Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 30 Sep 2019 22:34

Brar sahab, wht is the order of funding that GE needs to get to the EDE/EPE variants. There seems to be a growing market for those variants.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 30 Sep 2019 22:58

It think that it would depend upon what path GE chooses to pursue with F-414 enhancements. For the classic EPE/EDE changes, much of the technology has already been developed and some even tested at least in the lab. Next up would be full up ground demonstrations followed by flight testing and a full-fledged test and certification program run by NAVAIR. It is still a 5 year, a couple of billion $ investment to get it to comparable maturity to the vanilla F-414.

But, I think any meaningful "enhanced" version of the F-414 meant for the "2030's" would probably have to include, at least the low-hanging, technology transitions from GE's XA100 program, especially since their rival in P&W is already doing this on the F-135 under the Growth 2.0 package (transitioning technology from the XA-101). What is a big black hole is the amount of classified work GE is supporting with the F-414. If the RQ-180 carries that engine, and the US Navy wants that engine for its MQ-25 derivitives and X-47 offshoots then it is quite likely that GE will wait for more technology to be matured before inserting. There are probably quite a few other classified programs that this engine could well be supporting. The USN itself probably doesn't need engine enhancements till perhaps 2030s so they have time to commit internal resources since they are still buying more Super Hornets..With GE and P&W locked in the next GEW, I doubt the company is willing to commit a single internal research $ to the F404/414 family until those future engines are competitively down-selected and work assured especially since GE has been able to win customers both domestically and abroad without any inroads by competition both US based (P&W) and European based..

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 30 Sep 2019 23:36

Thanks for the succinct and informative reply.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 30 Sep 2019 23:59

Austin wrote:Indranil is there an optimum Weapon and internal fuel load that Mk2can carry that can give it a T:W ratio of 1 or near around those figures , I am looking at best weapon/fuel load for BFM and perhaps surpassing even M2K or 29 in dog fight ?

There are very few aircraft that can match the original Mig-29 in terms of T:W ratio. Even the MKI and M2k aren't close. It was an absolute beast. But that performance came with severe limitations of endurance. The upgraded 29 will also not match that performance but will have a more usable combat radius and endurance.

There is absolutely no reason for the MWF to match it in terms of T:W ratio. Indranil has mentioned the drag reduction including better area ruling for the MWF and the canards will also help in improving maneuverability. With its AESA radar and possible integration with the Astra Mk1 and 2 it should outperform both the upgraded Mig-29 and M2k in BVR which is more important.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 01 Oct 2019 11:19

Quoting from MK1 thread. This is more appropriate for this discussion here.

Indranil wrote:
fanne wrote:Evolution of LCA from Vanilla LCA to Medium Weight Fighter...

https://twitter.com/strategic_front/sta ... 7790715905 ---> Evolution of LCA Mk2 design over the years (Air force version).

Excellent slide to show the development. The details there are very correct. Kudos to strategic front to bring this out. The yellow dots signify the position of the plugs.

Looks like pic of display screen from somewhere. Its from ADA..??

Couple of interesting things.

1. MWF has a plug in the wing mid-chord region..??? Now that makes sense, I have been wondering how the hell the moved out the wings without any seeming change in the inboard LE portion where the wing attaches to the fuselage. The extension of the wing length can explain that, because moving out and elongation make geometric sense when the LE sweep angle is kept constant. But still the math doesn't workout exactly for the given values of elongation and widening if we consider that the whole elongation from 3rd to 4th image is in the plug in the wing midchord region. May be there are changes that are not apparent from the image. This would increase the wing area significantly over that of Mk1. The wings are not identical then, unless my eyes are cheated by some spell.

2. From 3rd to 4th image, there is significant internal volume increase in the mid fuselage, but no internal fuel increase. What gives..?? Surely the internal volume for avionics and maintenance related LRU movements would have been accounted for by 3rd iteration already as those requirements have been there since long. Where does all that space goes..??

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 01 Oct 2019 11:29

Haridas wrote:
Cain Marko wrote:Those seem like some very extensive changes. Airframe is totally different - 300mm wider, 1 meter longer at least, newer engines/intake designs. This has very little in common with the current Tejas. I wonder what the empty weight will be. This is a M2k or Gripen-E for sure. Lets hope they can keep it below 8 tons. ...
You mean from fabrication perspective ?
From aerodynamic viewpoint it's expansion around the mk1 baseline that has been well charecterized, hence canards or length or 1 ft wider fuselage are delta exploration that needs validation. From control law perspective imho it's much safer, as the canard configuration can be forced to fall back to pure double delta cranked wing

Addition of canard would add additional terms for canard deflection in all the control loops and aircraft dynamics equations. A lot of updating would be required of the flight characteristics as with canard in place, wing aerodynamics would significantly have changed. But by now ADA's modelling tools would have been validated and tuned well enough that there first predictions will be close to the reality and time to fine tuning using flight data would be significantly less compared to what was needed for Mk1.

But how do you say it can be forced back to pure double delta wing..?? Do you mean letting the canard freely float..?? Indranil has previously alluded that the canards will not be used for pitch control but only for trimming (which I still cannot digest).

srai · Post by **srai** » 01 Oct 2019 18:18

JayS,

Good observation on the internal fuel between the last two. It had caught my eye too. The final design is 350mm longer and 300mm wider but no extra fuel. Seems unlikely.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 01 Oct 2019 20:27

Per the post above - 350 mm adds 1000 kg to AUW (or MTOW) and this is translated into additional 1000 kg weapons payload. So external fuel tanks could be a part of the increased payload.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 02 Oct 2019 00:00

JayS wrote:Quoting from MK1 thread. This is more appropriate for this discussion here.
Indranil wrote: Excellent slide to show the development. The details there are very correct. Kudos to strategic front to bring this out. The yellow dots signify the position of the plugs.
Looks like pic of display screen from somewhere. Its from ADA..??

Couple of interesting things.

1. MWF has a plug in the wing mid-chord region..??? Now that makes sense, I have been wondering how the hell the moved out the wings without any seeming change in the inboard LE portion where the wing attaches to the fuselage. The extension of the wing length can explain that, because moving out and elongation make geometric sense when the LE sweep angle is kept constant. But still the math doesn't workout exactly for the given values of elongation and widening if we consider that the whole elongation from 3rd to 4th image is in the plug in the wing midchord region. May be there are changes that are not apparent from the image. This would increase the wing area significantly over that of Mk1. The wings are not identical then, unless my eyes are cheated by some spell.

Let's work with the assumption that the LE is the same. There are two possibilities. First, They have retained the wing as is, but the wing joins are 0.35 mtrs further apart. In the second case, the wing joins are exactly the same distance apart as before, but the wingspan has increased by 0.35 mtrs. In this latter case, the chord of the wing must also increase to maintain the LE. But, given the aspect ratio, the increase in chord length is roughly twice that of 0.35 mtrs at the root. We are speaking of a larger wing and a midchord fuselage plug is a must!!! This makes sense knowing what we know about the inlet with respect to the wing LE at the root. This is beginning to make sense. In short, I am starting to believe that MWF has a larger wing than Mk1. And this is a good thing. It will retain the roll rates and ITR of Mk1.

JayS wrote: 2. From 3rd to 4th image, there is significant internal volume increase in the mid fuselage, but no internal fuel increase. What gives..?? Surely the internal volume for avionics and maintenance related LRU movements would have been accounted for by 3rd iteration already as those requirements have been there since long. Where does all that space goes..??

Good observation. Seems unlikely. By the way, if they can limit the clean TO to 11 tons, then the internal fuel fraction will 0.31. That is the same as Rafale. If they improve on it, they will be at the MKI internal fuel fraction. And at 3.9 tons (unlikely) they will be in JSF territory.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 02 Oct 2019 06:30

Indranil, there is no target empty weight that we know of as yet, right?

Gripen E with a MTOW of 16,500 kg has empty weight of 8000 kg. And internal fuel of 3400 kg, 100 kg more than the 3300 kgs for the MWF. Should give us a similar target empty weight for the MWF as well, although I suspect that the additional 1000 kg of payload may require additional strengthening which may increase the empty weight a bit. But all in all, the target is tough- they want the MWF to carry 1000 kg more of payload than the Gripen E, while having a MTOW that is also exactly 1000 kg more. So, given everything else the target Empty Weight must be ~8100 kg or so.

I see that the landing gear oleo stroke has increased on the MWF, as would be expected for a fighter that may need to carry a big long cruise missile on its center line and be able to rotate with it on take off and land with it still on. On the Tejas Mk1, I always felt that the clearance may not have been adequate to carry a boxy SCALP like cruise missile..only sleek, shortish and narrow drop tank might fit underneath the Mk1's fuselage.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 02 Oct 2019 09:58

Those are all logical conclusions.

sankum · Post by **sankum** » 02 Oct 2019 10:12

According to Sjha IAF requirement is 6T external payload . 6.5T is ADA target. So the empty weight can very well be 7.5T and clean weight 11.5T.

In all the 3 iteration of Tejas mk2 the empty weight is 7T while MTOW is 15T , 16.5T and 17.5T respectively.

In the first iteration for 0.5m plug we can expect internal volume to go up by 750lt (0.5m*1m*1.5m) roughly of which 250!litre is to additional fuel (200kg additional fuel) and 500 lt to avionics.

In the second iteration for additional 0.5m we get 750litre which goes to additional fuel of 600kg.

In the third iteration of 0.35m plug the internal volume goes up by say 400 to 500 litre minus windpipe volume we have no additional fuel except that internal fuel centre of gravity have been shifted to centre. My estimate is 200 litre to 300 litre additional fuel could have been carried.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 03 Oct 2019 02:33

sankum wrote:According to Sjha IAF requirement is 6T external payload . 6.5T is ADA target. So the empty weight can very well be 7.5T and clean weight 11.5T.

In all the 3 iteration of Tejas mk2 the empty weight is 7T while MTOW is 15T , 16.5T and 17.5T respectively.

In the first iteration for 0.5m plug we can expect internal volume to go up by 750lt (0.5m*1m*1.5m) roughly of which 250!litre is to additional fuel (200kg additional fuel) and 500 lt to avionics.

In the second iteration for additional 0.5m we get 750litre which goes to additional fuel of 600kg.

In the third iteration of 0.35m plug the internal volume goes up by say 400 to 500 litre minus windpipe volume we have no additional fuel except that internal fuel centre of gravity have been shifted to centre. My estimate is 200 litre to 300 litre additional fuel could have been carried.

7 tonnes empty weight made sense for the Tejas Mk2 in its first iteration, where the MTOW was 15,000 kgs and internal fuel was increased by ~200 kgs. But how can it be 7 tonnes empty when the MTOW goes up to 16,500 kg?

Even Gripen is 8000 kg empty, so setting such a target empty weight is setting yourself up for failure. Saab originally advertised a ridiculous 7200 kg empty weight figure for the Gripen E, till it went through detail design and then came up being 8000 kg.

That is what happened with the original Tejas empty weight target being 5400 kg or thereabouts. And it ended up being 6500 kgs and media persons and IAF officials started complaining that it was overweight..but actually it was bang on right where all other similar light fighters' empty weights were. Perhaps as a result of the lessons learnt from that, we don't see an empty weight figure being mentioned in any of the MWF brochures.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 03 Oct 2019 16:59

sankum wrote:According to Sjha IAF requirement is 6T external payload . 6.5T is ADA target. So the empty weight can very well be 7.5T and clean weight 11.5T.

In all the 3 iteration of Tejas mk2 the empty weight is 7T while MTOW is 15T , 16.5T and 17.5T respectively.

In the first iteration for 0.5m plug we can expect internal volume to go up by 750lt (0.5m*1m*1.5m) roughly of which 250!litre is to additional fuel (200kg additional fuel) and 500 lt to avionics.

In the second iteration for additional 0.5m we get 750litre which goes to additional fuel of 600kg.

In the third iteration of 0.35m plug the internal volume goes up by say 400 to 500 litre minus windpipe volume we have no additional fuel except that internal fuel centre of gravity have been shifted to centre. My estimate is 200 litre to 300 litre additional fuel could have been carried.

You did not account for fuel space increase in the elongated wings.

I agree with kartik. 7T is unrealistic target and it should have been atleast 7.5T (given MWF is still smaller in length compared to Gripen-E and has higher composite content, I can live with the target that it will be 7.5T as against Geipen-E's 8T). If they could manage 7T nothing like it. The latest Mk1 brochure lists its empty weight to be just over 7T...!! Its rather difficult to believe MWF would have same weight as MK1/1A. Under-promise over-perform is always better than over-promise under-perform.

7.5T + 0.5T + 3.5T gives 6T payload for 17.5T AUM. This is already kick ass.

srai · Post by **srai** » 03 Oct 2019 17:19

What about the ongoing weight reduction of Mk1 by HAL? How much was actually achieved?

The Tejas LCA: improving performance with the current F-404 engine

...
2. Reduction of Tejas' weight.

The LCA’s designers say that the removal of telemetry instrumentation, which is essential during flight testing, will bring the Tejas’ weight down by as much as 300-400 kilos. Re-engineering some of the displays and sub-systems within the cockpit will lop off another 300 kilos; the weight reduction of 600-700 kilos is expected to allow the carriage of more weapons.

There is a lack of understanding about what the Tejas’ weight is, since all kinds of figures are bandied about. Let me clarify: The 10.5 tons that I wrote about in my last post is the total weight of the Tejas, with full fuel on board; all 7 pylons fitted but not carrying weapons; and two outboard missiles being carried. The maximum payload of the Tejas is 3.5 tons… carried on its pylons. This could be armament or external fuel tanks; if external fuel tanks are fitted, the weight of fuel will correspondingly bring down the weapons load carried.

But there’s a catch! The maximum take-off weight of the Tejas is 13 tons. So if you load the maximum payload of 3.5 tons onto the 10.5 ton fighter, your weight of 14 tons is beyond the maximum take-off weight. So you’ll have to shed one ton… or either internal fuel or external fuel/armaments. That’s what happens when a fighter’s weight goes beyond what was originally planned.

So the reduction of 600-700 kilos may not actually go into making the Tejas more manoeuvrable. This shaved off weight may be made up by allowing the Tejas to carry (close to) its full capacity of external fuel-cum-armament.
...

sajaym · Post by **sajaym** » 03 Oct 2019 19:32

Current thinking about payload as a 'load' to be carried needs to change. We all know that a load creates drag on the lift being generated by the aircraft's flight surfaces & engine and imposes limitations on the aircraft's performance. But what if the 'load' has flight surfaces of it's own which create lift of their own? What if the LDP pod, the tanks, the bombs and missiles have AI powered flaps/levcons of their own which interact with the FCS in such a way that both (the aircraft & it's 'load') create additional lift to compensate the additional drag? Is it possible?

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 03 Oct 2019 19:49

One can remove radar load too for additional weight gain in case additional mini- fuel tankers are needed with Uttam as option. Point of engine example being aircraft 'loads' are optimised for role so gotta think twice about what is dropped for fuel. Additional armament will mean additional fuel too.

So the reduction of 600-700 kilos may not actually go into making the Tejas more manoeuvrable

Manoeuvrability is a definitive attraction choice for some roles.

nash · Post by **nash** » 04 Oct 2019 17:04

https://twitter.com/SJha1618/status/1180068101074718720
Saurav Jha
@SJha1618
BTW, ACM Bhadauria has made it crystal clear that Tejas Mk2/MWF and AMCA will proceed on a parallel basis with the Indian Air Force being firmly behind both designs. So, Dalals can go on kite flying for their masters but it ain't gonna work.

So MWF and AMCA will proceed as per plan, good to hear that. Any chance of extending ACM Bhadauria tenure we certainly need person like him who make sure of MWF in IAF in large numbers.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 04 Oct 2019 17:08

I think its high time we start a bomber project along with the some jet powered drones which have aldready started. All nations that developed an aviation industry ran multiple projects which could feed off each other.

Bala Vignesh · Post by **Bala Vignesh** » 04 Oct 2019 19:26

IMO, if we want to start another project thay builds on the LCA and MWF, then we need to start on our own growler. Needn't be very powerful like the growler, even of we reach Prowler level in capabilities, it would be sufficient.

sajaym · Post by **sajaym** » 04 Oct 2019 19:34

Aditya_V wrote:I think its high time we start a bomber project along with the some jet powered drones which have aldready started.

The GHATAK drone is the best candidate for a bomber project. Scale up the design and plonk 4 kaveri engines & there you go across china with 10 1000LB-ers. And since it's kaveri engines, best to leave pilots out of it!

Barath · Post by **Barath** » 04 Oct 2019 20:12

naird wrote:
VikramA wrote:I have a question. For MWF which GE 414 engine was chosen?
1) F414 Enhanced Engine: 116 kn went thrust
Or
2) F414-GE-INS6: 97 kn wet thrust
There is no EPE . GE was hoping that US navy would fund it for hornets. But it has not yet materialized. If it happens then i presume it will be an option for us

Not a great source, but this link suggests that GE has briefed ADA and there is an offer for the Enhanced. With hopes of pitching the same engine for MWF and AMCA

Mentioned here as well : viewtopic.php?t=3351&start=4600#p2339099

[INS6 was selected as others have noted; and brar_'s additional briefing on EPE/EDE]. Not sure how the timelines would fit for a decision or funding..

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 04 Oct 2019 20:20

The link is not from a credible source. Having said that, GE has been pitching the “enhanced F414” to many customers but it is too much of a lift to come from someone besides the USN given by he coordination and investment required and the fact that for GE, the main intention would be to get as many technical changes that interest the USN, given how large that one customer is. This may not be consistant with what a third party may be interested in investing in. As I had mentioned in my previous post, now that there is the XA100 and GE has nearly completed a nearly decade long $1.5+ Billion investment into 6th gen. / adaptive engines, it would be quite logical for them to (and for the USN to demand from them) look to transition at least some of the low hanging fruit into the F-414 family. If they follow P&W and head down that road (offering 6th gen tech transition to older gen. engines as a bridge to the NG family of engines) then it necessitates a USN funded project given the sensitive technology involved, the scope of testing and program risk.

https://www.geaviation.com/sites/defaul ... hanced.pdf

kit · Post by **kit** » 04 Oct 2019 23:06

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/ind ... 445334.cms

sivab · Post by **sivab** » 15 Oct 2019 21:07

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/1182957532458831874

Harsh Vardhan Thakur
‏
@hvtiaf
Oct 12
More
Replying to @prajprakprakash @drdo
LCA Mk-2 cockpit will be ahead of F-35. Avionics will be similar and hopefully at par with F-35. Sensor fusion is a design driver.

AMCA is aiming a little ahead of F-35. We've to demonstrate that. Automation is the bedrock. Intelligence is a design driver.

nam · Post by **nam** » 15 Oct 2019 23:13

There is a lack of understanding about what the Tejas’ weight is, since all kinds of figures are bandied about. Let me clarify: The 10.5 tons that I wrote about in my last post is the total weight of the Tejas, with full fuel on board; all 7 pylons fitted but not carrying weapons; and two outboard missiles being carried. The maximum payload of the Tejas is 3.5 tons… carried on its pylons. This could be armament or external fuel tanks; if external fuel tanks are fitted, the weight of fuel will correspondingly bring down the weapons load carried.

I think there is a "catch" over this catch. The take off weight is 13, but the catch is, if it flies with less fuel and then tank up in air.. It can still carry the full armament and fuel.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 16 Oct 2019 04:31

LCA Mk2 cockpit "ahead of" F-35 is a very ambitious goal. The F-35 doesn't have a HUD for instance. And all information is displayed onto the pilot's visor. That is a needless complication IMO and was a difficult requirement to be met for the companies that were designing the helmet. If what HV Thakur was referring to was the sensor fusion and size of displays and resolution, as well as the ease of usage of those tactile displays, that may be doable but it is still adding more complexity than is needed for the first batches.

I really feel that good Project Management will be key to the success of the MWF. Trying to get it all in the first production standard MWF will only lead to delays and schedule slippages. IMO, the MWF project needs to be taken up in batches- the first batch of 50 odd MWF jets to be designed to slightly less stringent requirements so that deliveries can begin within 5-6 years of first flight. The second batch or block can then be developed with AMCA level cockpit and avionics, RAM coatings, conformal antennae, etc.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 16 Oct 2019 05:14

F-35 cockpit and sensor fusion is constantly evolving through block 4 and block 5 and will constantly be upgraded in a 2-4 year cycle through the next 10-15 years ( instead of a formal MLU). There is nothing one can do to make the cockpit objectively better ( as opposed to different) as the F-35 program is mature and pulls in whatever is best of class in terms industries ability to deliver. Case in point - the baseline cockpit displays were best of class in 2003..the ones being cut into production in 2020 are best in class as of 2017 and the same applies to Gen 3 helmet..same applies to mission systems ( advanced EOTS for example ) and mission computers which will surpass the F-15 Es mission computers as the fastest on a tactical fighter aircraft when they come online in 2022 (F-15 surpassed F-35 as the fastest mission computers on a fighter with its most latest upgrade )...The MWF needs to establish a baseline and stick to it just like every other program during its developmental stage. Upgrades are best left to follow on development. Delivering a Gripen E or Super Hornet caliber aircraft by 2026-2028 should be the focus. That is not a small lift. Enhancements can come later.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 16 Oct 2019 05:33

I fully agree. I think he said it loosely and was referring to just the display system. Yes F-35 has demonstrated a working system where HAL is just starting.

I have heard this for the second time though. There was another video where a HAL boss said something similar. I don't remember which platform he was speaking about and I don't think he was speaking about the Americans, but the Europeans. Again it was said loosely, regarding possible consultancy. He said something like his team doesn't need help on the display systems and that they could teach them a thing or two. Unnecessary, on one hand. But on the other hand, it's good to see them FINALLY develop some confidence, faith and pride in their teams and products. Compared to the marketing other companies do, let's cut them this much slack.

I hope HAL does put the SPORT cockpit in Mk1A and MWF. That will be some serious heartburn for many dalals.

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 16 Oct 2019 07:42

Kartik wrote:
sankum wrote:According to Sjha IAF requirement is 6T external payload . 6.5T is ADA target. So the empty weight can very well be 7.5T and clean weight 11.5T.

In all the 3 iteration of Tejas mk2 the empty weight is 7T while MTOW is 15T , 16.5T and 17.5T respectively.

In the first iteration for 0.5m plug we can expect internal volume to go up by 750lt (0.5m*1m*1.5m) roughly of which 250!litre is to additional fuel (200kg additional fuel) and 500 lt to avionics.

In the second iteration for additional 0.5m we get 750litre which goes to additional fuel of 600kg.

In the third iteration of 0.35m plug the internal volume goes up by say 400 to 500 litre minus windpipe volume we have no additional fuel except that internal fuel centre of gravity have been shifted to centre. My estimate is 200 litre to 300 litre additional fuel could have been carried.
7 tonnes empty weight made sense for the Tejas Mk2 in its first iteration, where the MTOW was 15,000 kgs and internal fuel was increased by ~200 kgs. But how can it be 7 tonnes empty when the MTOW goes up to 16,500 kg?

Even Gripen is 8000 kg empty, so setting such a target empty weight is setting yourself up for failure. Saab originally advertised a ridiculous 7200 kg empty weight figure for the Gripen E, till it went through detail design and then came up being 8000 kg.

That is what happened with the original Tejas empty weight target being 5400 kg or thereabouts. And it ended up being 6500 kgs and media persons and IAF officials started complaining that it was overweight..but actually it was bang on right where all other similar light fighters' empty weights were. Perhaps as a result of the lessons learnt from that, we don't see an empty weight figure being mentioned in any of the MWF brochures.

In my opinion, there shouldn’t be an empty weight target given by IAF, rather they should restrict ASQR to functional parameters only (none other than mighty CAG recommended it). Payload, range, acceleration, climb rate etc. How these are achieved should be left to the designer.

kit · Post by **kit** » 16 Oct 2019 10:50

Indranil wrote:I fully agree. I think he said it loosely and was referring to just the display system. Yes F-35 has demonstrated a working system where HAL is just starting.

I have heard this for the second time though. There was another video where a HAL boss said something similar. I don't remember which platform he was speaking about and I don't think he was speaking about the Americans, but the Europeans. Again it was said loosely, regarding possible consultancy. He said something like his team doesn't need help on the display systems and that they could teach them a thing or two. Unnecessary, on one hand. But on the other hand, it's good to see them FINALLY develop some confidence, faith and pride in their teams and products. Compared to the marketing other companies do, let's cut them this much slack.

I hope HAL does put the SPORT cockpit in Mk1A and MWF. That will be some serious heartburn for many dalals.

that singular wide area display seems to present in the Koreans new KF-X fighter as well..made by SAMSUNG THALES..samsung is a partner with an indian firm for manufacture of LED cockpit panels

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 16 Oct 2019 20:22

IT will be great if somebody can find out: from which collaboration is the next generation HAL cockpit display systems arriving?

1. HAL + Elbit
2. HAL + Thales (they did show case the next gen cockpit for HAwki)
3. HAL + Samtel

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 16 Oct 2019 20:46

Apologies, but here's a conspiracy theory.

Elbit is most likely. HAL managers will likely not be planning with Samtel (unless they're made to) as there are no foreign trips and kickbacks.

Their duplicity with regards to Elta 2052 AESA has convinced me. First we heard that it is a proven AESA radar, then we heard that they already have experience of integrating it with Jags D3 upgrade. Now we know that there isn't a single Jag flying with AESA, and there won't be, for atleast first 2 sqns (not counting the IMs). All this while they've been causing issues with Uttam on LSP-2 by delaying the regular maintenance of the aircraft at every instance. Also HAL's refusal for integrating Astra on Mk1 so they can make Mk1A look good is another reason. They're deep in Israeli pockets.

Borrowing from Hawk-i has IP related issues.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 16 Oct 2019 22:03

You might be surprised.

I just found out. MWF will have single wide MFD. Currently layout is being designed at NFTC.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 16 Oct 2019 22:13

Indranil wrote:You might be surprised.

I just found out. MWF will have single wide MFD. Currently layout is being designed at NFTC.

Like Kartik said, these kind of "Nice to have" features can be incorporated into later tranches assuming IAF does not ask for everything in the first production aircraft itself. The MWF already has several big changes from the Mk1 any of which can cause delays during testing. No need to add to the pile right from the start.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 16 Oct 2019 22:52

They are conscious of timelines. IAF is keeping a strict eye. They are now completely aligned. You will see MWF in large numbers. It is not without reason that the dalal lobby so active these days.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 16 Oct 2019 22:59

If a similar layout is already being developed for SPORT, it will speed things up significantly for MWF.

DARE already has large area displays available from SAMTEL. But the ELBIT one likely integrates a powerful compute engine with it, to generate maps and all the fancy graphics the display can be used for.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 16 Oct 2019 23:02

JTull wrote:Elbit is most likely. HAL managers will likely not be planning with Samtel (unless they're made to) as there are no foreign trips and kickbacks.

Their duplicity with regards to Elta 2052 AESA has convinced me. Also HAL's refusal for integrating Astra on Mk1 so they can make Mk1A look good is another reason. They're deep in Israeli pockets.

Borrowing from Hawk-i has IP related issues.

I dont think it is an issue of foreign trips and kickbacks but simply that HAL tries to always go for easy, proven solutions where their development team has it easy. This is a vice or virtue (depending on how you look at it, from indigenization or customer timeline perspective) common to several DPSUs when they approach such programs. BEL has also done this in the past.

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 16 Oct 2019 23:48

Karan M wrote:If a similar layout is already being developed for SPORT, it will speed things up significantly for MWF.

DARE already has large area displays available from SAMTEL. But the ELBIT one likely integrates a powerful compute engine with it, to generate maps and all the fancy graphics the display can be used for.

That's exactly where the problem is. Either HAL is duplicating a lot of effort, or it is not acknowledging the input of other institutions. All because it wants to claim all the rewards.

e.g.,
1. Going slow in building production capacity for Mk1, so it can pitch Mk1A.
2. Hawk-i is completely superfluous without any IAF or foreign interest. And what's with the weaponisation?
3. LCA SPORT when it hasn't got Mk1A flying.
4. Now Large Area Displays, esp if NFCT, DARE have existing solutions.

My concern is that it is consciously treating institutions like ADA as rivals and getting too much into creating competing solutions, when it should be focused on increasing production.

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 16 Oct 2019 23:49

Karan M wrote:
I dont think it is an issue of foreign trips and kickbacks but simply that HAL tries to always go for easy, proven solutions where their development team has it easy. This is a vice or virtue (depending on how you look at it, from indigenization or customer timeline perspective) common to several DPSUs when they approach such programs. BEL has also done this in the past.

This is not about proven systems! HAL is trying short-term lipstick measures using foreign vendors without any plans for indigenisation. Elta-2052, Cobham radome, AAR probe are some examples where high value imports are adding critical dependency because HAL is not interested in using desi product or indigenising the content. It wants to remain into screwdrivergiri.