K
BRFite
Posts: 1877
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Tejas Mk.2 News & Discussions: 25 February 2018

Postby Vivek K » 11 Mar 2018 08:56

Neshant, we need to exploit the full earning potential of years of toil. We should not put unreasonable expectations on Indian products for later they will be lambasted for not being commercial successes.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35617
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Tejas Mk.2 News & Discussions: 25 February 2018

Postby SaiK » 11 Mar 2018 10:13

OTOH, non-open arch is good for keeping the stealth aspects of comms and inter-operability security concerns. The right exposure or interface is all that we need.. we do have open standards built-in already with LCA core arch.. why is this a question? How do you think we are integrating with stores from France, Russia, Israel and homegrown?

those who seek info, go back 10 years in the archive and find how LCA was built. I can't search for you.

Dileep
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5142
Joined: 04 Apr 2005 08:17
Location: Dera Mahab Ali धरा महाबलिस्याः درا مهاب الي

Re: Tejas Mk.2 News & Discussions: 25 February 2018

Postby Dileep » 11 Mar 2018 11:26

Hm... Tejas avionics is ALREADY "open architecture". Even the computer is called "OAC" ain't it? The motive behind it is simple. Our forces are going to ask integrate everything and sundry they see in the brochures, and an Open Architecture will ease the pain. For example, anything that can talk MIL 1553 or ARINC 429 can be integrated easily.

Even more "Open-ness" were being planned for the MK1A/MK2 avionics. The displays were all proposed to run over ARINC 818 and ARINC 661, which means any device that generate video (Radar/FLIR/LDP) or symbology can be integrated easily.

Not sure what the current direction is.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35617
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Tejas Mk.2 News & Discussions: 25 February 2018

Postby SaiK » 11 Mar 2018 12:13

uni pylon i/f

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6615
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Tejas Mk.2 News & Discussions: 25 February 2018

Postby Indranil » 11 Mar 2018 21:13

Indranil wrote:There are two main differences.

1. TWR: A STOBAR aircraft requires higher TWR to carry the same load off the ramp.
2. Landing gears: Unlike a conventional aircraft, a naval aircrafts landing gear faces sudden expansion when the aircraft leaves the ship. It is like the earth suddenly falls off beneath them. This expansion shock is significantly lesser on a CATOBAR aircraft because the load on the LG while leaving the ramp is significantly lower (the aircraft is already generating lift to support its weight when it leaves the ramp). But the STOBAR aircrafts OLEO expansion is very sudden. In fact, there have been cases where the LG just fell off. NLCA went through many tests to carefully, check whether the OLEO was expanding at just the right speed(it did not on the first ramp exit). On the other hand, a CATOBAR aircrafts NLG has to be strong enough to pass the force from the sled to the airframe without shearing off.

Continuing ...
3. In STOBAR configuration, when a plane leaves the ship, it is still stalled. Yet it has to have control and authority over roll, pitch and yaw. It is not so easy for today's planes which are unstable by nature.
4. The FBW has to be extended to include the parabolic flight as part of the envelop. It is completely different from all other flight regimes because according to the computer the plane should not be flying! The controls are sluggish. Stabilizing a plane under this condition is quite challenging. ADA spent a lot of time to find the right trigger to know when this mode should be turned on and off.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5179
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Tejas Mk.2 News & Discussions: 25 February 2018

Postby Viv S » 11 Mar 2018 21:51

Indranil,

Two questions here -

1. What's the hardpoint situation for the Mk2? The airframe seems to be undergoing a major upgrade - increasing the number of hardpoints shouldn't be that big a challenge?

2. Will a dedicated housing for EW gear be provided (as in the Rafale or Gripen)?

Also, wrt to the Mk1A, how will the podded EW solution be accommodated? Pylon-based EW? Or a pod on a twin pylon? Or will it occupy the Litening chin-point?

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19216
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Tejas Mk.2 News & Discussions: 25 February 2018

Postby Philip » 11 Mar 2018 23:19

Mk-2 is going to be almost as taxing as designing a whole new aircraft.A comparative list of potential changes of key eqpt, weaponry, sensors, etc. with the Mk-1A should be made to understand the challenge.

Vivek K
BRFite
Posts: 1877
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Tejas Mk.2 News & Discussions: 25 February 2018

Postby Vivek K » 12 Mar 2018 08:25

Mk2 will be a great journey for Indian MIC - serial development of an Indian product has never occurred before. It marks the realization of the importance of a local MIC that helps national security, national interest and the national economy. Though every aircraft is a challenge? the processes are firmly established - wind tunnel experimentation, CFD analysis to perfect the design, an established FBW, feedback from MK1 and Mk1A, and the experience of setting up manufacturing lines from scratch.

If I was in HAL/DRDO - I would be saying bring it on!!

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6615
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Tejas Mk.2 News & Discussions: 25 February 2018

Postby Indranil » 12 Mar 2018 08:52

Viv S wrote:Indranil,

Two questions here -

1. What's the hardpoint situation for the Mk2? The airframe seems to be undergoing a major upgrade - increasing the number of hardpoints shouldn't be that big a challenge?

Number will not change. But flexibility will be added.
Viv S wrote:2. Will a dedicated housing for EW gear be provided (as in the Rafale or Gripen)?

I don't know.
Viv S wrote:Also, wrt to the Mk1A, how will the podded EW solution be accommodated? Pylon-based EW? Or a pod on a twin pylon? Or will it occupy the Litening chin-point?

Pod on a twin outboard pylon.

Avarachan
BRFite
Posts: 496
Joined: 04 Jul 2006 21:06

Re: Tejas Mk.2 News & Discussions: 25 February 2018

Postby Avarachan » 13 Mar 2018 10:35

Kartik wrote:And why should ADA help fix the MiG-29K? They don't own the IP to it.


Russia's assistance with the Arihant class (etc.) has been worth many, many billions of dollars (far more than what India has paid in cash). So, to make up the difference, India is helping Russia with the Mig-29K (etc.). It's a good deal for India.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7716
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Tejas Mk.2 News & Discussions: 25 February 2018

Postby Pratyush » 13 Mar 2018 11:07

Avarachan wrote:
Kartik wrote:And why should ADA help fix the MiG-29K? They don't own the IP to it.


Russia's assistance with the Arihant class (etc.) has been worth many, many billions of dollars (far more than what India has paid in cash). So, to make up the difference, India is helping Russia with the Mig-29K (etc.). It's a good deal for India.



Am sick and tired of reading such logic being posted on the forum. Regardless of the kind of help extended by Russian federation on any of the program. India has paid sufficiently for it. No more payments for any more substandard stuff from any source.

Russian or other wise.

Haridas
BRFite
Posts: 260
Joined: 26 Dec 2017 07:53

Re: Tejas Mk.2 News & Discussions: 25 February 2018

Postby Haridas » 13 Mar 2018 18:28

^^^ +108.
Indian assistance to Russia that kept Mikoyan alive was worth real dollars (close to a billion), it was smart Russian interest in Delhi that prevented outright purchase of Mig corp by stupid Lifafa loving lootayan. India has paid excessively to Russia over last 17 years, forget about the period earlier.
Indian money is not their baap ka maal to be had free as loot, irrespective of their marionette controllers in India.

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4299
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Tejas Mk.2 News & Discussions: 25 February 2018

Postby Neshant » 13 Mar 2018 18:48

To be fair, it took Russia hundreds of billions of dollars to evolve their latest nuclear subs - a lot of which India has benefitted from through their design and technical assistance on Arihant. This leapfrogs decades of painstaking, expensive evolution of a nuclear sub to get to such a point which is perhaps only a generation or two behind their latest subs.

Two nuclear subs literally cost as much as a mid to large aircraft carrier. If India had to embark on that route of evolutionary improvement to sub development, it would have taken decades filled with disasters along the way.

Sure we paid a ton of money for it as well.

ArjunPandit
BRFite
Posts: 1072
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: Tejas Mk.2 News & Discussions: 25 February 2018

Postby ArjunPandit » 13 Mar 2018 19:00

Mig 29, Su 30, Arihant, India-Russia, all in just one page of a thread dedicated to Tejas Mk2.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5115
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Tejas Mk.2 News & Discussions: 25 February 2018

Postby Rakesh » 13 Mar 2018 19:08

https://twitter.com/SJha1618/status/973529340733460486 ---> Any Tejas Mk-2 will require 500-600 sorties before it gets final operational clearance from the Air force. Funds need to be allocated for this project soon, if it has to be in production by 2024 thereabouts.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35617
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Tejas Mk.2 News & Discussions: 25 February 2018

Postby SaiK » 13 Mar 2018 19:44

Yet another firang confirmation on SEF is Tejas living spsce.

India Wants to Link Its Rebooted Fighter Jet Tender to Future Stealth Fighter Development
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/19 ... evelopment

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5115
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Tejas Mk.2 News & Discussions: 25 February 2018

Postby Rakesh » 13 Mar 2018 19:49

SaiK: lifafa article lifted from Rahul Singh's Hindustan Times piece, drizzled with ketchup and mustard.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35617
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Tejas Mk.2 News & Discussions: 25 February 2018

Postby SaiK » 13 Mar 2018 21:59

Yup.

Manish Jain
BRFite
Posts: 141
Joined: 02 Jul 2003 11:31
Location: India

Re: Tejas Mk.2 News & Discussions: 25 February 2018

Postby Manish Jain » 14 Mar 2018 16:50



Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Sanjiv and 27 guests