Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 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.
basant
BRFite
Posts: 226
Joined: 20 Mar 2020 20:58

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby basant » 08 May 2020 18:38

Bharadwaj wrote:OT but HVT Sir's twitter gone?

Appears to be the case! :shock:

sankum
BRFite
Posts: 836
Joined: 20 Dec 2004 21:45

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby sankum » 08 May 2020 20:00

.
Harsh Vardhan Thakur on Twitter: "Thanks Tweeple. Moving forward ...


He retired.

Venu
BRFite
Posts: 158
Joined: 26 Oct 2009 17:23
Location: rimbola..rimbola

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby Venu » 08 May 2020 21:11

sankum wrote:
.
Harsh Vardhan Thakur on Twitter: "Thanks Tweeple. Moving forward ...

He retired.

But only a couple of weeks ago, when someone asked him on twitter about when he is hanging boots, his reply was something in the lines of 'always young', implying no idea of doing it anytime soon.

Is it because any issue with HAL? Or is he just retrained from using twitter by the establishment? Thinking out loud!

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5252
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby Kartik » 09 May 2020 05:20

It does look like his Twitter account is gone..I guess someone in the establishment wasn't happy with the fact that he was so open about things. I hope it's just that and not that he's retired from HAL. :(

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5252
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby Kartik » 09 May 2020 05:25

Found an interesting thing while reading a Typhoon interview on Hushkit. Was hoping to ask HVT about it, but not possible now.

Typhoon's AoA limit currently is a slightly more than 24 degrees. As it is for the F-16 apparently. Tejas Mk1's AoA is 24 deg with the FOC software. So the Tejas matches the Typhoon and F-16's AoA limit as of now.

But a new Aerodynamic Modification Kit (AMK) was developed for the Typhoon to allow it to increase the AoA to 34 degrees. They used a leading edge root extension and a strake to do that.

Image

From the Hushkit interview:

Before I go back to the interview with Klax I feel I should explain a little background detail about the AMK. Typhoon’s supersonic agility is very impressive, but its current angle-of-attack (AoA) limits at lower speeds are less impressive; a Cassidian (Airbus Defence & Space) led effort demonstrated in 2014 would remedy this. The ‘Aerodynamic Mod Kit’ (AMK) includes re-shaped strakes, leading edge root extensions, and extended trailing edge flaperons. The AMK aims to deliver increases to the maximum wing lift, the AoA limit and the roll rates at High AoA. The strakes will generate vortices that will maintain a controlled airflow over the wing surface even at high angles of attack. When I spoke to EADS test pilot Chris Worning for an article in Aerospace he noted “The first stage was to proof the concept. Do some measurements to see if the strakes did what we thought they would do. And that went very well, the predictions were close. We will fly the Aerodynamic Modification Kit next. We have a mod kit and we’re hopefully going to fly it here this summer (at Manching). This is basically what you could put on a series production aeroplane.”

On the advantages he noted, “First of all they will give us a bit more angle of attack. The maximum angle of attack of the aeroplane increases, which is obviously helpful in close-in combat, if applied intelligently. The second thing they do is increase the manoeuvrability of the aircraft at high angles of attack. So at a given angle of attack, you have for instance, much higher roll rates: so the overall agility of the aircraft increases.”

The Typhoon’s current AoA limit is slightly more than twenty four degrees, approximately the same as an F-16. The new changes are expected to increase the limit to at least 34 degrees which will give pilots in combat a many more possibilities for nose-pointing.



I was wondering if ADA and NFTC could be looking at implementing something similar to improve the AoA limit on the Tejas Mk1 as well, with a similar strake and a LERX. We know that studies were carried out on the Tejas as well to add nose chine and fuselage strakes and they showed better aerodynamic characteristics. Lots of details in IR and JayS's excellent article below.

DDR- Tracking the Tejas part 1

IR, could you find out any more on whether these aerodynamic improvements may feature on the Mk1A and find their way back into the Mk1? We do know that the MWF design has a LERX like root extension and the wing tip mounted CCMs which actually showed better Cnβ and higher L/D ratio in the subsonic, transonic and supersonic regimes. Makes logical sense to see it being implemented on the Mk1A for sure.

Image

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19537
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby Karan M » 09 May 2020 05:51

The HVT thing is shocking. I hope he's back. :(

basant
BRFite
Posts: 226
Joined: 20 Mar 2020 20:58

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby basant » 10 May 2020 09:28

IAF has asked for 'improved' canopy wrt bird hit resistance (24mm thick instead of 16mm) and not for the more aerodynamically optimized one for Mk2 to be ported for Mk1A. Has that to do with significant changes to CLAW?

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8161
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby Indranil » 11 May 2020 03:05

Kartik,

Tejas doesn't need more AoA. More AoA will give you more ITR and lower speed handling. Tejas doesn't need help there.

They have studied strakes for NLCA Mk2. But it was not for increasing AoA. They want to delay uncommanded pitch up at transonic range to higher AoAs. A strake at a very similar position would have helped.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4533
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby JayS » 11 May 2020 13:13

Kartik there is a paper published on Typhoon's AAMK - https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/1.C034473

It has roll issue at high AoA predominantly. The wings stall at lower AoA. The LERX helps stabilize the LE vortices at high AoA and side slip. LCA does not have problem with wing AoA, it goes on till 35deg or so without stalling. The issue is with directional stability, the rudder authority drops significantly post 25-26deg. Strakes might help in making the fin more effective, like it does in M2K. Other easy fix could be to increase the size of the fin and rudder to improve on the directional stability.

But as IR indicated, one needs to see what purpose this will serve and is if worth doing it..? If yes, it will be done in future, I am sure of it. LCA doesnt particularly need help in low speed handling as of now. Going lower than current level will need improvements elsewhere, like more powerful engines and TVC perhaps, because all controls lose effectiveness at too low speeds.

HVT pointed out an interesting thing the other day that the ITR may not be restricted by the G limit. STR always comes below the G-limit. Also, in some fighter's case, performance parameters like ITR and STR are not limited by AoA, but other limits too. The tightest turn again is typically at much lower G-turns than the max allowed. So we need to see in specific case of LCA whether increasing AoA limit gives a distinct advantage or not. Due to HMDS and high off-bore sight CCMs these days, pointing ability based solely on high AoA is not all that important. Also we should keep in mind that EFT2000 was optimised for high altitude supersonic flight. Any opponent worth his salt will never try to take of the Typhoon at very high altitudes as it has advantage up there (other than an F22 pilot perhaps). Not so much at lower altitudes and slower speeds. Hence its probably a more dire requirement for EFT 2000 to improve upon its low altitude low speed capabilities.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby srai » 11 May 2020 13:37

LCA Mk.1

“ In-service aircraft are certified to fly from -3.5 to +8.0 Gs, up to an altitude of 50,000 feet, a top speed of Mach 1.6, and an angle of attack (AoA) of up to 24 degrees”

—> very respectable specs

“instantaneous turn rate (ITR) of near 30 degrees per second”
—> One of the best in class. Which fighters have more?

“a sustained turn rate (STR) of between 15 to 16 degrees per second.”

—> Decent enough. With HMDS & High-offbore sight CCM, one pass is enough. Don’t get into multi-pass turning fights.

“A minimum radius turn of 350 metres (m) radius was also exhibited”

—> Are there any other fighter with minimum smaller than this?

“ The ability to accelerate while in a climb is a virtue that only fighters with a thrust to weight ratio (TWR) of above 1.0 possess”

—> not underpowered as made out to be.

“ The FCS has now been updated to lower the minimum speed to 100 knots”

—> any other fighters lower than this?


I think these will be fully opened up at some point.
8.5 Gs
26 degrees AoA

basant
BRFite
Posts: 226
Joined: 20 Mar 2020 20:58

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby basant » 11 May 2020 16:29

srai wrote:LCA Mk.1

“ In-service aircraft are certified to fly from -3.5 to +8.0 Gs, up to an altitude of 50,000 feet, a top speed of Mach 1.6, and an angle of attack (AoA) of up to 24 degrees”

—> very respectable specs

“instantaneous turn rate (ITR) of near 30 degrees per second”
—> One of the best in class. Which fighters have more?

“a sustained turn rate (STR) of between 15 to 16 degrees per second.”

—> Decent enough. With HMDS & High-offbore sight CCM, one pass is enough. Don’t get into multi-pass turning fights.

“A minimum radius turn of 350 metres (m) radius was also exhibited”

—> Are there any other fighter with minimum smaller than this?

“ The ability to accelerate while in a climb is a virtue that only fighters with a thrust to weight ratio (TWR) of above 1.0 possess”

—> not underpowered as made out to be.

“ The FCS has now been updated to lower the minimum speed to 100 knots”

—> any other fighters lower than this?


I think these will be fully opened up at some point.
8.5 Gs
26 degrees AoA

Thank you for the detailed explanation. I have a couple of doubts though:
1. We keep seeing reports that envelop has been tested successfully and will be gradually/fully opened in future. If the testing was thorough, why is this caution? If not, would it be premature conclusion based on testing perhaps the most complicated test points?

2. Several times on this forum (over a decade no less!) it was pointed out that JF-17 cannot even complete vertical loop. And IIRC, it was suggested that it could be due to FBW/CLAW. Why should that be so complicated? I mean, there are more difficult situations, like AoA limits, wake penatration, etc. I cannot see the reason for any challenge in completing a loop, unless it has to do with aerodynamics/air flow requirement for the engine itself (which I guess would be even less likely).

I would appreciate for sharing any thoughts on these.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8161
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby Indranil » 11 May 2020 20:25

srai wrote:“ The FCS has now been updated to lower the minimum speed to 100 knots”

—> any other fighters lower than this?

It has been test flown to 106 knots. In service aircraft are software limited to 115 knots. Gripen is comparable. The Mirage 2000 can fly at 100 knots. Rafale and F-18 can fly slower (85-90 knots).

Aarvee
BRFite
Posts: 158
Joined: 14 Oct 2016 07:43

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby Aarvee » 12 May 2020 04:08

Karan M wrote:The HVT thing is shocking. I hope he's back. :(


What happened with the twitter account? Cant find any info.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5252
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby Kartik » 12 May 2020 05:24

Thanks IR and JayS for the responses. Your own article in DDR had mentioned the aerodynamic improvements that were being studied. Nose strakes or a fuselage mounted strake is an easy fix that doesn't require remanufacturing airframes and can be retrofitted to Mk1s apart from being on Mk1A from day one.

If the directional stability at higher AoA can be improved with strakes as the papers suggested, I see no harm in adding those especially if it further increases the AoA limit of the Tejas. The weight penalty is negligible (~10-20 kgs) compared to trying to increase the size of the vertical tail and rudder. Mirage-2000 has it, Gripen has it (was added on, didn't exist in the first Gripen A/Bs).

The wing-tip mounted CCMs seem especially lucrative, given that they improve L/D ratio in all regimes of flight.

IMO, these are small enough changes that could result in performance improvements.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2607
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby Cybaru » 12 May 2020 08:02

Karan M wrote:The HVT thing is shocking. I hope he's back. :(


$#(&%! Dalals must have complained! Demystifying their BS was top of his agenda all day long!

Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7483
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby Prasad » 12 May 2020 09:30

He's on Instagram fwiw

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8161
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby Indranil » 12 May 2020 21:00

Kartik,

Let me share a couple of papers with you offline.

For MWF, increasing the size and height of the fin was imperative. For Mk2 (as we stated in the report) the strakes significantly improved CnB, but adversely affected Cmy (directional stability). The nose chine improved the CnB with marginal degradation of Cmy. For NLCA Mk1 deflecting the Levcon downwards does the trick. There was no requirement for a strake. On NLCA Mk2 they studied the strakes as I had reported in my previous comment for delaying pitchup at transonic speeds. As the NLCA Mk2 design progressed they got rid of the Levcons and added large LE extensions. I do not think that the strake would help in this case.

Coming to Mk1A, I am a bit disappointed. There arise due to ADA/HAL divide IMHO. Mk1A is a strictly HAL-only project. HAL has shut out ADA as much as it could and ADA never came to the front in providing support. There was even delays in making LSPs available for conversion. So many refinements to the airframe could be done but now there is no time to test those out.

Frankly speaking, adding a nose chine (or fuselage strake), changing the engine bay door, better drop tanks and pylons can be done to in service aircraft.So all Mk1s and Mk1As can be retrofitted with those. But, there are some more major changes that could have been affected on Mk1As. I hope that Mk1A orders are split into 40 Mk1As and 43 Mk1Bs. While HAL is delivering the Mk1As which would take around 2.5-3 years they can incorporate and test the bigger changes that are obvious from detailed CFD/wind-tunnel studies.
1. Work on area behind the canopy
2. Move the outboard pylon to wingtip pylons
3. Extend the inlet and cant it for better area ruling (you can see this on the MWF).

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby srai » 12 May 2020 21:37

^^^
Let the 83 be 83 ... additional orders for next batch configuration. 40 units are too small a number IMO

maitya
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 491
Joined: 02 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby maitya » 12 May 2020 21:58

Indranil wrote:Kartik,

<snip>
Coming to Mk1A, I am a bit disappointed. There arise due to ADA/HAL divide IMHO. Mk1A is a strictly HAL-only project. HAL has shut out ADA as much as it could and ADA never came to the front in providing support. There was even delays in making LSPs available for conversion. So many refinements to the airframe could be done but now there is no time to test those out.
<snip>
While HAL is delivering the Mk1As which would take around 2.5-3 years they can incorporate and test the bigger changes that are obvious from detailed CFD/wind-tunnel studies.
1. Work on area behind the canopy
2. Move the outboard pylon to wingtip pylons
3. Extend the inlet and cant it for better area ruling (you can see this on the MWF).

What I really really find disappointing wrt MK1A is lack of initiative to even try out the most obvious of the changes ... i.e. make the tail-fin sit a little higher over the rear fuselage and dedicate the space around the rear spine, to a wider and higher bay to house the UREP and the DRFM based RWJ - similar to what we see (structurally) in the F-16s.

More so, when they themselves are implementing something similar for D-29 in the MiG-29s or even for for the Jaguars.

Or even a wing-tip station to house MAWS pairs on each tip - yes there's only so much weight you can attach at the wing tips without changing the wing structurally, which would have made it out of scope of the 1A program immediately - but a MAWS-pair "pod" won't be too much more than 30-40 odd Kgs max each, and that much should be quite achievable etc.

Only some mgmt-gibberish "ïntent"-talk about weight reduction this and weight reduction that, but that has been quietly buried.

There's just no risk appetite whatsoever, it seems ... oh well!!

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8161
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby Indranil » 12 May 2020 23:47

The counter point is: Should we be in perpetual concurrent design phase? Is it not wise to stabilize production on Mk1/Mk1A just the way it is. Build up numbers as soon as possible. Focus all design energy to get to MWF. Get to that as soon as possible.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4393
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby Cain Marko » 13 May 2020 00:01

Why do people want to continue to tinker with the MK1? In itself - at FOC standard this bird should have been ordered in large numbers. Then you have the thing moved to MK1A, and now we want to refine this? nahi nahi, kabhi nahi! That's what you have the Mk2 for and the TEDBF and AMCA etc. for. Order another 75 MK1A and be done with it until the Mk2 comes online.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5252
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby Kartik » 13 May 2020 01:02

Indranil wrote:Kartik,

Let me share a couple of papers with you offline.

For MWF, increasing the size and height of the fin was imperative. For Mk2 (as we stated in the report) the strakes significantly improved CnB, but adversely affected Cmy (directional stability). The nose chine improved the CnB with marginal degradation of Cmy. For NLCA Mk1 deflecting the Levcon downwards does the trick. There was no requirement for a strake. On NLCA Mk2 they studied the strakes as I had reported in my previous comment for delaying pitchup at transonic speeds. As the NLCA Mk2 design progressed they got rid of the Levcons and added large LE extensions. I do not think that the strake would help in this case.

Coming to Mk1A, I am a bit disappointed. There arise due to ADA/HAL divide IMHO. Mk1A is a strictly HAL-only project. HAL has shut out ADA as much as it could and ADA never came to the front in providing support. There was even delays in making LSPs available for conversion. So many refinements to the airframe could be done but now there is no time to test those out.

Frankly speaking, adding a nose chine (or fuselage strake), changing the engine bay door, better drop tanks and pylons can be done to in service aircraft.So all Mk1s and Mk1As can be retrofitted with those. But, there are some more major changes that could have been affected on Mk1As. I hope that Mk1A orders are split into 40 Mk1As and 43 Mk1Bs. While HAL is delivering the Mk1As which would take around 2.5-3 years they can incorporate and test the bigger changes that are obvious from detailed CFD/wind-tunnel studies.
1. Work on area behind the canopy
2. Move the outboard pylon to wingtip pylons
3. Extend the inlet and cant it for better area ruling (you can see this on the MWF).


So basically so many studies that were done for aerodynamic improvements will result in no aerodynamic improvements on the Mk1A. Sigh.

The nose strake is the smallest change and could be tested relatively quickly to see it's impact on handling qualities. It is a small change when compared to many of the bigger changes that are being made for the Mk1A. Just for comparison, Gripen has both a nose strake as well as fuselage mounted strake.

If they're already modifying LSPs to convert them into Mk1A prototypes then, modifying the geometry aft of the canopy could have been done if they wanted to as well as adding wingtip CCMs if the structure could handle it. It would require more testing for vibration and flutter but doable.

Inlet changes too could have been tested for Mk1A though I suspect it would require a lot more testing.

Anyway, right now the focus is on getting it out the door as fast as possible and anything that adds schedule delay may be considered unacceptable. Hopefully we'll see it added on later batches of the Mk1A and then retrofitted to the Mk1s.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2309
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby Vivek K » 13 May 2020 02:49

Agree with IR - need to declare victory with design and move to production for Mk1 and Mk1A. MK1B can come in for an additional 50+ follow on order.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9077
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby Rakesh » 13 May 2020 03:35

https://twitter.com/SJha1618/status/126 ... 19392?s=20 ---> First and ultimate test of new Swadeshi ideology:

Clear orders *ASAP* for all major indigenously developed systems. Examples:

1. 83 x Tejas Mk1A
2. 118 x Arjun MK1A
3. 6 x Pinaka MBRL Regiments
4. A range of radars.

There's more.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5252
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby Kartik » 13 May 2020 03:56

Indranil wrote:The counter point is: Should we be in perpetual concurrent design phase? Is it not wise to stabilize production on Mk1/Mk1A just the way it is. Build up numbers as soon as possible. Focus all design energy to get to MWF. Get to that as soon as possible.


Product design is all about improvements Indranil. Especially when the changes are minimal and the results they give are more discernible.

None of the changes we talked about are not doable on the Mk1A. From a production stand-point, some of them (nose strake or wing tip CCMs) should definitely be doable without major changes to the production set-up.

And they've all been incorporated into the MWF, which tells you that they are desirable. Of course, MWF is a design derived from an existing one, so schedule will permit the changes. Maybe Mk1A schedule did not do so.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby srai » 13 May 2020 04:16

At this point in time, IMO it is more important to “mass” produce than to seek perfection. Once produced and inducted, the airframes will be in service some 30-40 years. Plenty of time to keep tinkering. Major refinements could be attempted at MLU in 15-years. Smaller refinements/improvements would be an ongoing exercise.

Mort Walker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8430
Joined: 31 May 2004 11:31
Location: The rings around Uranus.

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby Mort Walker » 13 May 2020 10:08

Rakesh wrote:https://twitter.com/SJha1618/status/1260248671586619392?s=20 ---> First and ultimate test of new Swadeshi ideology:

Clear orders *ASAP* for all major indigenously developed systems. Examples:

1. 83 x Tejas Mk1A
2. 118 x Arjun MK1A
3. 6 x Pinaka MBRL Regiments
4. A range of radars.

There's more.


All of those numbers need to be multiplied by 10.

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1676
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby Khalsa » 13 May 2020 15:56

Can I see documented evidence or a document of the final order ?
For 83 Mk1A.

Same for the Arjun. Funds cleared etc etc.
I have not seen the ink from the army.

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3977
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby deejay » 13 May 2020 18:48

Khalsa wrote:Can I see documented evidence or a document of the final order ?
For 83 Mk1A.

Same for the Arjun. Funds cleared etc etc.
I have not seen the ink from the army.


That is a wishlist. Orders not yet signed.

Vamsee
BRFite
Posts: 613
Joined: 16 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby Vamsee » 14 May 2020 22:36

anantha krishnan
@writetake

#TejasUpdate

* SP21 to have 2 more sorties followed by 3/4 CAFs, then to AFS Sulur.
* SP22 couple of tests + LSTT + HSTT-cum-1st flight. Now getting the painting done.
* SP23/SP24 got into #Covid delays, awaiting some components.
* SP25/SP26 on coupling stage.

Link

Picklu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2091
Joined: 25 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby Picklu » 14 May 2020 23:59

Where's the order of 83mk1a?

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9077
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby Rakesh » 15 May 2020 00:06

Picklu wrote:Where's the order of 83mk1a?

As per HVT, it is due for signing this summer. And that is as per procedure. COVID has delayed it, but the order will get signed.

Expect another order of Mk1As to come as well.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5252
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby Kartik » 15 May 2020 00:16

Vamsee wrote:anantha krishnan
@writetake

#TejasUpdate

* SP21 to have 2 more sorties followed by 3/4 CAFs, then to AFS Sulur.
* SP22 couple of tests + LSTT + HSTT-cum-1st flight. Now getting the painting done.
* SP23/SP24 got into #Covid delays, awaiting some components.
* SP25/SP26 on coupling stage.

Link


SP-17 (earlier SP-21) should be handed over to the IAF soon then. Soon to be followed by SP-18 (earlier SP-22). Will 2 single seaters be enough to stand up No.18 Squadron? Possibly, given that they're co-located with No.45 Squadron.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4533
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby JayS » 15 May 2020 02:25

Plan was to form the Sq with 4 jets. 2 is too few I think. But may be Sq 45 could loan a couple of theirs if things need to be expedited. IAF will decide on this one I suppose.

Yesterday, 14th May, was 77th Birthday of Dr Kota Harinarayana, the Father of LCA. FYI.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5252
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby Kartik » 15 May 2020 02:31

From Anantha Krishnan's Twitter

The next major milestone for #Tejas project COULD be the formation of 2nd Sqn #FlyingBullets at AFS Sulur. I understand that #IAF had to postpone their April plans owing to #Covid19 and it could now be anytime soon. #Avgeeks

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5252
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby Kartik » 15 May 2020 02:33

JayS wrote:Plan was to form the Sq with 4 jets. 2 is too few I think. But may be Sq 45 could loan a couple of theirs if things need to be expedited. IAF will decide on this one I suppose.

Yesterday, 14th May, was 77th Birthday of Dr Kota Harinarayana, the Father of LCA. FYI.


No.45 Squadron too was formed with 2 jets. They had 1 trainer at the ceremony as well, but just 2 single seaters, SP-1 and SP-2 that were handed over. There was SP-3 there as well, but it hadn't yet been handed over.

Image
Image
Image

article link

The first two contemporary or fourth generation Light Combat Aircraft ‘Tejas,’ designed and built in India, joined the Indian Air Force’s squadron called Flying Daggers in Bengaluru on Friday. It was a ceremonial but low-key affair.

...

Two more in pipeline

Two more LCA will join No. 45 Squadron in a few months. “With 45 Squadron commencing operations on Friday, soon the Tejas will be employed to defend the Indian skies,” the IAF said.

..
Last edited by Kartik on 15 May 2020 02:45, edited 2 times in total.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4533
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby JayS » 15 May 2020 02:33

Kartik, what we see in papers is just a tip of the iceberg. Smallest changes may need a lot of flight testing efforts still. I am sure the PM team of LCA would have 100s of items on the To Do list. I think the priority is to get the FOC version sorted completely, backport key changes to IOC like BVR capability, Astra integration, Uttam integration, Mk1A and then MWF to get going and so on. All these small changes can follow later. They are not awefully important or urgent. I am sure the PM team have much better perspective of all things, priorities and constraints in front of their eyes. A lot of times the smallest changes take longest time in Aerospace due to lower priorities and much headache even if its of just drawing changes. For better or for worse, Aerospace has too much bureaucracy these days.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4533
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby JayS » 15 May 2020 02:39

Well the formation of Sq 45 with 2 jets was also a less than ideal situation. IIRC even then the plan was to raise the Sq with 4 jets. Though since Sq 45 is already there to handhold the new Sq a bit initially, current situation is not all that dire. Plus they will be colocated with the Sq 45.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5252
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby Kartik » 15 May 2020 02:54

JayS wrote:Kartik, what we see in papers is just a tip of the iceberg. Smallest changes may need a lot of flight testing efforts still. I am sure the PM team of LCA would have 100s of items on the To Do list. I think the priority is to get the FOC version sorted completely, backport key changes to IOC like BVR capability, Astra integration, Uttam integration, Mk1A and then MWF to get going and so on. All these small changes can follow later. They are not awefully important or urgent. I am sure the PM team have much better perspective of all things, priorities and constraints in front of their eyes. A lot of times the smallest changes take longest time in Aerospace due to lower priorities and much headache even if its of just drawing changes. For better or for worse, Aerospace has too much bureaucracy these days.


Oh I'm sure it will require testing, both on the ground and in flight.

But like you said, it's a question of priorities as this stage. There are more important items that need to be brought into the wider fleet from the FOC standard plus avionics changes on Mk1A, which will take precedence over aerodynamic changes. Given that the FOC variant is one heck of a fighter, it can be hopefully be addressed in the future.

Ideally, these changes should be implemented while the fleet size is still small and changes can be introduced onto the assembly line for the fighters yet to be built. But there's so much going on, that these will probably not be addressed at all, before MWF is rolled out.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9077
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby Rakesh » 15 May 2020 15:46

Karan M wrote:The HVT thing is shocking. I hope he's back. :(

And he is back. Phew! Thank Goodness ---> https://twitter.com/hvtiaf


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MeshaVishwas, ssaravanan, uskumar, Vips, Vivasvat and 44 guests