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.
Barath
BRFite
Posts: 198
Joined: 11 Feb 2019 19:06

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

Postby Barath » 06 Aug 2020 17:56

nash wrote: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.


Why is structural design done again ? I thought the entire point of Mk1A was that structure would remain the same, but avionics would change.

Is substantial structural design really required ? Why could testing not have started 1 year ago with a small contract only for that ?
Last edited by Barath on 06 Aug 2020 17:59, edited 1 time in total.

ArjunPandit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3528
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

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

Postby ArjunPandit » 06 Aug 2020 17:57

possibly due to removal of conservatism in the landing gear leading to weight loss

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4056
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

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

Postby nam » 06 Aug 2020 17:58

Aren't FOC trainers being delivered between FoC & MK1A production start? The production gap b/w FOC & MK1A was meant to be filled up by the trainers.

pushkar.bhat
BRFite
Posts: 411
Joined: 29 Mar 2008 19:27
Location: prêt à monter dans le Arihant
Contact:

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

Postby pushkar.bhat » 06 Aug 2020 18:01

I believe the deliveries will happen faster if the free cash flows are available.

souravB
BRFite
Posts: 580
Joined: 07 Jun 2018 13:52

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

Postby souravB » 06 Aug 2020 18:06

nam wrote:Aren't FOC trainers being delivered between FoC & MK1A production start? The production gap b/w FOC & MK1A was meant to be filled up by the trainers.

bingo. hence 73 Mk1A from 2023-2028.

ShivS
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 7
Joined: 19 Apr 2019 23:25

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

Postby ShivS » 06 Aug 2020 19:29

There will be a gap between the first aircraft taking off and series production.

There are significant structural and systems changes, and the aircraft will need re certification from the IAF.

The IAF is aware of the issues we are discussing- we have purchased nearly 2 “unplanned” squadrons 21 MIG 29, 12 Su 30s, another 2 squadrons of these patchwork buys should see this thru

The best part of this piece is the coming of age of ARDC - HAL may be coming of age in the fixed wing world

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3263
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

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

Postby tsarkar » 07 Aug 2020 13:44

MeshaVishwas wrote:
tsarkar wrote: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


So it now becomes HAL website vs Klimov website data.

Personally I am inclined to believe HAL website to be more factual given the higher numbers of RD-33 family engines ordered by Indian Navy, IAF and PAF in proportion to the aircraft in service vis-a-vis M53 or GE-404 or P&W engines for F-16 Block 15 that are among the oldest in service in the world.
Last edited by tsarkar on 07 Aug 2020 14:12, edited 1 time in total.

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3263
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

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

Postby tsarkar » 07 Aug 2020 14:10

Rakesh wrote:https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/1291006295806373889?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.


The Elbit DASH is in service since 2000's on Mirage 2000 and Sea Harrier

https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/iafs-fr ... ad-2067318

https://dunsfoldairfield.org/harrier-part-2-of-3/

https://www.pressreader.com/india/vayu- ... 6664882884

They would possibly be part of the kit of Jaguar DARIN 3 and have been part of HAL Hawk-i

https://www.livefistdefence.com/2019/02 ... eapon.html

MiG-29K has the Thales Topsight E HMDS since 2006

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... tests.html

Su-30MKI, MiG-29UPG and MiG-21 Bison have their own sights. The Pakistani's have displayed Abhinandan's helmet

https://www.facebook.com/developingPak/ ... n__=EEHH-R

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D1E66qPWoAA ... name=large

BTW Trishul is the Indian name of MiG-21 Type 77 variant.

So HMDS is there among most IAF and ALL IN front line fighters in last two decades. The HAL test pilot clarifies that in his next post. Not sure why a spin is given of HMDS being a unique capability on the Tejas.

Also Rakesh, help me understand why do you keep posting very inane and uninformed twitter posts of KSingh_1469 on this forum?

KSingh_1469's posts are very uninformed and lacking/overlooking/obfuscating facts. I do plan to respond to them when I have more time.

HMDS was never a "relatively futuristic capability" as he claims since IAF & IN engineers were integrating the same HMDS on Mirage 2000 and Sea Harriers respectively.

He can either post himself or people can read on his twitter handle. If we start posting every inane twitter post like KSingh_1469, then the whole forum will become very cluttered.

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9876
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

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

Postby Yagnasri » 07 Aug 2020 15:05

We are not giving large orders so HAL ( or anyone else) has no reason to build more capacity. Nothing is certain in MoD procurements. Almost everyone knows it. I am not saying that HAL is not at fault. But the major fault lies with MoD. We need numbers and with out limited budget Mk1A will be best suitable to fill the numbers.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5348
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Kartik » 07 Aug 2020 16:28

Barath wrote:
nash wrote: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.


Why is structural design done again ? I thought the entire point of Mk1A was that structure would remain the same, but avionics would change.

Is substantial structural design really required ? Why could testing not have started 1 year ago with a small contract only for that ?


Maintenance related changes to panels, access points, etc. If electrical wiring and looms are being re-designed to reduce weight and complexity, then it's possible that some other optimizations might also have been done. I would really hope that there is some empty weight reduction, but that is still not confirmed by any genuine source.

There is also the dual pylon for the 2 CCMs. It might have required some strengthening of the wing to accomodate 2 X 90 kg ASRAAM CCMs on each dual pylon. The new radar will also have it's own attendant design changes- for cooling for instance. One of the biggest issues with AESA radars happens to be the amount of cooling that is required.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5348
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Kartik » 07 Aug 2020 16:34

Yagnasri wrote:We are not giving large orders so HAL ( or anyone else) has no reason to build more capacity. Nothing is certain in MoD procurements. Almost everyone knows it. I am not saying that HAL is not at fault. But the major fault lies with MoD. We need numbers and with out limited budget Mk1A will be best suitable to fill the numbers.


That order size argument no longer works.

The IAF is on the verge of placing orders for 83 more Tejas Mk1As and the IAF has committed to nearly 12 squadrons of Tejas Mk2s. There is the TEDBF as well, which should see at least a 60 unit order from the IN if it meets the requirements. Between these, that's close to 350 Tejas variants YET TO BE PRODUCED.

The ball is now firmly in ADA and HAL's court to justify the faith that has been put in them. We on BRF have fought for more Tejas orders for years and now that we are there, this large order size argument just doesn't work.

The quicker that HAL can supply Tejas fighters, the likelier that more orders will be placed. Not vice versa now, since the time it will take to put up a new assembly line will mean it won't meet urgent needs.

sankum
BRFite
Posts: 945
Joined: 20 Dec 2004 21:45

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

Postby sankum » 07 Aug 2020 19:40

The outer wing pylon is rated for 150kg.
2*ASRAAM+ 2*CCM launchers + multirack pyloon should be rated for 300kg.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19840
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 07 Aug 2020 19:50

There is a difference between HMCS and HMDS. We field both.

Su-30, MiG-21 have HMCS. The original MiG-29s as well. Upgraded MiG-29s and MiG-29Ks have HMDS.

HMCS is a cueing system, not a full blown sight. Its meant to slave the missile seeker to the pilot's line of sight. A HMDS does this, but also projects a greater quantum of flight information into the pilots line of sight.

The Mirage 2000s, Jaguars (post ASRAAM, 2014), Tejas have HMDS. There are various flavors thanks to OEM differences and pros/cons of each design.

For instance while HMCS may appear more "primitive" than a HMDS, fact is it's lighter weight by virtue of being a pure cueing sight. Has ramifications in WVR combat, pilot's prefer as light a weight for kit they wear as possible. It is also very rugged. HMDS is very useful in that in WVR the pilot need not look down into his cockpit at all.

enaiel
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 98
Joined: 28 Oct 2004 07:13

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

Postby enaiel » 07 Aug 2020 22:14

[/sarcasm on]

That order size argument no longer works.

The IAF is on the verge of placing orders for 83 more Rafale and the IAF has committed to nearly 12 squadrons of Rafale. There is the Naval Rafale as well, which should see at least a 60 unit order from the IN if it meets the requirements. Between these, that's close to 350 Rafale variants YET TO BE PRODUCED.

The ball is now firmly in Dassault's court to justify the faith that has been put in them. We on BRF have fought for more Rafale orders for years and now that we are there, this large order size argument just doesn't work.

The quicker that Dassault can supply Rafale fighters, the likelier that more orders will be placed. Not vice versa now, since the time it will take to put up a new assembly line will mean it won't meet urgent needs.

[/sarcasm off]

Sorry Kartik, but that's what I thought when I read your post. If it doesn't apply for Dassault, why should it apply for ADA and HAL?

/going back to my lurking

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8102
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

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

Postby nachiket » 07 Aug 2020 23:21

sankum wrote:The outer wing pylon is rated for 150kg.
2*ASRAAM+ 2*CCM launchers + multirack pyloon should be rated for 300kg.

So the outer pylon rating has to double from the Mk.1 to Mk.1A? How is that going to happen? Or does the 150kg rating not include the pylon weight itself? I recall that the wing and pylon had to be redesigned already once back when the requirement for it to carry the R-73 (rather than the R-60) became clear. The R-73 is even heavier than the ASRAAM by 17kg. So carrying 2 R-73's would be even tougher.

This dual rack pylon is a necessity now since for air-to-air missions, one outer pylon will almost certainly be taken up by the SPJ pod. If the dual-rack pylon is not available, the CCM loadout will be reduced to 1 from 2.

sankum
BRFite
Posts: 945
Joined: 20 Dec 2004 21:45

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

Postby sankum » 08 Aug 2020 00:18

2"R73(210kg)+2*CCM launcher(80kg)=290 kg

Each CCM launcher weight for NATO standard is 40 kg as it carries cooling bottle for IR seeker.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2488
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

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

Postby Vivek K » 08 Aug 2020 03:57

enaiel wrote:...

Sorry Kartik, but that's what I thought when I read your post. If it doesn't apply for Dassault, why should it apply for ADA and HAL?

/going back to my lurking

Stay and debate - this is important. India should have invested in a large LCA complex capable of producing a sizeable number 50 plus at the very least. Why? Because of 2 extremely hostile neighbors with capable equipment in their hands. There are several capable fighters around the world. Does IAF need them all? N.

If you are producing capable fighters like the LCA plus the Sukhoi 30 MKIs and have a well developed MIC, you could upgrade your equipment to match the gravest threats and keep up with superior training. If HAL cannot raise the scale of operations, alternatives should be created for additional lines in the private sector.

Lines producing 8 aircraft annually seem too little faced with enemy like the PLAAF. India needs to think like the enemy to beat it at its own game.

k prasad
BRFite
Posts: 800
Joined: 21 Oct 2007 17:38
Location: Somewhere over the Rainbow
Contact:

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

Postby k prasad » 08 Aug 2020 06:43

^^^ HAL can't create a line for 50 LCAs unless it actually KNOWS that it will get orders for at least 8X that number. We know that won't happen, not with the current state of MoD babus and IAF top brass. Its a chicken and egg situation.

Now, I'm not even sure we need to be at the 50/year number. I think closer to 24-36/year is more apt. Here's my reasoning, so bear with me.

Lets assume HAL is given an intent for 400 LCAs, and manages to produce 50/year. The question then is, is the IAF ready and capable of absorbing them at that rate? Pilots need to be trained and certified, maintenance equipment and infrastructure to be built, squadrons to be raised, air bases to be upgraded. These take time. If we have existing aircraft types that need to be phased out, that is a lot of planning. And if there isn't any airframe, the new squadron to be raised or given aircraft is an even bigger task.

If LCAs are being churned out faster than IAF can absorb them, that'd be like drinking out of a fire truck. The produced LCAs will end up in storage till they are ready to be inducted into sqn service, and will gather dust, rust, and breakage while that happens. I suspect a reasonable rate of induction for the LCAs would be 1-2 sqns per year, which translates to 20-36 aircraft.

The other reason is in factory ramp-up. Building a complex to produce such a large number of aircraft will require hiring, training, and hands-on experience for at least 10,000 people - engineers, workers, welders, etc. Not to mention the cost of setting up such a large complex. If we produce in such large numbers over a short period of time, but have no follow-on combat aircraft orders, the entire line will idle, and the workforce will either be collecting paychecks for free, or will be released, and we'll have to start from square one when the next aircraft is to be built.

When the next aircraft is to be built, the entire complex needs to be renovated, retooled, and reorganized for the line. The larger the complex, the bigger the investment and effort. Its not an easy task. And god forbid, if the next aircraft orders aren't in the same number, or the induction rate is required to be as high, a large part of the complex will be idle, and mothballed.

A longer induction timeline removes many of these problems. if 250-300 LCAs (Mk 1a, Mk 1a+), of which, say 30-40 are trainers, , that comes to about 10-12 combat squadrons, in 5-10 bases across the country. If they are produced over a 12 year delivery timeline, that is a reasonable rate of production in my view.

Of course, we absolutely need to ramp up our production capabilities - 8/year is just abysmally low. Even getting to 16/year will probably take us 2 years, even at full pace. Getting to 25-30/year? I'd say 4-5 years, which would make the timeline look something like this:

year 1: 8
year 2: 12
year 3: 16
year 4: 20
year 5+: 25

giving a 12 year production timeline for 250 orders, possibly 15 assuming a production draw-down towards the end. This will free up some part of the complex from year 10 onwards for mid-life upgrades, which will keep the complex somewhat busy for another 15 years, but at a much lower rate of work.

Vips
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3055
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

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

Postby Vips » 08 Aug 2020 07:31

Forget 50 or 36 (or even 24 jets a year which HAL had planned/promised by setting up a 3rd production/assembly line). It is giving statements to deliver 83 Mark1A birds over 6 years ie just 13 jets a year. This will be from the existing 8 aircraft/year assembly line and the 4 aircraft per year additional jugaad line that was made in a storage shade. Since HAL has just 12 aircrafts per year production capacity spread over 1.5 assembly lines the actual delivery will be spread over 7 to 8 years.

Mark my words HAL will not deliver the 83 Mark 1A jets in the promised timeline of 6 years even if it receives full payment in advance!!! It will come up with any excuse and has got used to stretching production of an order over maximum number of years to ensure employment to its unionized labor. The SU30 MKI production is a classic example.

sankum
BRFite
Posts: 945
Joined: 20 Dec 2004 21:45

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

Postby sankum » 08 Aug 2020 08:27

83 order is divided into 10 trainer and 73 mk1a.

HAL chief is on record saying that present planned rate is 12/year.

14 mk1 FOC+ 18 mk1 Trainers should be produced by FY 2022-23 @ 1/ month.

Rest. 73mk1a should be produced @ 16/ year in 4.6 years by FY 2027-28.

If the production is only @12/ year then 6 years by 2029.

They seems to be planning parallel Tejas mk2 production line @24/ year by 2026.

Tejas mk1 line may be still active producing SPORTS Trainer post 2029.

By 2035 216 nos Tejas mk2 ( 12sq) @24/ year and 72 Sports Trainers @12/ year will be produced if Sports is ordered

sankum
BRFite
Posts: 945
Joined: 20 Dec 2004 21:45

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

Postby sankum » 08 Aug 2020 08:47

It seems IAF wants Tejas mk1 only @12/year and keep capital budget spare for 12 Su30, 21 Mig 29 and 36 more Rafales likely order and Tejas mk2 which will start by 2026 @24/ year.

While HAL is saying they can produce 20 Tejas mk1 / year by outsourcing.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12423
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

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

Postby Aditya_V » 08 Aug 2020 09:54

If this true Politicans must step in force IAF to order enough LIFT, FOC,1A to have our production ecosystem starts delivering 24-36 aircraft a year, LCA capex and opex should be kept separate and untouchable, these imports are subject to economic performance.

sankum
BRFite
Posts: 945
Joined: 20 Dec 2004 21:45

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

Postby sankum » 08 Aug 2020 10:01

That's IAF right to plan future.

IAF will be buying 36 Tejas / year in both mk1/2 post 2026.

Last 36 Tejas mk1a can be equipped with Uttam AESA radar if it is qualified for Tejas mk2.

sankum
BRFite
Posts: 945
Joined: 20 Dec 2004 21:45

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

Postby sankum » 08 Aug 2020 10:16

I was myself disappointed when news reports came in that 73mk1a will be produced over a period of 6 year.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12423
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

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

Postby Aditya_V » 08 Aug 2020 12:37

sankum wrote:That's IAF right to plan future.

IAF will be buying 36 Tejas / year in both mk1/2 post 2026.

Last 36 Tejas mk1a can be equipped with Uttam AESA radar if it is qualified for Tejas mk2.


IAF represents the Nation, the Nation Politicians have right in the interest of the Nation to produce and procure more Indian Made Aircraft, IAF will have to follow the order, it is not an unreasonable order.

kvraghav
BRFite
Posts: 968
Joined: 17 Apr 2008 11:47
Location: Some where near the equator

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

Postby kvraghav » 08 Aug 2020 13:30

I think foreign is better is the mindset that we have. How many of us buy a Tata hexa over an Innova or Tata harrier over Jeep compass or kia?
Both are way better products

mody
BRFite
Posts: 770
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Mumbai, India

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

Postby mody » 08 Aug 2020 16:13

The timeline given by HAL is also dictated by when the LCA MK2 is slated to enter production. It is expected around 2028-29. If HAL produces 24 aircrafts per year, the production of 73 MK1A would be over by 2026-27. The production line will then remain idle till the Mk2 enters production.
An additional order of 36-37 Mk1A single seaters should be added, with the condition that HAL complete the production 2028-29. The per plane price will also reduce and we will add an additional 2 squadrons in the same timeframe.

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4056
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

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

Postby nam » 08 Aug 2020 16:36

There will no extra purchase of MK1A. The fact that no extra FOC is been purchased, even when the enemy is at the door, tells us the story.

This is not because LCA is bad. Just that IAF doesn't want to openly admit, that it gave a wrong GSQR, specially the on-station requirement.

IAF never really had plans to induct LCA in mass. The Soviet meltdown meant, it wanted M2K to replace the Mig21. Gave a "give me a modern Mig21" spec, which was met by having a jet which was 2 meters shorter than Mig21!.

Now that no M2K is coming and trying hard to get more Rafale's, IAF now modified the spec to what it always wanted. A Mirage 2000. That's why we have LCA MK2. And that too because getting more Rafale is proving difficult.

Sab kha dil rak ne khe liye, we have MK1A, a compromise deal. If we didn't have 120 odd Mig21 left, even this number would have reduced.

MeshaVishwas
BRFite
Posts: 564
Joined: 16 Feb 2019 17:20

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

Postby MeshaVishwas » 08 Aug 2020 18:18

With almost all operations shifting to Night times, the Helmet display will be invaluable, especially low level Shamsheresque missions in challenging terrains.
Since the USSR gravy train has passed I do not see any other option for the VayuSena to build up numbers in meaningful ways other than Tejas.
I hope we get the C295 asap and get the AAAU on it for force multipliers(Plan B ) as I foresee a A330 MRTT like roadmap for our AWACS India program(Plan A...lmost)
I hope to see at least another half a dozen Tejas squadrons in service(path of least resistance imo) as I suspect the Super Tejas will be expensive, maybe even significantly.

Vips
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3055
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

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

Postby Vips » 08 Aug 2020 19:21

sankum wrote:I was myself disappointed when news reports came in that 73mk1a will be produced over a period of 6 year.


I am willing to bet to my last rupee in the bank that even that is not going to happen in 6 Years. Take at least 1 to 2 years extra over and above the 6 years.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2488
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

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

Postby Vivek K » 08 Aug 2020 23:36

Amazing that it is taking a year to place an order. So I'm willing to bet that at the pitiful production rate you may be correct. To take on China and project massive force, India needs a bigger LCA program. And going by the time it has already taken to place the order for MK1A it stinks of efforts to allow finances to catch up to pay for the purchase of the Rafale.

We can all cheer Indian jobs going overseas. Applaud the admirable support to foreign industries while bankrupting our own.

Wickberg
BRFite
Posts: 271
Joined: 01 Jul 2008 18:45

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

Postby Wickberg » 09 Aug 2020 07:42

basant wrote:Courtesy Defence Decode

Image


You forgot one fighter.
SAAB 39 Gripen. Project started: 1983. Type:Single engine multirole fighter. First flight: 1988 Introduction:1996
HAL Tejas. Project started: 1983. Type: Single engine multirole fighter. First flight: 2001 Introduction: Not yet....

suryag
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3829
Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14

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

Postby suryag » 09 Aug 2020 07:52

It would help if you displayed some common sense and used the right dates. BTW, we are not a flying club(not having to ever fight our fought a war) like Swedish Air Force to induct some random flying object/fighter which probably they know they will never use except for parades or flypasts, so who cares what weapons it has or what quality they have... Ohh BTW I forgot they had quite a few crashes well looks like instead of making new mistakes they never learnt from their Viggen experience.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5348
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Kartik » 09 Aug 2020 09:53

sankum wrote:I was myself disappointed when news reports came in that 73mk1a will be produced over a period of 6 year.


Actually the news report said all 83 over 6 years. 10 trainers + 73 single seaters over 6 years is as per the original plan.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5348
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Kartik » 09 Aug 2020 09:56

Wickberg wrote:
basant wrote:Courtesy Defence Decode

Image


You forgot one fighter.
SAAB 39 Gripen. Project started: 1983. Type:Single engine multirole fighter. First flight: 1988 Introduction:1996
HAL Tejas. Project started: 1983. Type: Single engine multirole fighter. First flight: 2001 Introduction: Not yet....


I don't want to derail this thread with discussions over Gripen. As things stand, it is of no interest to India. At least not the Gripen C/D. As for the misinformation, the Tejas has been "introduced" into service in 2016.

Remind me again, how many Gripen prototypes crashed BEFORE it entered service?

sankum
BRFite
Posts: 945
Joined: 20 Dec 2004 21:45

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

Postby sankum » 09 Aug 2020 10:00

Then production of Tejas mk1a will be 16/year.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5348
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Kartik » 09 Aug 2020 10:05

Yes it seems like the Mk1A production rate will be stabilized at 16 per year. For Tejas Mk2, the tenders require up to 24 per year.

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4701
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

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

Postby Manish_Sharma » 09 Aug 2020 10:45

Wickberg wrote:
basant wrote:Courtesy Defence Decode

Image


You forgot one fighter.
SAAB 39 Gripen. Project started: 1983. Type:Single engine multirole fighter. First flight: 1988 Introduction:1996
HAL Tejas. Project started: 1983. Type: Single engine multirole fighter. First flight: 2001 Introduction: Not yet....


Grippen isn't mentioned because it's too inferior, its too accident prone, its a flying coffin:

Crashes during testing
February 1989 Edit
On 2 February 1989, the first prototype JAS 39-1 crashed on its sixth flight, when attempting to land in Linköping. The accident was filmed in a now famous recording by a crew from Sveriges Television's news program Aktuellt.[1] The pilot, Lars Rådeström, remained in the tumbling aircraft, and escaped with a fractured elbow and some minor injuries. The crash was the result of pilot-induced oscillation (PIO). Extremely gusty winds also contributed. The accident investigation committee later concluded that the problem was software related.[2][3]

August 1993 Edit
On 8 August 1993, a production JAS 39A Gripen (serial number 39-102[2]) crashed on the central Stockholm island of Långholmen, near the Västerbron bridge, when the aircraft stalled after a slow speed manoeuver during a display over the Stockholm Water Festival. The crash was, like the first one, caused by pilot-induced oscillation, and caught on film. The problem was later identified as the same software malfunction in the flight control system as the one in the crash in 1989 and was corrected as late as 1995.[4][5] The pilot – Rådeström again – ejected from the aircraft, and landed safely by parachute, though he became stuck in a tree. The aircraft fell to the ground and caught fire on impact. Despite large crowds of onlookers, only one person on the ground was injured,[a] and the fire was soon put out.

The aircraft had been delivered to the Swedish Defence Materiel Administration in June, only two months prior to the crash.[2] The display flight was not classified as in-service, because it was being flown at a display by a test pilot, rather than a Swedish Air Force officer.


Crashes in service

Swedish Air Force
September 1999 Edit
On 20 September 1999, a JAS 39A Gripen (serial no 39-156[2]) from Skaraborg Air Force Wing (F 7) crashed into Lake Vänern during a dogfight exercise. During a steep (−70°) dive the airplane passed through the wake vortex of the other aircraft. The pilot (Captain Rickard Mattsson[2]) felt a disturbance in the air, and then noticed that the plane no longer responded to his commands, followed by a highest-severity alert from the ground-collision warning system which indicates that a turn to avoid a crash would require more than 10 g. The pilot ejected from the aircraft, which continued the dive and crashed while the pilot landed safely by parachute in the lake. His colleague observed him getting into the inflatable life raft, and he was picked up by a rescue helicopter 27 minutes later.

The Swedish Accident Investigation Board (SHK) could not fully determine the cause of the crash until the black box was found some 15 months later. The preliminary report is available in English.[7] SHK's final report[8] – not available in English – concluded that an interaction between the aerodynamic transient from the wake vortex and the design of the control laws of the flight control software had caused the airplane to stall, which made it uncontrollable for a short period of time. When the plane entered the vortex the pilot's pitch command was fully "up", which is interpreted as a request for the maximum angle of attack, so the angle of attack of the plane was at the maximum limit of 20°. As the plane passed through the vortex the new direction of the airstream reduced the effective[clarification needed] angle of attack to 5°, but since the stick remained in the same position the software moved the control surfaces (canards and elevons) into a pitch-up position. After the plane exited the vortex, some time was required to move the surfaces back towards the neutral position, and meanwhile the plane rapidly pitched up to an angle of attack of 45° and stalled.

At the same time, when the pilot felt the "bump" in the air he reflexively made large stick movements, commanding first maximum pitch down and then maximum pitch up, but while the angle of attack is above the 20° limit the control software ignores pilot commands and prioritizes reducing the pitch, so there was no response from the airplane. The pilot never realized that the plane had entered a stall and only noted that his pitch inputs had no effect, so when he saw the ground collision warning he elected to vacate the aircraft in accordance with the flight manual. The period when the angle of attack was above 20° lasted 3.2 seconds; coincidentally the airplane returned to a controllable condition almost exactly when the pilot released the stick to pull the ejection seat handle. Following this accident, Saab modified the flight control software to detect when the airplane is passing through a wake vortex and apply different control laws during the transient.[9]

The investigation board could not determine why the ground-collision warning activated – based on the speed and altitude of the plane it should only have given a low-severity warning. The report considers a few different hypotheses, for example the high angle of attack could have caused the altimeter to measure an incorrect value, leading to a miscalculation of the sink rate.

The flight status at the moment of ejection was: altitude 750 m, flight angle −75 degrees, speed 350 km/h, angle of attack −8 degrees, and load −1.5 g.

June 2005
On 1 June 2005, a JAS 39A Gripen (serial no 39-184) from Airwing F 17 Kallinge, when acting as a target in a dogfight exercise, apparently ceased to obey commands from the pilot, LtCol Axel Nilsson. After attempting to regain control while the aircraft slowly descended, the pilot ejected from the aircraft and landed safely by parachute.

SHK's investigation – report published in June 2007 – showed that the aircraft initially travelled at Mach 0.6 in a shallow dive at an altitude of 5500 m. When attacked, the pilot, not fully aware of the rather low speed, tried to escape by taking the plane into a steep (60 degrees) climb. This led to a "low speed"-warning, for which the pilot tried to compensate by lighting the afterburner and manoeuvering into an offset looping, briefly applying maximum angle of attack. The intent was to regain speed at the top of the loop. The speed was too low, and the aircraft ended up in an inverted (upside-down) deep stall, and started to descend slowly. The inadequate response to the low-speed warning may have been due the flight manual being unclear, and to the pilot being out of practice after flying a low number of flight hours per year.

When the airplane is stalled, the flight control software enters an automatic recovery mode which automatically tries to roll level, cancel spin, and reduce angle of attack. However, this mode can not handle deep stalls. Theoretically, the pilot could have recovered by disabling the automatic mode to directly control the flight control surfaces (direct link mode), and then executing a "pitch rock" maneuver. But such a recovery maneuver is not part of ordinary pilot training; the direct link mode was only intended for use by test pilots. Ultimately the pilot had to abandon the aircraft.[10]

April 2007
On 19 April 2007, a JAS 39C Gripen (serial no 39-259) from Norrbotten Air Force Wing (F 21) crashed at the Vidsel airfield in northern Sweden.[11] The pilot, Capt. Stefan Kaarle, was involuntarily ejected out of the aircraft in mid-air while approaching the airstrip in order to land. He landed safely by parachute. All C/D Gripens were temporarily grounded. The ejection seat handle – placed between the pilot's thighs – had been activated by the motions of the pilot's flight suit. Repeated jerks on the handle, resulting from the G-suit inflating and deflating during the flight, had ultimately exerted enough force on it to cause the ejection. Moments before the ejection, the pilot had taken the aircraft into a tight turn, thus causing the G-suit to activate.

For the C and D models of Gripen, the ejection seat handle had been moved and redesigned to make room for larger cockpit displays. The investigation showed that the new handle was prone to these kinds of uncommanded ejections. A survey among the air-wings that fly the Gripen revealed that the ejection handle had become dislodged before, though not far enough to cause an ejection. The investigation concluded that the quality assurance procedures between the Swedish Defense Material Administration, the Swedish Air Force and Saab were not adequate to discover the error in time and were therefore cited as the root cause of the accident.[12]

August 2018
On 21 August 2018, a Gripen fighter plane crashed in Ronneby after colliding with a flock of birds.[13]

Hungarian Air Force
May 2015

On 19 May 2015, a two-seater JAS 39 D number 42 from the Hungarian Air Force overran the runway at Čáslav Air Base, Czech Republic. Both crewmen (Bg.Gen Ugrik and Maj. Grof) ejected safely with no injuries. The aircraft was heavily damaged with the nose section separated.[14]

June 2015 Edit
On 10 June 2015, a single-seater JAS 39C number 30 from the Hungarian Air Force performed a belly landing at Kecskemét Air Base, Hungary. The pilot, Major Sándor Kádár, ejected successfully, but suffered spinal injuries. The aircraft is under repair.[15][16]

Royal Thai Air Force
January 2017
On 14 January 2017, a Gripen crashed during an air show for the Children's Day in Hat Yai, Songkhla province, Thailand. Sqn Ldr Dilokrit Pattavee was killed when the aircraft crashed on a runway at Wing 56 during the air show at around 9.20 am. About an hour later, Thai media reported an airport fire engine overturned while rushing to put out the fire. Hat Yai International Airport had to close to clear the runway.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accidents ... _39_Gripen

suryag
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3829
Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14

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

Postby suryag » 09 Aug 2020 10:49

Looks like I have some spring cleaning to do because of one flame bait

Vamsee
BRFite
Posts: 652
Joined: 16 Mar 2001 12:31

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

Postby Vamsee » 09 Aug 2020 10:50

Rajnath Singh
@rajnathsingh

MoD has also bifurcated the capital procurement budget for 2020-21 between domestic and foreign capital procurement routes. A separate budget head has been created with an outlay of nearly Rs 52,000 crore for domestic capital procurement in the current financial year.

Link
==================

(The size of the amount indicates that LCA Mk1A will be a large chunk of this outlay) :D :D :D


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: brar_w, Dennis, manjgu and 92 guests