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.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54535
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby ramana » 31 Jul 2020 23:40

nachiket wrote:
tsarkar wrote:Ideally the MiG-29 and Su-30 orders could have been used to up the Tejas Mk1A with powerful Elta 2052 AESA compared to Bars and Zhuk radars on the older aircraft.

The Mk1A is going to have the Elta 2052. That's one of the major changes in it from the Mk1. Do you mean you wanted the Mig-29's and Su-30's to have versions of the 2052 as well?



Probably. However, Russia would be reluctant to allow that. Who knows in future what will happen?

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7754
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

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

Postby nachiket » 01 Aug 2020 00:01

chola, darshan, I moved your responses to YashG to the international aerospace thread. Let's keep this one limited to Tejas.

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2977
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

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

Postby tsarkar » 01 Aug 2020 01:15

nachiket wrote:
tsarkar wrote:Ideally the MiG-29 and Su-30 orders could have been used to up the Tejas Mk1A with powerful Elta 2052 AESA compared to Bars and Zhuk radars on the older aircraft.

The Mk1A is going to have the Elta 2052. That's one of the major changes in it from the Mk1. Do you mean you wanted the Mig-29's and Su-30's to have versions of the 2052 as well?

No, I meant the 21 MiG-29UPG + 12 Su-30MKI orders could have added to Tejas Mk1A orders.

The MiG factory will need time to deliver the 21 UPG's and we dont know the condition of old airframes and the Gorshkov/Vikramaditya experience of deteriorated structure comes to mind.

Similarly the additional Su-30MKI kits will need to be manufactured by IAPO and assembled by HAL Nashik.

The Tejas Mk1A would be superior to Su-30MKI and MiG-29UPG in the areas of -

1. Superior Elta 2052 radar giving advantage over Bars in A2A.
2. Litening Pod giving advantage in A2G over MiG-29UPG lacking it.
3. Reliable GE-404 engine over Al-31FP and RD-33

As per the following HAL data, the TBO and TTL of RD-33 and Al-31FP is as follows -

https://hal-india.co.in/Engine%20Divisi ... put/M__138
Project TBO TTL
RD33 300 Hrs 1000 Hrs

https://hal-india.co.in/Sukhoi%20Engine ... put/M__140
Project TBO TTL
AL31FP 1000 Hrs 2000 Hrs

While I dont have exact GE F-404 TBO & TTL, this report from 2001 indicates a TBO of 4000 hours for GE F414. Request brar_w to share the TBO & TTL of GE F-404 if he has the data.

https://www.geaviation.com/press-releas ... f404-being

TBO stands for Time Between Overhaul. TTL Stands for Type Technical Life. In simple words, TTL is the life of the engine.

So going by the reported data, in the 4000 hours time between overhaul of a single GE engine for a Tejas/MWF, four Al-31FP engines (2 sets per Su-30MKI) and eight RD-33 (2 sets per fighter) would have exhausted their lives.

Think about it in terms if life cycle costs.

The cost of 4 Al-31FP engines and 8 RD-33 engines exhausting all TTL against the cost of GE engine just needing an overhaul.

The success of the Tejas is due to the wise selection of the -

1. engine for superior performance and reliability,
2. 2032/2052 radar for superior A2A performance. This came from the Indian Navy's Sea Harrier LUSH project along with integration with Derby missile.
3. Litening pod for superior A2G performance. This came from earlier Su-30MKI, Mirage 2000, Jaguar DARIN-2 and MiG-27UPG integrations

GE also custom developed a higher power 84 kN version for Tejas compared to the existing 80.5 kN version for Gripen C and 78.7 kN version for F/A-18C/D

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

PS - Added later - Going by the data of the RD-33 and Al-31FP, the reliability of single engined JF-17 and J-10 and the twin engined J-20 can be fairly estimated.

Which is why IAF has such a low opinion of the J-20. Stealth shaping actually degrades aerodynamic performance of a J-20 compared to an aerodynamically optimized airframe like the Su-30MKI.

PPS - Added even later - Given the HAL data, the RD-33 has poorer figures than the the R-25 for MiG-21 and R-29 for MiG-27.

Vips
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2805
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

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

Postby Vips » 01 Aug 2020 03:06

I am mighty glad Porkis have plumped for RD-33's for their JF Bandar. It is time they feel some russian love. :D

basant
BRFite
Posts: 285
Joined: 20 Mar 2020 20:58

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

Postby basant » 01 Aug 2020 03:28

Air Marshal Suresh seems to suggest maintainability should be addressed for Mk1. I think issue will take a little time to stabilize. See around 46min.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7754
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

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

Postby nachiket » 01 Aug 2020 04:31

tsarkar wrote:
nachiket wrote:The Mk1A is going to have the Elta 2052. That's one of the major changes in it from the Mk1. Do you mean you wanted the Mig-29's and Su-30's to have versions of the 2052 as well?

No, I meant the 21 MiG-29UPG + 12 Su-30MKI orders could have added to Tejas Mk1A orders.

The MiG factory will need time to deliver the 21 UPG's and we dont know the condition of old airframes and the Gorshkov/Vikramaditya experience of deteriorated structure comes to mind.

Similarly the additional Su-30MKI kits will need to be manufactured by IAPO and assembled by HAL Nashik.

Ok, I misunderstood you earlier.

The 12 Su-30MKI are attrition replacements for the aircraft that have crashed. This is just to keep the holdings of existing squadrons at strength. Also keeps HAL's Su-30 assembly line running another year.

As for the Mk1A, they have already asked for 83 and the contract has been hanging fire and only the MoD knows why. The Tejas line is meanwhile already working at capacity and there will be a gap between when the last single-seat Mk1 rolls out and the first Mk1A which is now to be filled by an order for 2-seat trainers. With the 114 MRFA tender sure to crash and burn eventually (at least I hope so), getting a squadron of Mig-29's is a good idea to get a parallel mode of inducting more of an already existing type. So it does make sense. They may not be as good as the Mk1A, but they are still excellent 4.5 gen air-superiority aircraft and the IAF seems impressed with the UPG variant.

YashG
BRFite
Posts: 175
Joined: 22 Apr 2017 00:10

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

Postby YashG » 01 Aug 2020 10:23

We should have a rule in IAF that no aircraft type with less than 5 squadruns (or whatever a more practical number in terms of logistics) should be inducted. If inducted, efforts be made to reach 5 squadrun number. So MIG29 should be atlest 5 squads. I wish we could do the same for Mirage2000.

Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2336
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

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

Postby Manish_P » 01 Aug 2020 12:19

tsarkar wrote:So going by the reported data, in the 4000 hours time between overhaul of a single GE engine for a Tejas/MWF, four Al-31FP engines (2 sets per Su-30MKI) and eight RD-33 (2 sets per fighter) would have exhausted their lives.

Think about it in terms if life cycle costs.

The cost of 4 Al-31FP engines and 8 RD-33 engines exhausting all TTL against the cost of GE engine just needing an overhaul.


Amazing how stark the difference is. Thanks for sharing this TSarkar sir

I hope (faintly) that folks who keep harping about cheap Russian fighters are will note these report straight from the horses mouth

More likely they will brush it off giving reasons like 'but quality of maintenance at HAL is much shoddier' or even 'like in cars new engines are better than overhauled ones which can have loss in horsepower'...

PS: IIRC Brar_w had recently posted on how the engine life for those on the F-15 (or was it the Chinook) had been significantly improved, even more than their already impressive figures.

mody
BRFite
Posts: 705
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Mumbai, India

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

Postby mody » 01 Aug 2020 17:50

One of the reasons I have often fantasized about Mig-29s with GE-404 or 414 engines. The lower Specific Fuel Consumption of the engines, with much better reliability and lower maintenance requirements, would remove some of the biggest negatives of the Fulcrum. Coupled with an even higher thrust to weight ratio, the aircraft might be able to super cruise and would have unmatched aerodynamic performance.
Would really make sense for the Mig-29K, as the higher thrust would enable to the aircraft to lift off the carrier with a higher load, plus lower SFC would increase the range or ON station time and also lower maintenance. Plug in a Elta 2052 or Uttam Aesa and the picture is complete. Mig-29UPG monster.

If wishes were horses.

sajaym
BRFite
Posts: 146
Joined: 04 Feb 2019 09:11

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

Postby sajaym » 02 Aug 2020 10:26

YashG wrote:We should have a rule in IAF that no aircraft type with less than 5 squadruns (or whatever a more practical number in terms of logistics) should be inducted. If inducted, efforts be made to reach 5 squadrun number. So MIG29 should be atlest 5 squads. I wish we could do the same for Mirage2000.


More than that, the IAF needs to ensure that attrition numbers are built into the regular squadron numbers. Fighter jets don't grow on trees and can't be replaced quickly. One would've thought that the IAF has learnt some painful lessons about the long drawn processes for buying new aircraft or ordering attrition replacements. Now that we are making our own aircraft, the IAF should ensure that at least 2 extra units are ordered in every squadron (18 + 2 = 20) as attrition replacements. These extra aircraft should be kept in storage and can also add to the squadron strength when some aircraft are under repair/overhaul. In other words, for indigenous aircraft IAF should ensure that enough aircraft are ordered so that every indigenous squadron has 100% fleet availability.

manjgu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2378
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

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

Postby manjgu » 02 Aug 2020 13:39

Manish_P wrote:
tsarkar wrote:So going by the reported data, in the 4000 hours time between overhaul of a single GE engine for a Tejas/MWF, four Al-31FP engines (2 sets per Su-30MKI) and eight RD-33 (2 sets per fighter) would have exhausted their lives.

Think about it in terms if life cycle costs.

The cost of 4 Al-31FP engines and 8 RD-33 engines exhausting all TTL against the cost of GE engine just needing an overhaul.


Amazing how stark the difference is. Thanks for sharing this TSarkar sir

I hope (faintly) that folks who keep harping about cheap Russian fighters are will note these report straight from the horses mouth

More likely they will brush it off giving reasons like 'but quality of maintenance at HAL is much shoddier' or even 'like in cars new engines are better than overhauled ones which can have loss in horsepower'...

PS: IIRC Brar_w had recently posted on how the engine life for those on the F-15 (or was it the Chinook) had been significantly improved, even more than their already impressive figures.


the soviet philosophy has always been to focus more on quantity ( right from WW2) / less tech / rugged etc ( which might be ok for soviets but maybe not for India) ...this is what happens ( left between two stools ..soviets..french/US) when u dont develop things locally. always dependent on others

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19584
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 02 Aug 2020 13:41

Bars is a beast. Apart from the RBE-2, no other radar likely matches it/surpasses in the short term. The Tejas 2052 will likely be a bit behind, given power draw issues and the limited aperture (main issue). But still very credible.

Tejas orders are at 8 trainers from the Mk1 and 10 as part of the 83. The total fleet size will remain 123 unless the IAF chooses to replace the Mk1s with Mk1A or order more Mk1As as a bridge to the MWF.

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3695
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

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

Postby nam » 02 Aug 2020 13:51

Repeating again my earlier comments; The single biggest factor which helped build our aerospace was the choice of F404 engine.

Our designers were berated for choice of tech and aiming so high, instead of building a Mig21+. Our designers are having the last laugh.

Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2336
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

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

Postby Manish_P » 02 Aug 2020 15:23

manjgu wrote:the soviet philosophy has always been to focus more on quantity ( right from WW2) / less tech / rugged etc ( which might be ok for soviets but maybe not for India) ...this is what happens ( left between two stools ..soviets..french/US) when u dont develop things locally. always dependent on others


I am aware of that doctrine and also about quantity having a quality of it's own, Sir. It may not be that huge an issue as long as the turn around time, maintenance times etc are fast, especially during times of increased demands on availability AND the procurement system (both for new units and for spare parts) is swift and smooth, across the board (both in our country as well as the supplier). Anyway, here I was referring specifically to the costs aspect.

YashG
BRFite
Posts: 175
Joined: 22 Apr 2017 00:10

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

Postby YashG » 02 Aug 2020 18:26

nam wrote:Repeating again my earlier comments; The single biggest factor which helped build our aerospace was the choice of F404 engine.

Our designers were berated for choice of tech and aiming so high, instead of building a Mig21+. Our designers are having the last laugh.


Just to add - PRC has copied Russia - thr tech and philosophy part and parcel! They are making even worse copies of engines than what Russians make. Their designers would wish so much that they had access to F404 or RBE2.

@karanm when u said tejas 2052 will be a bit behind than rbe2 ...u meant it for elta2052. Of what i have read is that uttam will be as good as rbe2.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4442
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

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

Postby Cain Marko » 02 Aug 2020 20:31

tsarkar wrote:
nachiket wrote:The Mk1A is going to have the Elta 2052. That's one of the major changes in it from the Mk1. Do you mean you wanted the Mig-29's and Su-30's to have versions of the 2052 as well?

No, I meant the 21 MiG-29UPG + 12 Su-30MKI orders could have added to Tejas Mk1A orders.

The MiG factory will need time to deliver the 21 UPG's and we dont know the condition of old airframes and the Gorshkov/Vikramaditya experience of deteriorated structure comes to mind.

Similarly the additional Su-30MKI kits will need to be manufactured by IAPO and assembled by HAL Nashik.

The Tejas Mk1A would be superior to Su-30MKI and MiG-29UPG in the areas of -

1. Superior Elta 2052 radar giving advantage over Bars in A2A.
2. Litening Pod giving advantage in A2G over MiG-29UPG lacking it.
3. Reliable GE-404 engine over Al-31FP and RD-33

As per the following HAL data, the TBO and TTL of RD-33 and Al-31FP is as follows -

https://hal-india.co.in/Engine%20Divisi ... put/M__138
Project TBO TTL
RD33 300 Hrs 1000 Hrs

https://hal-india.co.in/Sukhoi%20Engine ... put/M__140
Project TBO TTL
AL31FP 1000 Hrs 2000 Hrs

While I dont have exact GE F-404 TBO & TTL, this report from 2001 indicates a TBO of 4000 hours for GE F414. Request brar_w to share the TBO & TTL of GE F-404 if he has the data.

https://www.geaviation.com/press-releas ... f404-being

TBO stands for Time Between Overhaul. TTL Stands for Type Technical Life. In simple words, TTL is the life of the engine.

So going by the reported data, in the 4000 hours time between overhaul of a single GE engine for a Tejas/MWF, four Al-31FP engines (2 sets per Su-30MKI) and eight RD-33 (2 sets per fighter) would have exhausted their lives..

Those numbers are for the original rd33 engines. Iirc the rd33s on the Ks have a 4000 hour service life. And the ones on the upgraded baaz also have a longer service life.
As far as the 2052 on the Tejas being better at a2a, what specific parameters is it superior to the bars?

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4442
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

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

Postby Cain Marko » 02 Aug 2020 20:34

nam wrote:Repeating again my earlier comments; The single biggest factor which helped build our aerospace was the choice of F404 engine.

Our designers were berated for choice of tech and aiming so high, instead of building a Mig21+. Our designers are having the last laugh.

Not many people were so confident under the sanctions regime. As it stands, this delayed the tejas by years, something that we rue to this day. And this swird still hangs over the tejas. It's called Caatsa. It would be catastrophic to have a fleet of fighters with great engines that can't fly.

fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3455
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

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

Postby fanne » 02 Aug 2020 21:05

The way around is to buy engines and then some replacement as soon as intent of 83 tejas is there. So 83+ maybe another 20 as back up, with all the required spares and horde it. The other option of local assembly and some non critical parts production should be taken up (the critical tech we will not get). It has a higher layout for engine in the beginning, but it should be as such. Another less costly alternative is that buy enough for which you are working now - like 16 planes now plus 16 additional for which parts have to be ordered now + 16 (for future) + 6 spare engines. This sanction proof as for 3 years worth of LCA run. Then place the next 16+2 next year. If sanction comes in for whatever reason, you have 2 years worth of spare engine to make LCA. Then you stop at that. Perhaps then we move to AL-31F variant or whatever we can get from Europe.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8860
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby brar_w » 02 Aug 2020 21:13

Cain Marko wrote:Those numbers are for the original rd33 engines. Iirc the rd33s on the Ks have a 4000 hour service life. And the ones on the upgraded baaz also have a longer service life.
As far as the 2052 on the Tejas being better at a2a, what specific parameters is it superior to the bars?


There is an older post of mine where I did a component by component breakdown of replacement (cycles but converted to aprox. hours) and also on the cost for each. Basically, only a fraction of the cost of a replacement GE F414 was to be paid by the 3,500 hr mark. They aren't chucking the entire engine at 3-4K hours and then buying a completely new one. The modular components allow them to be stocked based on a given utilization profile and inventory maintained based information obtained from a very large pool of data across platforms and operational conditions. You are planning ahead in XXXX hr cycles. So if you have a fleet of 100 aircraft that fly 200 hrs a year, you can develop a good idea of what modules you will need and when.

GE has very robust data on the 404 and 414 families because they have been used on single engine, twin engines, land based and sea based fighters. Based on utilization, and data, contracts can be set up that require a threshold number of modules to be present in inventory for a given need. This could be in a GOI facility operated by the GOI, contractor operated, GOI owned facility, or a contractor owned and operator facility (PBL contracts offer option of contractor pooling components on behalf of multiple PBL customers to lower cost). The takeaway here is that no one can on a whim completely cripple the GE-404 or 414 on the Tejas. It is a highly robust engine that has delivered beyond expectations on single and twin engined naval aircraft. This is the reason why it exists on so many platforms ranging from single engine, twin engined, manned, unmanned, experimental aircraft in all shapes and sizes. The USN at sea CVN cruise length is in the 4-6 month range at a time and there is almost always one or two carriers deployed. This has been the case for well over a decade now. So plenty of component level data in the harshest of sea conditions from the Middle East, to the Western Pacific where engines have to deliver performance and be maintained onboard an AC. And the USN has run its Hornet and Super Hornet fleet hard over the last decade plus with near constant deployments and much higher_than_planned utilization (early SH are already coming to the end of their designed structural life for example - years ahead of when this was anticipated). Early IAF impressions are probably consistent with that as the engine hasn't given much (if any) trouble when it comes to performance or reliability. This is important because we are talking about a single engine MK1 and a single engine MWF. There is no backup if the engine conks out.

And you aren't stocking up completely built up engines. Besides of course the normal ratio you'd keep in reserve to keep readiness rates up. The US Navy keeps something like 8% of the engine buy as reserve for the 414 for example. The remaining 92% are on aircraft. They are stocking up modules and other consumables which is cheaper and allows for risk pooling as long as your engine and its components, the way it is maintained (there is aircraft capability here as well in terms of how easy it is to access the engine) and how good WOT you can maintain plays into the seemingly low reserve stock. This is also what makes the engine more resilient against disruption in supply because you can maintain component stock (as opposed to the expensive option of just holding a very high # of engines in reserve for such a contingency). Likewise, you can develop your own component replacement cadence and re-certify the used components for backup usage. In sum, there are many ways to ensure there is no disruption in engine supply. This is probably why ADA/HAL, despite competition, went right back to the 404/414 family to power the MWF and early versions of the AMCA. Had it been hard to safeguard against supply disruptions, they may perhaps valued their evaluation differently. SAAB likewise, chose to run it on the Gripen E despite its ITAR restrictions.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4442
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

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

Postby Cain Marko » 03 Aug 2020 05:38

^nobody is arguing about the merit of the engine or it's performance. That's well established. But as you know this depends upon the contracts written. If these don't cover every little possibility, the engines become a weak link in the chain. Indian babus have little expertise in drawing up great contracts and even less in enforcing them. If the US decided to sanction critical spares, how long will the fleet carry on without these? Will component level stocks be enough? What happens to uptimes, training et al?

Or are you saying that India can produce these at home?

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8860
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby brar_w » 03 Aug 2020 07:14

I am not saying anything as such. What I tried to communicate was that a catastrophic disruption in capability will not happen.So the hypothetical scenario that somehow India will be sanctioned and that will bring the Tejas to a grinding halt is not founded in reality. This isn't an engine where you get a couple of thousands of hrs out of it and need to replace the entire engine. So if you are stuck on the wrong end of that, when santions strike you may not be able to fly anymore..etc etc. It is a modular engine with very high reliability in terms of knowing when each modules will need replacing based on years of testing data across a wide set of conditions on land and at sea. So one could very easily device a relatively affordable inventory system where ample stocks are created to alleviate any risk from short to medium term supply disruption. You don't need to stock completely built engines to make it more sanction resilient which would be a very expensive option for any engine. What you need to do is make sure you have the right set of contracts in place for maintaining a component stockpile and that is way more affordable than just buying a few dozen extra engines for a rainy day. This wouldn't have been lost on the designers and evaluators who picked it for the LCA, then again for the MWF and then for the early AMCA. They went back to GE knowing ample details on capability, performance and support. And the risk of sanctions. Of course one could always argue that those making the decisions wouldn't be able to figure stuff out that is widely used here on the forum. But how does one go about disproving that simplistic line of reasoning? It isn't possible unless someone from the MOD, HAL or ADA comes here and verifies that such a simplistic thought did not escape them when deciding. The same is true for the P-8 (now the heart of the IN's ASW capability which is one of the most vital missions in naval warfare), AH-64E, C130/C17 and other programs.

I'm assuming that a large GE-F414 contract that has been stuck for many many years would be picked up at an appropriate time and the work could backflow into the 404 as well. I believe that had some level of local involvement in terms of mfg. It is early days for the Tejas from an operational scenario. Let the IAF, MOD along with its supply team work out a plan for long term sustainment of the force which it has just started receiving at rate. Once those plans are clear then critique them.

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2977
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

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

Postby tsarkar » 03 Aug 2020 12:23

Cain Marko wrote:Those numbers are for the original rd33 engines. Iirc the rd33s on the Ks have a 4000 hour service life. And the ones on the upgraded baaz also have a longer service life.

Do you have a source for the 4000 hours service life?

HAL has already manufactured new RD-33MK for the UPG program and the data is from its website.

https://www.flightglobal.com/hal-to-lic ... 99.article

MeshaVishwas
BRFite
Posts: 508
Joined: 16 Feb 2019 17:20

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

Postby MeshaVishwas » 03 Aug 2020 13:40

tsarkar wrote:
Cain Marko wrote:Those numbers are for the original rd33 engines. Iirc the rd33s on the Ks have a 4000 hour service life. And the ones on the upgraded baaz also have a longer service life.

Do you have a source for the 4000 hours service life?

HAL has already manufactured new RD-33MK for the UPG program and the data is from its website.

https://www.flightglobal.com/hal-to-lic ... 99.article

OT:
Saar HAL screwdrivered the Series-3 RD-33 for the Hunchback of Jamnagar.
The FADEC Sea Wasp (claimed)engine life is here

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2923
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

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

Postby abhik » 03 Aug 2020 14:34

YashG wrote:We should have a rule in IAF that no aircraft type with less than 5 squadruns (or whatever a more practical number in terms of logistics) should be inducted. If inducted, efforts be made to reach 5 squadrun number. So MIG29 should be atlest 5 squads. I wish we could do the same for Mirage2000.

I think AM Nambiar mentioned that they came up with the 114 number for MRCA-2 based on this criteria (although this might have included some amount of manufacturing.

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3695
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

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

Postby nam » 03 Aug 2020 15:26

Cain Marko wrote:Not many people were so confident under the sanctions regime. As it stands, this delayed the tejas by years, something that we rue to this day. And this swird still hangs over the tejas. It's called Caatsa. It would be catastrophic to have a fleet of fighters with great engines that can't fly.


Delayed by max 3 years. But then IAF had no plans to mass induct LCA until MK1A decision was made. Moreover if US wanted to really sanction us, they could have crushed our IT industry. Moreover Clinton visited India under sanctions.. everyone knew where it was going..

F404 are very reliable. If Iran can still fly those F14 even under extreme sanctions, we just need to be smart enough to buy the required kit in bulk.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9322
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Postby Rakesh » 04 Aug 2020 19:17

India must leapfrog in military technologies: Air Marshal Suresh
https://www.onmanorama.com/news/nation/ ... uresh.html
31 July 2020

Tejas is a fantastic aircraft and there is no doubt about it. I have flown it. The serviceability of aircraft, readiness of mission-critical systems & maintainability are key factors: Air Marshal B Suresh.

pandyan
BRFite
Posts: 452
Joined: 31 Jul 2006 05:12

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

Postby pandyan » 04 Aug 2020 19:40

Rakesh wrote:India must leapfrog in military technologies: Air Marshal Suresh
https://www.onmanorama.com/news/nation/ ... uresh.html
31 July 2020

Tejas is a fantastic aircraft and there is no doubt about it. I have flown it. The serviceability of aircraft, readiness of mission-critical systems & maintainability are key factors: Air Marshal B Suresh.


"When you look at the user, we always want the best with us. We want cutting edge technologies, weapons and platforms of current generation. Aviation itself is a very young arm compared to naval and land forces. Lots of home-grown efforts have taken place on radars and weapons. It is not a simple task to make a fighter like Tejas. It is not just R&D alone but it is also a process of discovery," Air Marshal Suresh said.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12154
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

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

Postby Aditya_V » 05 Aug 2020 10:46

Super

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9322
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Postby Rakesh » 06 Aug 2020 01:12

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/12910 ... 73889?s=20 ---> Night-Ops with HMDS. Very few aircraft in Asia flying with the quality of HMDS that LCA Tejas possesses. Perhaps, Mirage-2000 is the only aircraft that comes anywhere near.

https://twitter.com/KSingh_1469/status/ ... 74944?s=20 ---> And she’s had them them integrated for lever a decade now when they were still a relatively futuristic capability. Sir, do you know if IAF is ordering them in sufficient quantities? It seems to me like their line pilots aren’t flying with the HMDS in Sulur?

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/12910 ... 93090?s=20 ---> In many 100s. Already. AFAIK.

Image

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9322
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Postby Rakesh » 06 Aug 2020 01:17

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/12909 ... 92736?s=20 ---> AMCA & LCA prominently stand out on Air Force Chief's desk.

Image

nash
BRFite
Posts: 883
Joined: 08 Aug 2008 16:48

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

Postby nash » 06 Aug 2020 13:08

https://www.onmanorama.com/news/nation/2020/08/05/with-expected-83-tejas-mk1a-orders-ardc-shapes-india-upgraded-fi.html

As per the article, structural design are complete and will be certified by agencies. Next six months new equipment will be integrated followed by rig test and flight test. LSPs will be used for this these tests and minimum 200 flight are required to complete all the tests. It says 1 year after signing of contract metal cutting will start, so I believe those flight test will continue till end of 2021 and Mk1A will roll out by last quarter of FY 2022-23.

Seems like Mk1A and Mk2 first flight will be in the gap of 3-6 months.

ShivS
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 6
Joined: 19 Apr 2019 23:25

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

Postby ShivS » 06 Aug 2020 13:35

So HAL finally negotiated on truly commercial terms. At USD 40 odd million this begins to look very real. A squadron of MK1 a would be below or just around USD 2 billion with base fit outs, spares and stores and armament. That’s needed.


Mark 2 is yet a proposal - let’s see how it evolves.

Raghunathgb
BRFite
Posts: 115
Joined: 23 Apr 2019 18:16

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

Postby Raghunathgb » 06 Aug 2020 13:43

:
The metal-cutting is expected to commence one year after the contract finalization and as things stands
the Tejas Mk1A will have its first flight during the last quarter of FY 2022-23. The delivery of all the 83 aircraft will be completed within six years from the supply of the first fighter.

So assuming that contract is signed in 2020, it will take 9 years to complete it. Completely melts my trust in HAL if true. They should complete it max by 2025. If not why can't we wait for MK2 instead of MK1A.

nash
BRFite
Posts: 883
Joined: 08 Aug 2008 16:48

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

Postby nash » 06 Aug 2020 14:00

Raghunathgb wrote::
The metal-cutting is expected to commence one year after the contract finalization and as things stands
the Tejas Mk1A will have its first flight during the last quarter of FY 2022-23. The delivery of all the 83 aircraft will be completed within six years from the supply of the first fighter.

So assuming that contract is signed in 2020, it will take 9 years to complete it. Completely melts my trust in HAL if true. They should complete it max by 2025. If not why can't we wait for MK2 instead of MK1A.


Rafale contract was signed in 2016 and Dassault will take 6 years to deliver all 36 (less than half of Mk1A contract number). what about your trust in Dassault.

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3695
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

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

Postby nam » 06 Aug 2020 14:07

6 years to deliver 83? That is like 13-14 per year till 2028-29.

So there is no confidence MK2 will be in production till 2028. If MK2 will be in production at this time, why would IAF want to induct MK1A?

The whole MK1A has become such a joke. A unnecessary diversion from FOC variant, to complete delivery 9 years from now.

If you can modify an LSP to MK1A variant, you could have done the same with an FOC upgrade program.

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3695
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

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

Postby nam » 06 Aug 2020 14:14

Is IAF planning to fly Mig21 till 2028?

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4546
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby JayS » 06 Aug 2020 16:33

Raghunathgb, nam

What is this nonsense in your above posts..? Have you even put an iota of thinking before posting this..? Are you expecting others to show you light wasting forum bandwidth on the same old same old discussions..? Nothing new on the project timelines has been disclosed now afresh. The delivery timelines are known for ages. If you just want to whine, there is a separate thread for it.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5288
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Kartik » 06 Aug 2020 17:33

So 2 LSPs are to be modified into Tejas Mk1A prototypes. 200 hours of flight testing approximately, which should indicate a 1.5 year test flight program.

Earlier HAL promised to deliver all 73 single seater MK1As by 2028, with deliveries beginning in 2023. 5 years to deliver 73 single seaters indicates a gradual buildup to 16 fighters per year, with first year being 9 fighters. Now it seems they are saying 6 years to deliver 73 single seaters, which is adding another year and is truly not acceptable given that they are supposed to get to 16 fighters per year with the setting up of the third assembly line this year.

Also seems strange, given that they want to get to 24 per year with the Tejas Mk2, but seemingly cannot with the Mk1A.

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3695
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

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

Postby nam » 06 Aug 2020 17:38

6 years to delivery 83, from the first jet is the new information. That is around 13-14 per year. Almost similar to the FOC rate.

So far, the information has always been 16-20 per year, completing in 4-4.5 years. It is bit frustrating to see delays being added for what should have been a straight forward project.

Could understand given the low FOC orders, the production lines would be 12 per year. No reason why this should be the case for MK1A. But then who are we to criticize!

souravB
BRFite
Posts: 569
Joined: 07 Jun 2018 13:52

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

Postby souravB » 06 Aug 2020 17:51

nam wrote:6 years to delivery 83 73

10 will be FOC variant trainers. so 5 years for 73 fighters. It's a long way off still and probably could be expedited if there is an urgency to procure Mk2 and sufficient cash is pumped to the vendors.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ArjunPandit, ashthor, ernest, gauravsharma, Rsatchi and 49 guests