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

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.
Post Reply
Tanaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4514
Joined: 21 Jun 2000 11:31

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

Post by Tanaji »

I am amazed that someone of his stature and learning would make arguments when not in possession of actual simulation data. ADA does and since Mk 1 was successful have proved that they know how to design a modern aircraft.

Then on what basis does he argue on technical merits if he has no detailed knowledge? The days of eyeballing a design to know whether it’s valid are long gone.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Post by Rakesh »

He has got a serious gripe Tanaji. Poor IR had to face the brunt of it. Whatever the issue was with his tenure at wherever he served, one feels a sense of melancholy watching the back and forth between him and IR on Twitter. A mind wasted.
Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8428
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Post by Indranil »

1. I don't intend to change his opinion or that of anyone else. I am just going to write down what I know (and don't know). I hope young minds and those on the fence read, think and decide for themselves.

2. There is another thing I hope young minds can relearn. I want to disagree respectfully. I don't like disrespectful behaviour on display on news channels and Social Media. It does not reflect our upbringings or our culture.

3. I truly respect him as somebody who knows more about airplanes than I do. I love simplicity and clarity of mind. Except his opinion of ADA, I REALLY like his other thoughts on simple aircrafts.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Post by ramana »

India Today has a nice one page poster on Tejas Mk2 on.page 15.
I don't know how to link it.

Image
VinodTK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2976
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31

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

Post by VinodTK »

Indranil wrote:1. I don't intend to change his opinion or that of anyone else. I am just going to write down what I know (and don't know). I hope young minds and those on the fence read, think and decide for themselves.

2. There is another thing I hope young minds can relearn. I want to disagree respectfully. I don't like disrespectful behaviour on display on news channels and Social Media. It does not reflect our upbringings or our culture.

3. I truly respect him as somebody who knows more about airplanes than I do. I love simplicity and clarity of mind. Except his opinion of ADA, I REALLY like his other thoughts on simple aircrafts.
Well said Indranil
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Post by ramana »

Please read this tweet and see how Mk2 got redesigned three times since the first concept in 2015.
By the time of final configuration it's longer by 1.3750 m, wider by 300mm, and heavier by 2500 kg.

All with the same F414 engine.

So the old saga of sluggish cheetah will continue during flight testing.
There is no accountability for how the All Up Weight grew by 2500 kg or 2.5 tonnes!

https://twitter.com/ramana_brf/status/1 ... kfV60shNKw
fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4282
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

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

Post by fanne »

I am not an aero engineer, but hopefully the end spec is not that bad (I am relying on paper by Indranil and Nilesh where they say the weight and thrust is at the sweet spot of medium fighter). However, my crib is that till now, we were told that MK2 1st prototype will roll out this year and fly by next year. Now the news suddenly is that after the sanction of additional funds (there was fund at least for 1 prototype before), the prototype will flow after 24-36 months from now. A LCA mk2 first flying by 2024-2025 (and it will take 3-4 years of testing, so flight testing complete by 2029/30 instead of 2027) is tooooooooo late. By 2030, we should be pushing out AMCA, not MK2. However MK2 is needed for other tech that go into TEDBF and AMCA to mature.

Either the news is incorrect, reported by logically and analytically challenged reporters (the only thing good about them is there English skill) OR something is rotten is ADA/MOD/HAL/IAF ecosystem. The best way to get MRFA is delay MK2.
Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14331
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

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

Post by Aditya_V »

ramana wrote:Please read this tweet and see how Mk2 got redesigned three times since the first concept in 2015.
By the time of final configuration it's longer by 1.3750 m, wider by 300mm, and heavier by 2500 kg.

All with the same F414 engine.

So the old saga of sluggish cheetah will continue during flight testing.
There is no accountability for how the All Up Weight grew by 2500 kg or 2.5 tonnes!

https://twitter.com/ramana_brf/status/1 ... kfV60shNKw
Internal fuel has gone up by 638 kg and payload by 2000 kg, so The basic frame has lost some weight. I think very few missions will require that 6500 kg payload. So I dont think it can be called sluggish. And no fighter will be manuverouble with 6500 kg payload, with 2500 KG payload and 3000kg internal fuel after take off, it will be a very good fighter with good range and maneuverability
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

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

Post by Pratyush »

I would not be too bothered by the increase in all up weight and payload capacity having an impact on the manuverability of the aircraft.

Purely from an Air to Air perspective the Astra Mk1 weights 154 kg.

Deployed with 6 Astra Mk1. The payload is 924 kg in BVR missiles weight.

WVR as python 5 is 105 kg a piece.

Deployed with 2 missiles equals 210 kg.

In pure air to air load out the payload will be 1134 kg.

Plus the weight of missile pylons. I don't know the weight of those. So cannot add them for the load out.

Plus the external fuel tanks. It will be a good platform for conducting both offensive and defensive CAP.

Similarly when carrying 2 one ton bombs + 4 Astra+ 2 Python 5s and external fuel tanks it can strike quite deep into enemy territory.

To my amateur eyes. It appears to be a good design.
Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1596
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

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

Post by Gyan »

My guess in LCA MK2

2024 Roll out

2024 First Flight

2026 LSP Order

2030 First production aircraft

2032 First Squadron in Service

In my view, we should order 2-4 additional squadrons of LCA MKIA to provide for any possible delay in LCA MK2
Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2904
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

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

Post by Cybaru »

Aditya_V wrote:
ramana wrote:Please read this tweet and see how Mk2 got redesigned three times since the first concept in 2015.
By the time of final configuration it's longer by 1.3750 m, wider by 300mm, and heavier by 2500 kg.

All with the same F414 engine.

So the old saga of sluggish cheetah will continue during flight testing.
There is no accountability for how the All Up Weight grew by 2500 kg or 2.5 tonnes!

https://twitter.com/ramana_brf/status/1 ... kfV60shNKw
Internal fuel has gone up by 638 kg and payload by 2000 kg, so The basic frame has lost some weight. I think very few missions will require that 6500 kg payload. So I dont think it can be called sluggish. And no fighter will be manuverouble with 6500 kg payload, with 2500 KG payload and 3000kg internal fuel after take off, it will be a very good fighter with good range and maneuverability
Difference in fuel capacity between Mk1 and Mk2 is close to 900 kgs. Tejas Mk2 is at 3388 kgs whereas Mk1/A is at 2485 kgs. That roughly translates to 1200-1300 liters more.

Not sure how people can complain its a three legged anything,
1. It carries more fuel than Mirage2K which is at 3100 kgs i.e. 288 kgs more.
2. It has better and higher thrust engines than Mirage2K
3. It has similar external fuel carrying capacity.

With the design improvements to M2k, it should be better than the medium role Mirage 2000 by quite a large margin. It will certainly have more range than it by 10-12%
BenG
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 80
Joined: 30 Aug 2022 21:11

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

Post by BenG »

Gyan wrote:My guess in LCA MK2

2024 Roll out

2024 First Flight

2026 LSP Order

2030 First production aircraft

2032 First Squadron in Service

In my view, we should order 2-4 additional squadrons of LCA MKIA to provide for any possible delay in LCA MK2
Sirji, Lot of sane people have been saying that additional orders for Tejas mk1/mk1a needs to be made since negotiations for 83 aircraft got dragged on and then covid delayed mk1, mk1a and mk2 progress.

I don't know whether everybody remembers that MMRCA had an option of additional 64 aircraft. "Some reports add an option for an additional 64 aircraft on the same terms, bringing the total to 190 aircraft." https://www.globalsecurity.org/military ... ia/mrf.htm The rafale deal had option for 18 more. But, Tejas mk1a did not have any. In IAF scheme of things, Tejas order is essentially a consolation prize for HAL for setting up new production lines and giving up MMRCA. Thats was the reason they balked at the price and dragged out negotiations till 2021. For mmrca, Air Marshal PK Barbora, Ex vice Chief of Air Staff said, "The Air Force is not looking at price. That's not our area of concern. What we want is QRs are focussed on technical aspects, latest technology. Lot is available in the market and there is potential for future growth." https://idsa.in/TWIR/4_2_2011_NationalDef . IAF leadership will not spare any of their capex for a fighter which it did not want in the first place.

A 40+ additional order will definitely help in setting up another production line in Nashik. The capacity is idle there since Su-30 order was completed. But It will cost extra money to set up an assembly line.However Penny pinching on set up cost will not help squadron numbers. The only way for additional orders to happen is exports. For new domestic orders, HAL can do a PR campaign by exhibiting flight trials of mk1a to PM or Defence minister. But they need to do it sooner than aero India 2023. IAF on its own will not be inclined to order additional mk1a.
JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3113
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

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

Post by JTull »

ramana wrote:Please read this tweet and see how Mk2 got redesigned three times since the first concept in 2015.
By the time of final configuration it's longer by 1.3750 m, wider by 300mm, and heavier by 2500 kg.

All with the same F414 engine.

So the old saga of sluggish cheetah will continue during flight testing.
There is no accountability for how the All Up Weight grew by 2500 kg or 2.5 tonnes!
https://twitter.com/ramana_brf/status/1 ... kfV60shNKw
@ramana You are being too pessimistic.

Full video here. Enjoy!

nits
BRFite
Posts: 1155
Joined: 01 May 2006 22:56
Location: Some where near Equator...

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

Post by nits »

This Video is so informative and makes u feel proud how we as Nation has developed in this sector - Kudos to our scientist

We need same zeal and success in Engine space...
VinodTK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2976
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31

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

Post by VinodTK »

^^^ Very interesting & good video
YashG
BRFite
Posts: 936
Joined: 22 Apr 2017 00:10

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

Post by YashG »

Mk2 delays are avoidable.

We need a non political RM like Jaishankar who would be mercurial and effective.
Haridas
BRFite
Posts: 878
Joined: 26 Dec 2017 07:53

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

Post by Haridas »

YashG wrote:Mk2 delays are avoidable.

We need a non political RM like Jaishankar who would be mercurial and effective.
IMHO your view and assessment thereof are like being one of the blind men

Blind men trying to touch an elephant and determining what it is.
YashG
BRFite
Posts: 936
Joined: 22 Apr 2017 00:10

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

Post by YashG »

Haridas wrote:
YashG wrote:Mk2 delays are avoidable.

We need a non political RM like Jaishankar who would be mercurial and effective.
IMHO your view and assessment thereof are like being one of the blind men

Blind men trying to touch an elephant and determining what it is.
amen
Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

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

Post by Cain Marko »

ramana wrote:Please read this tweet and see how Mk2 got redesigned three times since the first concept in 2015.
By the time of final configuration it's longer by 1.3750 m, wider by 300mm, and heavier by 2500 kg.

All with the same F414 engine.

So the old saga of sluggish cheetah will continue during flight testing.
There is no accountability for how the All Up Weight grew by 2500 kg or 2.5 tonnes!

https://twitter.com/ramana_brf/status/1 ... kfV60shNKw
It is for this reason that a decision be made for iaf to get orca. Let the mk1a order be doubled and few more rafale purchased.
BenG
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 80
Joined: 30 Aug 2022 21:11

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

Post by BenG »

Indian Navy TEDBF has fuel capacity of 5.5 tons while Indian Air Force AMCA has 6.5 tons of fuel capacity. So AMCA has more range and is a better stealth plane. Why will Indian Air Force choose a navy design derived plane when their own design is available earlier? They would rather just buy more AMCA mk1 if they really needed more twin-engine planes. If AMCA flies soon, MRCA will be buried for sure.
csaurabh
BRFite
Posts: 974
Joined: 07 Apr 2008 15:07

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

Post by csaurabh »

KSingh wrote: Order 108 then 92 later? Proves IAF has learned NOTHING from LCA Mk.1 program as far as economies of scale and production capacity is concerned. They are still acting as an import customer


This order + follow on options ONLY works when buying from foreign OEMs who have an existing production run that doesn’t depend entirely on the IAF for orders


So 200 split between 108 and 90 doesn’t mean HAL will be able to go for 30++ annual production for 6-7 years from the outset but wil have to cap in the low 20s and stretch production over a decade (and hope tranche 2 is ordered before tranche 1’s production run ends)

Remember this is beyond just HAL, even for Mk.1 >70% of LRUs are made by private players they cannot pay their staff in empty promises from IAF, they need firm and legally binding contracts with upfront payments.


It’s getting really hard to simply excuse this as incompetence anymore. If you wanted to sabotage a project it wouldn’t look too dissimilar to this.
The problem is that because the end customer (IAF) has such a hands off approach that the Tejas aircraft was never really made to be 'manufacturable' ie. in a series or mass production mode. See, when a modern fighter aircraft is developed in advanced countries, it is made to tie in to existing manufacturing lines - or, new production related facilities are developed at the same time along with the aircraft. Neither of the above was the case for Tejas.

I had an interaction recently with a senior scientist from NAL who was looking for some solutions in the manufacture of a specific component (not to be named here ) for Tejas. So in the current method, they take 24 days to make the component using some basic technique and procedure that this guy had developed himself. It was just supposed to be a stop gap measure and it doesn't matter too much if you are just making a prototype every 2 years. But over the years, this became 'the' technique - even when you are required to produce at the rate of 2-3 aircraft per month if the so called 'export orders' for Tejas ever materialize.

But the problem doesn't stop there, they had outsourced the manufacturing of this component to TAML and at TAML they are taking 40 days to do it with 50% rejection rate because of their lackadaisical nature. As usual TAML is least interested in solving the problem - they are all following the procedure only saar (Never mind that the 'procedure' was basically a jugaad that succeeds well because of skilled technicians of NAL). Now the other problem is that these companies like TAML are not aerospace manufacturing companies in their own right. They are just some baniya type setup with no respect for R&D. Remember how Chrysler and GM reverse engineered the Sherman tank to produce it in large numbers during WW2? Not happening in India.

Now this is a critical component here - with such long lead times and high rejection rate it essentially bottlenecks the entire aircraft production. If I am aware of one such bottleneck, I am sure there are 100 that I am not aware of. And this is the problem with having a system in constant trials mode rather than investing in developing manufacturing facilities. When you are not even sure that the end user will accept your product, there is no incentive for thinking beyond prototype mode. This happens because generally speaking as a people we are simply unaware of production processes of high technology. I think IAF is no exception to this.
(Just see all posts bemoaning OMG HAL only able to make 6 aircraft/year while China/US make 150+ without understanding why)

Anyway rant over, I have submitted my proposal to NAL. If they take us up on it, it will be our contribution to the Tejas program.
titash
BRFite
Posts: 606
Joined: 26 Aug 2011 18:44

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

Post by titash »

CSaurabh-ji...thank you for your perspective and thank you for playing your part. My thoughts:

Part-I: Manufacturing
--------------------------

Ultimately manufacturing (specially discrete precision manufacturing, as opposed to bulk/process manufacturing) boils down to 3 main human qualities
1) being detail oriented
2) doing due diligence
3) actually giving a $hit

#1 (being detail oriented) requires you to choose the correct detail oriented people for the job. I saw it during my 20+ years in manufacturing and consulting. Having good language skills or high IQ does not translate into being detail oriented. You need people who are not inclined to be superficial. This is an HR problem

#2 (doing due diligence) requires integrity and ownership of your output. No cutting corners or taking shortcuts. Surfacing problems early, and escalating issues only after having tried honestly. Again, this is an HR problem

#3 (actually giving a $hit) requires people to be treated well, empowered to make decisions, not be faulted if things go wrong i.e. given corrective training instead of assigning blame, paid well, and have an honest 2-way communication about their prospects and career progression. This is not so much an HR problem as a company culture problem. I do not thing large industrial concerns with the problem of anonymity/invisibility can do a good job here. Basically need to operate in small scale startup mode with flat hierarchies (i.e. with the financial / HR benefits of a behemoth, but the small team nature of a startup)

Basically it translates to "ownership" of the product or the process. The company and people that developed the product from scratch (in this case an institution, NAL) should ideally own the end-to-end design > prototyping > manufacturing > customer service lifecycle, because it's their baby. Does HAL/TAML actually care about the design thought process, the ideal product features, potential improvements to the product, customer experience improvements, etc.? I doubt it...they're simply a subcontractor

Basically the integrated Skunk Works/Lockheed Martin model is a far better than the discretized TsAGI/KnAAPO or the NAL/HAL model
titash
BRFite
Posts: 606
Joined: 26 Aug 2011 18:44

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

Post by titash »

Part-II: IAF Roles & Responsibilities
-------------------------------------------

With all due respect to our men and women in the IAF, and with due acknowledgement of their sacrifices and services, there are differences between Tier-I Air Forces and Tier-II Air Forces

1) Tier-I Air Forces (USAF, RAF, VVS + PVO Strany, and perhaps the Luftwaffe) have:
- flown fast jets
- dropped bombs
- gone to war for 10-15 days few decades or so
- fought and influenced the outcome of long duration wars
- understood the impact of supply chain & logistics on the outcome of protracted conflicts
- understood the long lead times needed for war-winning equipment, munitions, and electronic wizardry
- understood the financial investment and domestic industrial base needed to deliver war-winning equipment, munitions, and electronic wizardry
- understood the extent of customer involvement and hand-holding needed to deliver on abovementioned points

2) Tier-II Air Forces (IAF, FAA, etc.) have:
- flown fast jets
- dropped bombs
- gone to war for 10-15 days few decades or so
- are run by the 5% fighter elite in Ray Bans and Hot Rods, whereas in reality 95% of their work and staff are MRO / technical in nature

At some point, the political establishment has to make it clear to the IAF leadership that they are a Tier-II Air Force by outlook + approach. And that outlook + approach was fine till 10 years ago when India's abilities and aspirations were lower. As India moves into the big league, that outlook + approach has to change. The IAF needs to graduate into a Tier-I Air Force by taking "ownership" of supply chain & logistics, nurturing an industrial base, pursuing war-winning equipment, munitions, electronics

The IAF program managers simply cannot sit down, have chai, and complain about the Tejas' design flaws, manufacturing flaws, lack of EW, how nice it would be if we had 1000 Rafales, etc. Their promotions and bonuses have to depend on how much they have owned and progressed the Tejas and its derivatives. Ultimately as a nation, we have to make this ask of our men in uniform
KSingh
BRFite
Posts: 504
Joined: 16 Jun 2020 17:52

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

Post by KSingh »

naraswami wrote:Thank you CSaurabh for providing your 1st hand perspective - and good luck on your attempt to solve the problem for Tejas. More power to you !!!

Very glad simply because this perspective is so surprisingly rare on BRF... the whole battlefield of manufacturing technology, yield, process time that truly defines ability to deliver (AFTER Research, Design & Dev are complete) seems to be unknown. As some posts above yours imply, you have a few aircraft and then its like making samosa's at the neighborhood halwai... order 10, get price X, order 200, get lower price/faster etc. People dont recognize that industrializing something is sometimes as big a battle as developing something. While scale & supply chain is well and good, BEFORE all that comes the core manufacturing/industrialization capabilities. In theory, the EMDs are where you finish trialling process developments - and LSPs with the supply-chain partners, but clearly this has not happened to the levels needed for HAL to keep/meet its own production targets; in fact as the video above clearly lays out, the production rate challenge is front and center as the challenge on the LCA program. The delay in meeting Mk1 goals led to the "good-enough for induction Mk1" vs Mk1A split, and the time slippage made the old Mk2/2014 not a big enough step. In the end, I am still happy because the Mk2 will be a really good platform if not quite so 'light". And before anyone loses their marbles, goals = not just performance or design/development, but also production and serviceability.

That said, HAL has been funded (to the levels of its asks) for setting up the Tejas production lines. Plus they had 4 decades plus of screw-drivering, license-production, import-substitution funding to train for this. As a PSU with its attendant contradictions (employment, unionism etc) how well they did would be a different conversation. From your example above, they are just missing in action even though they own production and system integration - they took the ad-hoc recipe from NAL and passed it on to the sub-contractor. Puts vaunted HAL's composites capabilities in a different light, huh.... maybe they are doing not much more than adopting NAL's advances

What I dont understand is why you finger the IAF' for making something manufacturable? Really... the customer's customer is the one accountable ? That I found bizzarre that its not the Production company, not the design owner but the end customer that's responsible. So the IAF should ensure manufacturability, delivery) (i.e they should be accountable for both ADA and HAL's scope), they should also do program management of the weapon systems.... and who should do the flying/fighting ? :eek: Or perhaps you meant 'serviceable' - where I agree they have a joint responsibility ?
For LCA HAL has never been funded to the levels required to make decent numbers of LCA nor has it been given a chance to stabilise production before March 2021. For 16+16+8 units with 3 different design specs you can’t setup stable series production.


We can only judge HAL come ~2026-7 ie a couple of years after MK1A has started to roll out at scale, their experience with ALH seems to indicate they will have no issues here but again just 83 means that HAL isn’t really touching the kind of scale they are capable of (24/year plus)

Small piecemeal orders spread out over years is not a recipe for success but many will blame HAL for this still
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20772
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Post by Karan M »

titash wrote:Part-II: IAF Roles & Responsibilities
-------------------------------------------

With all due respect to our men and women in the IAF, and with due acknowledgement of their sacrifices and services, there are differences between Tier-I Air Forces and Tier-II Air Forces

1) Tier-I Air Forces (USAF, RAF, VVS + PVO Strany, and perhaps the Luftwaffe) have:
- flown fast jets
- dropped bombs
- gone to war for 10-15 days few decades or so
- fought and influenced the outcome of long duration wars
- understood the impact of supply chain & logistics on the outcome of protracted conflicts
- understood the long lead times needed for war-winning equipment, munitions, and electronic wizardry
- understood the financial investment and domestic industrial base needed to deliver war-winning equipment, munitions, and electronic wizardry
- understood the extent of customer involvement and hand-holding needed to deliver on abovementioned points

2) Tier-II Air Forces (IAF, FAA, etc.) have:
- flown fast jets
- dropped bombs
- gone to war for 10-15 days few decades or so
- are run by the 5% fighter elite in Ray Bans and Hot Rods, whereas in reality 95% of their work and staff are MRO / technical in nature

At some point, the political establishment has to make it clear to the IAF leadership that they are a Tier-II Air Force by outlook + approach. And that outlook + approach was fine till 10 years ago when India's abilities and aspirations were lower. As India moves into the big league, that outlook + approach has to change. The IAF needs to graduate into a Tier-I Air Force by taking "ownership" of supply chain & logistics, nurturing an industrial base, pursuing war-winning equipment, munitions, electronics

The IAF program managers simply cannot sit down, have chai, and complain about the Tejas' design flaws, manufacturing flaws, lack of EW, how nice it would be if we had 1000 Rafales, etc. Their promotions and bonuses have to depend on how much they have owned and progressed the Tejas and its derivatives. Ultimately as a nation, we have to make this ask of our men in uniform
Titash your post is supported by Lt Gen Shukla who recently presented on indigenous R&D.

He basically said, 50 years back when we joined, we were told our task is to just fight. Nothing else. And we made a mistake, we should have learned a lot more about tech, indigenization etc. (Paraphrasing).

He also goes into the endless trials syndrome we've mentioned repeatedly. Says we follow a format and the format eschews common sense because we keep pushing a product test schedule further and further outwards and there are no orders. Gives an example of a system which fired some 6500 rounds of which six failed and he had to intervene to allow the system to pass etc.

What I see is unfortunately the AF have been too insulated from product development and don't have a big picture view. The attitude shown by many of the older sorts is that civilians are really nincompoops and shouldn't interfere with anything services related, and any frank discussion is unnecessary. Unfortunately this is forcing many of the real mavericks out of the forces and they don't understand that long term development requires long term commitment.

For instance, right now giving orders to the private sector is all the rage but what of long term supplies, indigenization at the sub-components level.

Programs like the Tejas address these, but still face opposition. But the IA itself shot itself in the foot by cancelling Arjun, and multiple other programs. Their attitude towards domestic R&D remains patchy, and driven top down (Govts mandate).

Unless PMO takes the big picture view sitting down with DRDO, mfg stakeholders and then the services we can't address this. This current privatisation drive will also peter out if L1 vendors get in and the pvt vendors who did put in a lot of effort get shortchanged for their quality premium.

The services are simply not manned for this sort of effort and nor can they lead it. Their focus on the short term and organization's imperatives etc ensure there is no continuity. A man can't command a brigade one day and suddenly lead a R₹D effort and then again have to revert to the military for his next promotion. It's sub-optimal.

A rtd Air Marshal was forthright in an interview, it was pleasantly surprising to see that he had interacted heavily with designers and openly admitted that designing and manufacturing were complex sciences in themselves and a fighter pilot couldn't just walk in and take it over. These were domains of excellence in themselves and required decades of focused effort and IAF could only enable them.

Of course, all this being said many individuals still don't get economies of scale and how important actual orders are for series production and constant iterative improvements. We can't fund them otherwise. Nobody takes these up.

Anyhow the current Govts focus is a good thing and was much required. Fingers crossed it succeeds. The Tejas Mk1A and Mk2 are crucial.
Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

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

Post by Cain Marko »

BenG wrote:Indian Navy TEDBF has fuel capacity of 5.5 tons while Indian Air Force AMCA has 6.5 tons of fuel capacity. So AMCA has more range and is a better stealth plane. Why will Indian Air Force choose a navy design derived plane when their own design is available earlier? They would rather just buy more AMCA mk1 if they really needed more twin-engine planes. If AMCA flies soon, MRCA will be buried for sure.
It's not like tedbf won't be modified for iaf needs. Mostly the additional weight resulting from strengthening of landing gear, and arrestor hook etc , will not only strip weight but will allow for extra fuel. The tedbf/orca could come a lot faster than the amca spice the tech leap is less drastic.
konaseema
BRFite
Posts: 115
Joined: 16 Nov 2020 09:54

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

Post by konaseema »

Instead of a new program in the name of ORCA, how about more squadrons of AMCA Mk1 or even another version of AMCA like the Korean KF-21, without the internal weapons bay, maybe?
ks_sachin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2906
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

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

Post by ks_sachin »

Karan M wrote:
The services are simply not manned for this sort of effort and nor can they lead it. Their focus on the short term and organization's imperatives etc ensure there is no continuity. A man can't command a brigade one day and suddenly lead a R₹D effort and then again have to revert to the military for his next promotion. It's sub-optimal.
Karan M - 100%. Never was a truer word stated.

We are building people up right from NDA to middle seniority to be effective in Combat. Their sole aim is to ensure what they work with is effective - don't care too much about where it comes from.

Suddenly to expect them to shed 20-plus years of here and now thinking to becoming strategic players is not easy.

Good officers who are also strategic thinkers don't necessarily rise up the ranks as they may also not be status quoist.

So getting these guys to see the bigger picture has to start at the NDA level with a specialisation as a Col / Brigadier level into a specific AOR around technology development. There has to be a dedicated area in AHQ for this.

But hey we cannot still figure out our SPecial Forces structure so long way to go!!
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20772
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Post by Karan M »

ks_sachin wrote:
Karan M wrote:
The services are simply not manned for this sort of effort and nor can they lead it. Their focus on the short term and organization's imperatives etc ensure there is no continuity. A man can't command a brigade one day and suddenly lead a R₹D effort and then again have to revert to the military for his next promotion. It's sub-optimal.
Karan M - 100%. Never was a truer word stated.

We are building people up right from NDA to middle seniority to be effective in Combat. Their sole aim is to ensure what they work with is effective - don't care too much about where it comes from.

Suddenly to expect them to shed 20-plus years of here and now thinking to becoming strategic players is not easy.

Good officers who are also strategic thinkers don't necessarily rise up the ranks as they may also not be status quoist.

So getting these guys to see the bigger picture has to start at the NDA level with a specialisation as a Col / Brigadier level into a specific AOR around technology development. There has to be a dedicated area in AHQ for this.

But hey we cannot still figure out our SPecial Forces structure so long way to go!!
Completely agree and the attitude that services have to lead everything needs to be dropped. They've to be part and parcel of the program management and accept that. Have some sort of institutional setup that incubates these people and doesn't penalise them for not flying a squadron but bring at HAL or ADA etc. Things need to change there.

Second, they need to understand that technology development can't happen with miniscule orders and a snap of the fingers. The Army literally killed Arjun, stopped FSAPDS devpt after a set of mishaps but now want state of the art units. How does that happen. Even with Bharat Forge involved, we are starting from a decade long gap, having squandered that time. The AF keep doing this. I can stare with certainty that if the late Shri Parrikar wasn't involved there would no Tejas Mk1A or the LCA Tejas Naval program.

Now with what basis would we have jumped to the Tejas Mk2, or even AMCA or TEDBF. The basic issue which is now apparent is that if AF are given key program control of these programs, and the service HQ feels an imported MRFA is more important and funding has to be prioritized, it's bye bye domestic program. Local development cannot proceed in such fits and spurts.

We've paid peanuts and expect miracles. On what basis do we expect TASL to move beyond an artisanal production method which they've inherited if they know the current break even for them justifies only the current cost structure. The same TASL by the way is developing the MRSAM C3I, parts of the BMD and also now includes the Tata SED organisation afaik, which did the ATAGS. So the capabilitybto do more exists. But they have learned the hard way working with the MOD means counting every coin. Whereas the DPSUs are dipping into their own funds to do indigenization but still get called names.

At the end of the day without orders, all the TD stuff is sabotaged. This is the part Gen Shukla himself admitted to. Local industry has been hollering about this for ages now. Even parts suppliers are cut up as they make stuff for the AF but get no orders. The AF do trials on NCNC basis. All these are issues which current programs face and which require the AF to start placing orders. Am still awaiting significant orders for local ammo to the pvt sector for instance. Won't order but then claim OFB is gypping them.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

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

Post by Pratyush »

Should the force sustainability and supply chain resilience not be a concern for a fighting force?

I think that the problem is the way modern Indian armed forces were created Pre 1947 and shaped post 1960s. Where the emphasis was on acquisition of equipment from overseas with assembly in India. The concept of local development of materials for use didn't really exist.

This permitted the Indian assemblers to tap into the originating nation's industrial supply chains. Obviating the requirements for development of resilient domestic supply chains to a large extent.

The forces developed a detached attitude towards the production of defence related equipment. Knowing that certain industrial problems don't have any effects on them.

Because those problems didn't effect them. They didn't developed the competency to think about how to solve those problems.

Today the bottle necks in production of complex indigenous product's is a direct result of this lack of competency.

Because for most of the subcomponents in such equipment the services are the only customer. The small order quantities with uncertainty in subsequent orders prevents investment in industrial capacity enhancement.

The services, because they don't understand this, blame the local industry for letting the national defence down. While coming up with programs such as MRFA.

The solution will come from the services themselves once they fully understand the role they play in the resilience of supply chains.
BenG
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 80
Joined: 30 Aug 2022 21:11

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

Post by BenG »

Cain Marko wrote:
BenG wrote:Indian Navy TEDBF has fuel capacity of 5.5 tons while Indian Air Force AMCA has 6.5 tons of fuel capacity. So AMCA has more range and is a better stealth plane. Why will Indian Air Force choose a navy design derived plane when their own design is available earlier? They would rather just buy more AMCA mk1 if they really needed more twin-engine planes. If AMCA flies soon, MRCA will be buried for sure.
It's not like tedbf won't be modified for iaf needs. Mostly the additional weight resulting from strengthening of landing gear, and arrestor hook etc , will not only strip weight but will allow for extra fuel. The tedbf/orca could come a lot faster than the amca spice the tech leap is less drastic.
The weight reduction in ORCA compared TEDBF is estimated to be 1 ton. It is a little more than the difference between Rafale-C(9850 kg) and Rafale M(10600 kg) which is 750 kgs. Realistically 0.75 to 1 ton saving on weight is not going to translate into increased fuel capacity of 0.75 to 1 ton of fuel. So instead of devoting manpower and funds to a platform which is inferior to AMCA. IAF will either wait for AMCA mk1 and put in more orders or if Tejas mk2 is delayed they will ask for more Rafale planes.
If developer ADA getting involved in 3 programs is a genuine concern, the user IAF is the primary one who is going to be affected by it. IAF whether right or wrong will definitely throw their weight behind AMCA development at the cost of ORCA and TEDBF too.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

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

Post by Pratyush »

naraswami wrote:I will attempt to recenter the discussion around CSAurabh's example.

Whatever that component was, at the Mk1 PDR, during the Manufacturability assessments and reviews, its status would have been discussed and recorded. AS the program progressed thru PVs and TDs, the fact that there was an artisanal method that is a bottleneck in production time and yields would have been known. This is standard practice for rudimentary product development, much less fancy "concurrent engineering"

From that PV/TD knowledge to MK1 IOC is multiple years (5+ easily maybe even 10). Please tell me how the IAF's attitude/role or MOD prevented the manufacturing and production technology engineers at HAL from addressing this critical bottleneck. for a longer time, note that even if Program/Project future outcomes were uncertain, these groups all got paid their salaries because HAL was fully funded one way or the other.
Not knowing what the specific component we are talking about. It's hard to make a realistic assessment and say the with the production orders for just 40 aircrafts before 2019. The production process for this component needs to be changed for mass production.

Even with the post 2019 orders for 83 aircrafts, there is no need to change the manufacturing of the specific component, as the time period of production with the current method is sufficient for the fulfillment of the wider MK1A program. Because the product might be unique to be LCA and the needs are met with the artisanal method.
naraswami wrote:For want of a horseshoe, kingdoms are lost... we should consider paying attention to these 'horseshoes' and the responsibilities/capabilities and performance of the stable-keepers and blacksmiths and not just the geopolitics or military-industrial complex strategies and policies.
What is the incentive for the stable keepers and blacksmiths to improve capacity and his products when the master of horses is not prepared to pay for improving his blacksmith and stable keepers. Nor he is prepared to pay for improving his stock of horses or the numbers there off.

It's a chicken and egg problem.
BenG
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 80
Joined: 30 Aug 2022 21:11

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

Post by BenG »

Yup! It is a chicken and egg problem. IAF's desire to remain vegan is just mis-understood by HAL, ADA, BR forum and Tejas trolls. With all due respect, manufacturing is HAL's domain and IAF can only complain. It is HAL that has to find ways to increase production. Despite the low order numbers, I have never seen HAL deliver planned Tejas numbers in any financial year. So IAF has valid reasons to expect HAL not to be able to complete orders that demand a production rate of 30/year.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

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

Post by Pratyush »

naraswami wrote:Not prepared to pay ?

The tax payer (master of horses)
a) has been /is paying their minimum base salary
b) has already paid the upfront investment that the contract written by the stable keeper and blacksmith stipulated was necessary to allow them to shoe 2 horses a day (their old tools could only do 1/day)
c) will pay more beyond #a for every horse delivered - the incentive beyond the salary
d) will not penalize them financially for missing the 1 extra horse/day
Ultimately the point nos 2 & 3 are the crux of the matter.

You may think that the master of the horses is making the necessary payment. But what if the payment is not sufficient to do what needs to be done?

Or what if the horsemen who are going to use the horses are lying to the master and misguiding him?

When they keep on changing the numbers of horses that are required. When they keep on changing the quality of horses that is required?
naraswami wrote: And still the ability of the stable keeper and blacksmith to deliver capability are non-factors in this discussion?
Not in this particular situation. Because the black Smith and the stable keeper have kept to the time asked.

naraswami wrote:or if the master of horses did not have sufficient ownership or program management skin in the game ?
It's quite obvious that they didn't.

The cold hard fact is that, if the stable keepers are told to get 40 horses without a clearly defined timetable then they will get 40 horses. Then you cannot go to them and tell them that you need 83 horse yesterday or tomorrow. Because you don't have sufficient number of mares to give birth to the foals in the time frame you have set.

If you want to have 100 adult horses. You need to to have a 100 mares. One year's gestation period and another 3 year's for the animal to reach maturity. This is the earliest that it can be accomplished.

Or else start with 25 mares, and a pregnancy every year. End of the 7th year is the earliest 100 horses will be reached.

If the owner dosent understand this fact and prepares accordingly. Then he is going to lose the next war he has to fight.
Neela
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4102
Joined: 30 Jul 2004 15:05
Location: Spectator in the dossier diplomacy tennis match

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

Post by Neela »

Karan, Rakesh: Please do what is required. There is a tad too much noise from a single source across several threads now.

There seems to be a trend here and a arrogant pattern now highlighted in several topics. With what little time we have, we come here to feed on some informational posts ….not on noise.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20772
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Post by Karan M »

naraswami wrote:No debate about IAF generically taking on a stronger role in aircraft development...where have I ever negated that. But lets dive down from the 30000 ft level into specifics like Csaurab has brought up. here the topic was Production and Manufacturing delays and capability gaps in this area @ HAL being an explanation. On that narrow topic, this broader issue of IAF's role is less relevant no ?

I have never claimed to represent the IAF. Nor any special insider status. Its knowledge about technology and product development and realization that I am talking about.

Please tell me a couple of specific examples of which statement about IAF roles or HAL roles you think yourself or other iAF veterans would disagree. IIRC, Iv'e confined a hard line mostly when it came to Manufacturing/Production. If you or others extrapolate that to a higher level or more generic terms, then my pitch was misinterpreted.
Because sir, you have ignored the specifics of the Tejas aircraft program.

How is IAF's lack of support to the program overall not an issue, and where does it become HAL's issue alone? If you as the customer are least bothered about a program, do you think your primary supplier does not notice that? How does it's relationship with the designer then change. The IAF was not interested in a Mk1A program. It took a lot of effort from the then RM Shri Parrikar to get IAF onboard. At that point they wanted to restrict it to 40 units. The HAL then responded that an EOQ from their perspective was 83 aircraft. Given the IAF chose to prioritize the Rafale and S-400 acquisition as higher priorities, this order was released to HAL in 2021! Many years post the time it was first mooted. Till then HAL has proceeded on the program from internal funds and ADA has used LCA Tejas funds which it already had as well to assist the program.

Before this, the IAF lacking any cogent commitment to the Tejas till late in the day, let the program trundle on. When they rejoined the program, they raised umpteen engineering change requests at the n'th moment. Even these could not be fully accommodated in the Tejas Mk1, ergo the Mk1A which the IAF was not really interested in anyhow. When the ADA asked what next, the answer was Tejas Mk2, and again a program to which the IAF has not committed in terms of upfront orders or commitment, leaving it to the political establishment to deal with its lukewarm interest and fund the designers, manufacturers while it pushed for the MRFA.

The current Govt said enough and has had the Tejas Mk2 happen and a chunk of the funding will likely come from the IAF. Now tell me, is there a dedicated program office at the IAF with dedicated staff for all of its myriad programs, able to forecast what it want's accurately? And on top of it there was still debate over the Tejas Mk2 whereas clearly, the political establishment again said what now, and the Tejas Mk2 support was reiterated in public. Now think as a supplier. Do you at NAL have the wherewithal to constantly iterate on a program with your scarce CSIR funds given the program is not even guaranteed beyond Mk1. That was the case till Mk1A was cleared. It's only now, in the past couple of years, that we are seeing the IAF actually put its money where its stated intent was. Till then it was first the budget breaking Rafale, and then the S-400.

The trickle-feed manner in which orders have been released, 20, then 20, and late in the day 83, its a miracle we have been able to indigenize at all. It is actually to ADA, HAL and their suppliers credit, that the famed Indian frugal engineering came into play and we indigenized some 60% of the LRUs and are on the way to hit 80% now that the Mk1A program has been actually funded.

So this entire stuff of HAL should do this HAL should do that, misses the point. HAL has myriad issues, well known ones, unionization, lack of customer support etc in the past. Some persist. But there have been multiple reports of how the organization has been trying its best to address them or seeking to go above and beyond in customer support (LCH being one example), they also supported the IAF during exercises, surges etc. The RM authorized them to hold excess spares which IAF didnt want on its order book to conserve funds. To spare the GOI's cash flow, HAL has been spending Rs 2000 Crore annually on its programs. These include indigenizing many lines of spares across platforms and running multiple R&D programs including the Tejas Mk1A. That money was recovered only when the Tejas order was recently placed. So what else are they supposed to have done. The frank fact of life is if one hops across the border and compares the manner in which the PLAAF has supported multiple programs or the PAF its JF-17 or even the west and the Russians with their programs, the IAF is found sorely wanting.

They are changing of late but have a long way to go in creating a proper program management office which doesn't kowtow to only their interests but India's aerospace/sanction busting interests in terms of long term development or rob Peter to pay Paul. With what confidence would any Indian decision maker at the national level let the IAF run the Tejas or any program until and unless they commit they wont cancel it to save funds for the next MRFA. This sort of short sighted thinking is not unique to the IAF alone. The Israeli AF had a powerful clique which did this to its Lavi, and to this date, the Israeli establishment rues what happened. They lost their one and only chance to own their own aircraft program. The IDFAF chose "proven" F-16s over an unproven Lavi.

It is entirely this issue because of which the current GOI has started imposing top down discipline on all the forces, buy local and as soon as possible. If we spend even a modicum of time with Indian MSME's, and allow them to voice their concerns openly, they were very frustrated at how they'd develop stuff on NCNC basis for the IAF, IN, IA and would be left dangling with no orders. In fact their efforts would be used to negotiate a new price with the OEM. It is this sort of "we dont really care for you, but give us what we want, when we need it" attitude demonstrated by the procurement orgs of all three services that lead to a severe crisis of confidence and which is only now being addressed.

So we are missing the wood for the trees by stating this process, that process. The issue begins first and foremost with the customer's interest and belief that the program they are involved in cannot be allowed to fail and is *theirs*. We are seeing this happen to some extent, but it will still take a lot of time and effort from both HAL *and* the IAF. Both got too used to the existing set up which was around import easy airframes, assemble, deliver (HAL) and induct easily (IAF). The Indian budget can no longer afford this approach not to mention the utter disaster from the security point of view (sanctions, and everyone else knows the specs).

It's actually a full blown miracle that with such limited orders, and such a troubled timeline, we even have suppliers who've stuck around for the Tejas and are willing to work with us for the program. The whole manufacturability part was turned into a farce by almost cancelling the Mk1 itself and then stating "we might get the Mk2 but let's see, first MRCA". Now we seem to be finally fixing that.

What gets me worried (and dismayed) is how folks want economies of scale ie AMRAAM or R77 costs with an Astra at a fraction of the order. They want to cancel Tejas Mk2 and move directly from Mk1A to AMCA, but what happens to all the tech that Mk2 was supposed to derisk and introduce. Then what happens to the costing for AMCA if we drop Mk2. We developed the Netra with great effort. IAF dropped it at 2 airframes and we can't even retrofit the third as the supplier is blacklisted. Meanwhile PAF picked up some 5-7 of a similar type. IAF is watching abashed. They finally launched a program for a NG Netra during the prior Chief's tenure.

All this stuff, one would think is common sensical. Instead, even now, we have to fight for these programs and reiterate these points. It definitely points to a lack of interest in a product creation culture in the AF, and a desire (however warranted) for "quick" "proven" "state of the art" technology. Key issue is it's unaffordable and exposes us badly, making our sovereignty negotiable. And the more we delay getting on the indigenous wagon, more our security issues will worsen.
basant
BRFite
Posts: 889
Joined: 20 Mar 2020 20:58

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

Post by basant »

Many times I keep wondering, how helpful would it have been if only the unspent budgets are retained with the defence forces. For very many years, govt. kept on showing huge defence layouts without spending most of the capex at the end of financial years.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Post by Rakesh »

Neela wrote:Karan, Rakesh: Please do what is required. There is a tad too much noise from a single source across several threads now.

There seems to be a trend here and a arrogant pattern now highlighted in several topics. With what little time we have, we come here to feed on some informational posts ….not on noise.
I agree. I have moved some of the posts to the BR Forum Feedback thread. Mods are taking care of the noise :)

Please remember when the noise/shrill comes, you know we are doing something right. Thus the takleef and discomfort.
SRajesh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2061
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 22:03

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

Post by SRajesh »

Karanji and all the Mods
What really is taught in the INDU: School of D management, School of D Tech etc
All nice sounding and agreed started 2013 but should not the mid-level and upper mid-level ofsarans encouraged to take some post doctrals in these schools
Will Tejas go Arjun way???
SRajesh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2061
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 22:03

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

Post by SRajesh »

Generation Gap: As US, Russia And China Race For 6th-Generation Fighter Jet, Will India Miss The Bus Again?
https://www.outlookindia.com/business/g ... ews-227982
And here we go!!
WE will see more hit jobs and demand for: Go Seeda to AMCA and 6.5 programme!!
Post Reply