Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019
Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019
Do we even have an export version of LCA yet ? I suppose Malays are looking for SPORT which is not as capable as LCA Tejas itself.
Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019
I agree. There are a lot of unresolved disputes between the two countries. Most importantly, many Singaporeans are of the opinion that Malaysia is acting against their interests. The separation of Singapore from the Malay Federation was very unpleasant too. Then, there is a feeling of how the Chinese Malay are treated under the garb of Bhumi Putra. The advent of Mahatir has exacerbated the situation. There has been an accentuated airspace and maritime boundary situation in the last few months and a temporary truce has just been struck. There are too many issues. Singapore is our closest ally in ASEAN and has just given us access to their Changi Naval base. We have deep economic and military relationship with them and they are growing.chola wrote:Actually, it is Singapore. Singapore was once part of Malaysia. In fact, Singapore is a bit like Israel as an infidel speck in a sea of muslims. Both are huge trade partners with Cheen and are unlikely to fight it. Their main rivalry is historically with each other.yensoy wrote:
I am curious whom the Malaysian Air Force fighters are intended to fight. Singapore? Probably not. China? Most likely yes. So how do the JF-17s make sense to deter China?
Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019
Only air is transparent to radar.JTull wrote:Can you please explain this statement further? Or give some links that we can read up on.sudeepj wrote: ... co-cured, co-bonded composite, totally transparent to radar.
Styrofoam is reasonably good.
Composites reflect just because they dielectric constant is so high (even if their loss factor at L & X band is is perfect 0)
Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019
Malaysia and Singapore have their issues for sure, they have even threatened each other with Singapore saying that turning off water is tantamount to declaration of war; however their arming is not directed at each other. Singapore has conscription, and the Singaporeans (males, who have by requirement served in the military) say that their arming is basically against China. All countries infringed by the seven or nine or eleven dashed line are under Chinese threat and need minimal credible deterrence against misadventures. Singapore isn't, yet is a prime economic and ethnic target for subversion.
Malaysia and China are hugely integrated economically and through expats living in each others' countries, besides the fabric of ASEAN keeps things under check. It's very unlikely that they will go to war, or are even arming against each other.
Malaysia and China are hugely integrated economically and through expats living in each others' countries, besides the fabric of ASEAN keeps things under check. It's very unlikely that they will go to war, or are even arming against each other.
Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019
Haridas ji, I am only repeating what is conventional wisdom on the forum.. that carbon composites are transparent to radar and thats why tejas has such a low radar signature.. If this is not true, my whole life is a lie.Haridas wrote:Only air is transparent to radar.JTull wrote:
Can you please explain this statement further? Or give some links that we can read up on.
Styrofoam is reasonably good.
Composites reflect just because they dielectric constant is so high (even if their loss factor at L & X band is is perfect 0)
Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019
Folks lets keep the focus on the production progress and build up of supply chain.
Design question can go to the Mark 2 thread.
Design question can go to the Mark 2 thread.
Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019
Original source : https://www.flickr.com/photos/delhidefencereview/
Some more info on Mk1A
[Edit] Attributing the original source
Some more info on Mk1A
- ASRAAM
- Self forming and healing Mobile ad hoc network
- and more
[Edit] Attributing the original source
Last edited by mridulmm on 20 Apr 2019 11:19, edited 2 times in total.
Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019
Gurus from the slide please note Ferry range of LCA MK1A, and I dont see why MK 1 will much different in 2000KM, thats about ~45% of an F15C, a huge improvement over the Mig 21's and probably comparable to Gripen.
-
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 5353
- Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26
Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019
^better than mirage 2000 which was around 1800km iirc on internal fuel. Of course they don't point out to the ferry range load out in the above slides. But I'm assuming it is on internal fuel only.
Note mk1a could have better range than mk1 if they manage to bring down it's weight as proposed.
Note mk1a could have better range than mk1 if they manage to bring down it's weight as proposed.
Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019
del.
Last edited by Rahul M on 20 Apr 2019 13:01, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: warned for trolling.
Reason: warned for trolling.
Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019
When is the first flight of MK1A?
Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019
Putting on my Dunce cap: I feel that there is a growing undercurrent which may lead to a partition of Malaysia wherein the non Islamic communities (read as Chinese and perhaps Indians) of Malaysia will migrate to form a Taiwan like Super Singapore which is self sufficient in Water and other resources. Leaving the rest of Malaysia to the Islam Pasand folks. Malay Chinese folks will no doubt find themselves more comfortable and increasingly prosperous in Singapore which is currently helmed by Ethnic Chinese administrators.yensoy wrote:Malaysia and Singapore have their issues for sure, they have even threatened each other with Singapore saying that turning off water is tantamount to declaration of war; however their arming is not directed at each other. Singapore has conscription, and the Singaporeans (males, who have by requirement served in the military) say that their arming is basically against China. All countries infringed by the seven or nine or eleven dashed line are under Chinese threat and need minimal credible deterrence against misadventures. Singapore isn't, yet is a prime economic and ethnic target for subversion.
Malaysia and China are hugely integrated economically and through expats living in each others' countries, besides the fabric of ASEAN keeps things under check. It's very unlikely that they will go to war, or are even arming against each other.
Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019
wrong thread. take this discussion elsewhere.
Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019
Has any one seen this clip from LIMA ? One of the few without any music but just the control surface checks and the sound of the F-404 rev -up before display.
Last edited by Rahul M on 20 Apr 2019 22:16, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: added utube tags
Reason: added utube tags
Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019
great find Nishn ! very nice video. I dont remember seeing a vid of Tejas from this aspect before.
Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019
What we all suspected.
Manish_Sharma wrote:Unfortunate are those who aren't listening to Yugpurush Modi's BADMER, RAJASTHAN Bhaashan.
1.) Congi supported karnataka CM says hungry poor youth go to army. I was celebrating Deepawali in Himalayan with soldiers an aged Sainik Sardar ji with white beard came to me Breaking discipline and said "saheb I have a request , I am about to retire in few months, so please send me to the most hottest part of border, I dont want to retire just like this or send me to the most dangerous terrorist place, I want to do more before retiring...
Arrey Sainiks don't join for roti But to die for matrubhumi.... what's the aukaat of CM in front of them, what's the even Prime Minister in front of that? Nothing "
2. Tejas was kept in cold storage for many years deliberately by Congis, we revived its production, best rifle in the world will be produced in Desh. Bulletproof jackets were not given to army by congis, we are producing it and supplying to army.
PLEASE PLEASE LISTEN AND SPREAD.
Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019
Ferry Range is always with maximum number of EFTs.Cain Marko wrote:^better than mirage 2000 which was around 1800km iirc on internal fuel. Of course they don't point out to the ferry range load out in the above slides. But I'm assuming it is on internal fuel only.
Note mk1a could have better range than mk1 if they manage to bring down it's weight as proposed.
Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019
What is the current status of Mk1A? Is it just on HAL slides or any concrete progress has been made yet? As of today, the basic LCA itself may have the best BVR capability of all IAF fighters given it can field I-Derby ER vs R77 or Mica on all other platforms. Why is this capable fighter not being inducted in numbers?
Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019
My last OT response to the question: unfortunately it's a lie. Only some (repeat some) reduction in rf reflection. Tejas program had bigger problems to overcome/slay, RF stealth was non-requirement. Lower RF RCS requirement would have killed the program (infeasible technically +lack of competence).sudeepj wrote:Haridas ji, I am only repeating what is conventional wisdom on the forum.. that carbon composites are transparent to radar and thats why tejas has such a low radar signature.. If this is not true, my whole life is a lie.Haridas wrote: Only air is transparent to radar.
Styrofoam is reasonably good.
Composites reflect just because they dielectric constant is so high (even if their loss factor at L & X band is is perfect 0)
It's RCS is what it is, just optimizing all around performance focusing specially on its kinematics.
Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019
http://delhidefencereview.com/2019/02/2 ... t-fighter/
Updated second part. We added a few interesting points on LCA wing design. Do read to know why Tejas has lower sweep on inboard section or why the inboard section looks like it has anhedral (but it doesn't). We have had discussed these mysteries endlessly here, but now we know factual reasons from the Designers themselves.
Updated second part. We added a few interesting points on LCA wing design. Do read to know why Tejas has lower sweep on inboard section or why the inboard section looks like it has anhedral (but it doesn't). We have had discussed these mysteries endlessly here, but now we know factual reasons from the Designers themselves.
Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019
Well written, once again!JayS wrote:http://delhidefencereview.com/2019/02/2 ... t-fighter/
Updated second part. We added a few interesting points on LCA wing design. Do read to know why Tejas has lower sweep on inboard section or why the inboard section looks like it has anhedral (but it doesn't). We have had discussed these mysteries endlessly here, but now we know factual reasons from the Designers themselves.
Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019
Hmm, very tactful statement! MK1 has 5 wet-points but I've never seen more than 3 EFTs at a time.tsarkar wrote:Ferry Range is always with maximum number of EFTs.Cain Marko wrote:^better than mirage 2000 which was around 1800km iirc on internal fuel. Of course they don't point out to the ferry range load out in the above slides. But I'm assuming it is on internal fuel only.
Note mk1a could have better range than mk1 if they manage to bring down it's weight as proposed.
-
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 5883
- Joined: 04 Apr 2005 08:17
- Location: Dera Mahab Ali धरा महाबलिस्याः درا مهاب الي
Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019
Lower RCS was indeed on the table initially, but got removed pretty fast. So did supercruise.
Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019
I wonder how RCS changes from Mk1 to Mk2 given Mk2 is bigger and has canards.
Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2
Is the Mk1A worth it at a quoted price of nearly Rs485 Cr? It’s a combination of 4.5 gen avionics, radar, EW and communications with a 3rd generation payload and endurance!
Unless HAL figures out a way to drop the cost to around Rs.325/350 Cr doubt the IAF will bite, and they should not!
If the MK1 costa around Rs.240/250 Cr, the improvements requested should not add more than Rs75/100 Cr to the cost. Make in India is important but this verges on the ridiculous!
Unless HAL figures out a way to drop the cost to around Rs.325/350 Cr doubt the IAF will bite, and they should not!
If the MK1 costa around Rs.240/250 Cr, the improvements requested should not add more than Rs75/100 Cr to the cost. Make in India is important but this verges on the ridiculous!
Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2
What is 3rd gen payload and endurance? I'm asking Seriously as I'm not aware of any generation specific range and endurance. And what according to you is the ideal price of a so called 4.5 gen aircraft?ShivS wrote:Is the Mk1A worth it at a quoted price of nearly Rs485 Cr? It’s a combination of 4.5 gen avionics, radar, EW and communications with a 3rd generation payload and endurance!
Unless HAL figures out a way to drop the cost to around Rs.325/350 Cr doubt the IAF will bite, and they should not!
If the MK1 costa around Rs.240/250 Cr, the improvements requested should not add more than Rs75/100 Cr to the cost. Make in India is important but this verges on the ridiculous!
P.S I do not believe in all this generation nomenclature and if at all we go that route, the Tejas would be a 2nd generation aircraft for India. And for a second generation fighter it is a mighty big achievement.
Cheers!
Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019
Nope, Tejas IA gives us potent capabilities, yes its lacks endurance, but for building domestic industry it is definitely worth it, developing local supplier and Indian Technological base, a few thousand crores of bargaining and keeping the IAF without aircraft or imported aircraft. Hell even the difference if we are importing can be bridged from the Direct and Indirect taxes which will be levied on various organisations and personal in manufacturing the Tejas plus depreciation of Rupees over time.
I Say go ahead with MK 1A, prices have shot up a lot since the MK 1 orders were placed.
What is being said it is better to eat outside food and be sick that equipping a Kicthen with Gas, stoves etc and be healthy with home cooked food.
I Say go ahead with MK 1A, prices have shot up a lot since the MK 1 orders were placed.
What is being said it is better to eat outside food and be sick that equipping a Kicthen with Gas, stoves etc and be healthy with home cooked food.
Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019
Slight typo in the preceding para from Figure11. "as the elevens act as flaps".JayS wrote:http://delhidefencereview.com/2019/02/2 ... t-fighter/
Updated second part. We added a few interesting points on LCA wing design. Do read to know why Tejas has lower sweep on inboard section or why the inboard section looks like it has anhedral (but it doesn't). We have had discussed these mysteries endlessly here, but now we know factual reasons from the Designers themselves.
Great to see new renderings, esp the frontal and rear profile.
Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2
Costing can be complicated. I don't know, but I'd like to be educated on the factors involved in the above quoted cost (same applies to above mentioned "acceptable" figure of Rs. 325/350 Cr):ShivS wrote:Is the Mk1A worth it at a quoted price of nearly Rs485 Cr? It’s a combination of 4.5 gen avionics, radar, EW and communications with a 3rd generation payload and endurance!
Unless HAL figures out a way to drop the cost to around Rs.325/350 Cr doubt the IAF will bite, and they should not!
If the MK1 costa around Rs.240/250 Cr, the improvements requested should not add more than Rs75/100 Cr to the cost. Make in India is important but this verges on the ridiculous!
- Does it include development cost amortized ? (and ordering more is going bring it down or maybe Govt can separate R&D cost from prdn cost)
- Is it flyaway cost ? Or does it include cost of missiles - ASRAAM etc
- Does it have PBL (performance based logistics) in it - so more spares are stocked up for performance guarantee ?
IIRC, the Mirage *upgrade* was around $50m per plane. Comparatively, the Mk1A with AESA and other bells and whistles looks pretty okay.
I think IAF, HAL and MoD are discussing these, so they would have the full information that I lack.
Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019
Cost is irrelevant and important only insofar as accounting is concerned. It should not be a concern for ordering the requisite number of aircraft needed.
Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019
RCS is a function of shape and not size. (If you see theoretical calculations, an object of same external shape where as little as a small jet or as big as a ship would have same RCS..!! Canards need not mean increase in RCS always.Prasad wrote:I wonder how RCS changes from Mk1 to Mk2 given Mk2 is bigger and has canards.
Now that you mention it, Canards on MK2 have slight dihedral angle. I wonder if that would help in negating any possible impact of canards on frontal RCS.
Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019
Cool! HAL has a fan following here..
Will just put down some facts and benchmarks
1. The price of RS.463 Cr is a base flyaway cost, no weapons, no training infra, no amortisation of development cost. Development cost has been funded by MoD up to MK1 directly. Not sure if it came from IAF budget or from DRDO budget.
2. FA 50, JF17, Gripen C which have similar payloads, speed, endurance with GE404 engines are around USD25 to 40 million each with no weaponry and no training and infra. The JF17 has serious radar and avionics upgrade needs, so may not be a great comparison. The air show which was a precursor to a light combat aircraft buy, in Malaysia last quarter saw numbers of USD 25-35 mm.
3. At USD 65 to 70 mm a pop, you are close to clean costs for F16/Block 60, Gripen E etc. These aircraft have better payload and endurance (nearly 40 to 50%) and better performance.
4. When does Make in India become Save HAL
5. IAF has been thru this once before - the 222 Su 30MKIs built in HAL cost nearly Rs 20,000 Cr extra as compared to imports.What capability did we build for that extra spend? It could have funded a doubling of the AWAC and tanker fleets, perhaps even more.
6. We will order, 250 non stealthy aircraft c between the IAF and the IN in the next decade - for an order that size you would be shocked how costs drop for the F16s, F18s and even Rafales as it’s going to be the last large non stealthy order to emerge!
No one from HAL was harmed in the making of this post
Will just put down some facts and benchmarks
1. The price of RS.463 Cr is a base flyaway cost, no weapons, no training infra, no amortisation of development cost. Development cost has been funded by MoD up to MK1 directly. Not sure if it came from IAF budget or from DRDO budget.
2. FA 50, JF17, Gripen C which have similar payloads, speed, endurance with GE404 engines are around USD25 to 40 million each with no weaponry and no training and infra. The JF17 has serious radar and avionics upgrade needs, so may not be a great comparison. The air show which was a precursor to a light combat aircraft buy, in Malaysia last quarter saw numbers of USD 25-35 mm.
3. At USD 65 to 70 mm a pop, you are close to clean costs for F16/Block 60, Gripen E etc. These aircraft have better payload and endurance (nearly 40 to 50%) and better performance.
4. When does Make in India become Save HAL
5. IAF has been thru this once before - the 222 Su 30MKIs built in HAL cost nearly Rs 20,000 Cr extra as compared to imports.What capability did we build for that extra spend? It could have funded a doubling of the AWAC and tanker fleets, perhaps even more.
6. We will order, 250 non stealthy aircraft c between the IAF and the IN in the next decade - for an order that size you would be shocked how costs drop for the F16s, F18s and even Rafales as it’s going to be the last large non stealthy order to emerge!
No one from HAL was harmed in the making of this post
Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019
Interesting. I assumed greater surface area to reflect -> higher RCS. Anyway, there will be some features of the mk2 design that will reduce RCS. Just wondering if the increased size & canards will negate that. Tail Fin is higher up too. Even if they cancel out, Mk2 then will not have an RCS penalty.JayS wrote:RCS is a function of shape and not size. (If you see theoretical calculations, an object of same external shape where as little as a small jet or as big as a ship would have same RCS..!! Canards need not mean increase in RCS always.Prasad wrote:I wonder how RCS changes from Mk1 to Mk2 given Mk2 is bigger and has canards.
Now that you mention it, Canards on MK2 have slight dihedral angle. I wonder if that would help in negating any possible impact of canards on frontal RCS.
Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019
Can you post some sources for your price quotes?ShivS wrote:Cool! HAL has a fan following here..
Will just put down some facts and benchmarks
1. The price of RS.463 Cr is a base flyaway cost, no weapons, no training infra, no amortisation of development cost. Development cost has been funded by MoD up to MK1 directly. Not sure if it came from IAF budget or from DRDO budget.
2. FA 50, JF17, Gripen C which have similar payloads, speed, endurance with GE404 engines are around USD25 to 40 million each with no weaponry and no training and infra. The JF17 has serious radar and avionics upgrade needs, so may not be a great comparison. The air show which was a precursor to a light combat aircraft buy, in Malaysia last quarter saw numbers of USD 25-35 mm.
...
No one from HAL was harmed in the making of this post
Also, cut down on the snark. It doesnt lead to good discussions.
Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019
A ) there are things like inflation and B)Gripen C doesnt have stuff like AESA. So its apple to Oranges comparision. And is about setting up an aircraft manufacturing sub contractors within India. Right now thanks HAL produced LCA is all we got so lets ramp up numbers.
Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019
JayS and Indranil ji
Need your opinion on the following :-
1. Don't the Canards reduce the overall visibility ? Additionally IMHO the enlarged fuselage behind the canopy also contribute s to the reduced rear ward visibility. Refer picture below.
2. Accessing the 2nd seat in a twin seater MK2/trainer will be tricky with those canards. Gripen barely manages with a complex ladder with a flat platform, but in Gripen the Canards are lower and hence better placed.
A small request: Kindly add Gripen A/B in Table 1 of your article. This adds to the perspective how MK1 progressed to MK2 w.r.t Gripen A/B to E version
Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019
Please provide details of how you are sure the base cost does not include the amortization of the build cost i.e. additional infra required specifically for the Mk1A and other changes required.ShivS wrote:Cool! HAL has a fan following here..
Will just put down some facts and benchmarks
1. The price of RS.463 Cr is a base flyaway cost, no weapons, no training infra, no amortisation of development cost. Development cost has been funded by MoD up to MK1 directly. Not sure if it came from IAF budget or from DRDO budget.
Irrelevant numbers, since the LCA money is mostly spent in India given over 60% of its LRUs are locally sourced as well as the design and development plus manufacture of the platform itself in India.2. FA 50, JF17, Gripen C which have similar payloads, speed, endurance with GE404 engines are around USD25 to 40 million each with no weaponry and no training and infra. The JF17 has serious radar and avionics upgrade needs, so may not be a great comparison. The air show which was a precursor to a light combat aircraft buy, in Malaysia last quarter saw numbers of USD 25-35 mm.
Again, a ridiculous compare, because these aircraft won't come "65 to 70mm a pop" but will also need extensive investment in additional infrastructure and equipment to build them in India, and sustain them in IAF service, and will contribute little to actual know why in the Indian context, as it will be around built to print, and close monitoring of technology via ITAR for instance.3. At USD 65 to 70 mm a pop, you are close to clean costs for F16/Block 60, Gripen E etc. These aircraft have better payload and endurance (nearly 40 to 50%) and better performance.
Next, comparing a light fighter to a medium weight fighter is an exercise full of the worst kind of analytical mumbo-jumbo.
The Gripen E as it exists is still a paper project for us, and comes with all the disadvantages of the F-16 (multiple LRU suppliers with restrictive technology sharing agreements) and few of the benefits (combat proven systems for instance).
An irrelevant aside, because Make in India one is best served by Indian designed and developed systems and platforms, not assembled in India screwdriver projects, which is what the MMRCA will be, if even HAL is not involved.4. When does Make in India become Save HAL
I am not sure if you even have an idea of what you are talking about. The imports leverage the infrastructure built up over thousand plus Flanker builds across worldwide and Russian orders. To build up the same in India obviously means we have to spend more, and HAL has to spread out the cost over its airframes. In return we get the capability to sustain our fleets with a high proportion of components and systems built locally and the agreement with IAPO now Sukhoi clearly stipulates, that while for actual airframes we have to depend on Russia for raw materials to machine into subcomponents, these restrictions ease up for making spares & sustaining the airframes. In short, India has invested up front on an artificially high cost basis to sustain its Sukhois for a much larger period of time, gradually reducing its dependence on the Russian suppliers.5. IAF has been thru this once before - the 222 Su 30MKIs built in HAL cost nearly Rs 20,000 Cr extra as compared to imports.What capability did we build for that extra spend? It could have funded a doubling of the AWAC and tanker fleets, perhaps even more.
Again, this is an assumption you are making. The MMRCA order size as it stands is around 110-114 airframes. There is no guarantee that more airframe orders will be placed on top of this, or even that the Navy's 57 airframe order will be added to this.6. We will order, 250 non stealthy aircraft c between the IAF and the IN in the next decade - for an order that size you would be shocked how costs drop for the F16s, F18s and even Rafales as it’s going to be the last large non stealthy order to emerge!
Couldn't care less, but stay off the sarcasm and be a bit more serious with your posts. That will be appreciated. People here have literally spent over a decade discussing these issues and getting into the details at a level which you are clearly unaware about. They won't appreciate some "witticisms" based on costing assumptions, that too so basic & which completely ignore the larger impact of the Tejas on the Indian aerospace industrial ecosystem or its unique attributes in terms of customization to Indian warfighting needs without having to run to the OEM for every tiny thing.No one from HAL was harmed in the making of this post
Also, we have members from HAL as members of this board, and they too won't appreciate trolling.
Reasoned critiques are one thing, but merely mocking HAL without merit is not appreciated or condoned.
-
- Forum Moderator
- Posts: 1214
- Joined: 15 Aug 2016 00:22
Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019
What you are saying is wrong - its not the base cost - its the cost for developing the entire ecosystemShivS wrote:Cool! HAL has a fan following here..
Will just put down some facts and benchmarks
1. The price of RS.463 Cr is a base flyaway cost, no weapons, no training infra, no amortisation of development cost. Development cost has been funded by MoD up to MK1 directly. Not sure if it came from IAF budget or from DRDO budget.
2. FA 50, JF17, Gripen C which have similar payloads, speed, endurance with GE404 engines are around USD25 to 40 million each with no weaponry and no training and infra. The JF17 has serious radar and avionics upgrade needs, so may not be a great comparison. The air show which was a precursor to a light combat aircraft buy, in Malaysia last quarter saw numbers of USD 25-35 mm.
3. At USD 65 to 70 mm a pop, you are close to clean costs for F16/Block 60, Gripen E etc. These aircraft have better payload and endurance (nearly 40 to 50%) and better performance.
4. When does Make in India become Save HAL
5. IAF has been thru this once before - the 222 Su 30MKIs built in HAL cost nearly Rs 20,000 Cr extra as compared to imports.What capability did we build for that extra spend? It could have funded a doubling of the AWAC and tanker fleets, perhaps even more.
6. We will order, 250 non stealthy aircraft c between the IAF and the IN in the next decade - for an order that size you would be shocked how costs drop for the F16s, F18s and even Rafales as it’s going to be the last large non stealthy order to emerge!
No one from HAL was harmed in the making of this post
Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2
I am not sure if you even have the slightest idea of what you are talking of. The LCA Mk1A is built as a product improvement of the Mk1, which was designed with a clear mandate, to fit into the MiG-21 form factor, so as to use the existing base infrastructure and also provide capabilities which were equal to those on then IAF 4th gen fighters such as the MiG-29 (i.e. payload, pylon count, etc). With IFR, even the ostensibly limited range (equivalent to our non upgraded MiG-29s) is addressed. For the full 4.5 Gen platform compare, now you have the MWF program.ShivS wrote:Is the Mk1A worth it at a quoted price of nearly Rs485 Cr? It’s a combination of 4.5 gen avionics, radar, EW and communications with a 3rd generation payload and endurance!
If the IAF expects any forward movement on the AMCA and a long term commitment from Indian suppliers for its plans, it will have to pay. Limited builds are expensive, 83 airframes are not mass production.Unless HAL figures out a way to drop the cost to around Rs.325/350 Cr doubt the IAF will bite, and they should not!
Your post, is getting quite over the top. Less rhetoric.If the MK1 costa around Rs.240/250 Cr, the improvements requested should not add more than Rs75/100 Cr to the cost. Make in India is important but this verges on the ridiculous!
Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019
Not to mention the fact that HAL facilities also help provide support to Malaysian MKMs and offer a way to do some foreign policy work too.