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 Hrshttps://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/Dhttps://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.