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.
pandyan
BRFite
Posts: 466
Joined: 31 Jul 2006 05:12

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

Postby pandyan » 14 Oct 2020 21:13

Graceful moves by Tejas! So effortless.

Kartik saar - in general, when shooting events like these, there needs to be 3-4 cameras (or more) focusing on different subjects and mixing is done from these live feeds. No idea of DD does these....

fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3516
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

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

Postby fanne » 14 Oct 2020 22:25

so what was AOA? Instant one and it was able to sustain itself? Any idea how does it compare to its counterpart - Gripen and Blunder?

pandyan
BRFite
Posts: 466
Joined: 31 Jul 2006 05:12

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

Postby pandyan » 14 Oct 2020 22:54

:rotfl: no concept of enjoying the moment?? why not throw in transonic acceleration?

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4550
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby JayS » 15 Oct 2020 01:57

tsarkar wrote:
Kartik wrote:Video that shows the forward fuselage jig at Dynamatic Technologies' facility in Bangalore. It has delivered the first Tejas forward fuselage module- first article ICY jig clearance.

Twitter link



Video link


This is a very important post for those questioning why IAF isnt ordering Tejas in large numbers or why manufacturing is taking time. The first standardized ICY forward fuselage is delivered only now. The aircraft parts delivered so far were not "completely" standardized and inducting non standardized parts Tejas is a maintenance nightmare in frontline units.

Now that ICY is getting achieved, we will see orders and faster rate of manufacture.


I failed to see how did you conclude from that news that this is the first ICY Front fuselage away of all those have been manufactured till now. This is in all probability the first front fuselage assy that Dynamatic has finished and the certification is limited only to their production as a supplier. So far the Front fuselage is being made by HAL itself and there is no indication that the aircrafts after initial few, did not have ICY until now.

Please note, the Tier1 suppliers are not going to completely replace production of these assy. They are only going to add to the capacity that HAL already has. May be in future, when they have achieved stable production, HAL might start offloading their own workshare to these Tier1 suppliers.

Among others, from the news in Public domain that I have seen, only L&T has supplied their assy, wing sets, that were used in actual production. This is the second supplier reaching that milestone. I am not sure what is the status the other two have for mid and rear fuselage.

basant
BRFite
Posts: 320
Joined: 20 Mar 2020 20:58

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

Postby basant » 16 Oct 2020 09:00

Twitter of IR
Interesting. HAL/ADA considering use of RATs (Ram Air Turbines) instead of airbrakes on LCA. Useful in emergency landing situations.

Image

1:15 AM · Oct 16, 2020


My guess the purpose of RATs is to have a limited control on the jet in case of loss of power due to malfunction or damage in action.

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3222
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

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

Postby tsarkar » 16 Oct 2020 14:19

JayS wrote:I failed to see how did you conclude from that news that this is the first ICY Front fuselage away of all those have been manufactured till now.

Because they are making a public announcement about it

Also because that is the caption mentioned in the video https://twitter.com/DynamaticTech/statu ... 2280088577

This is a milestone in our Nation’s Aerospace journey


If HAL did it earlier, then this wouldn't have been "a milestone in our Nation’s Aerospace journey", would it?

If HAL would have achieved the said milestone earlier, then they would have made an announcement of achieving a milestone in our Nation's Aerospace journey.

JayS wrote:This is in all probability the first front fuselage assy that Dynamatic has finished and the certification is limited only to their production as a supplier. So far the Front fuselage is being made by HAL itself

If you do have references that HAL forward fuselages before this one has achieved ICY, please do provide the reference to substantiate your post.

JayS wrote:there is no indication that the aircrafts after initial few, did not have ICY until now.

This was work in progress and the latest update I read was the one below.

https://english.mathrubhumi.com/news/in ... -1.2464308
Sridharan, who has been credited with establishing the new LCA Division.....He says the LCA Division developed ICY (interchangeability) tools for all 147 panels and for 830 pipelines out of 934 pipelines within the build of first seven SP Tejas aircraft itself.


ICY is an important factor for achieving mass production as well as maintainability in the field by standardizing and having interchangeable tools and parts. Otherwise aircraft will need their parts custom built for repair or replacement.

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3222
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

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

Postby tsarkar » 16 Oct 2020 16:32

Tanaji wrote:Any article that is manufactured by a reasonably competent engineering firm will have tolerances associated with them. These define all aspects of the article, from physical dimensions to material strengths such as the amount of shear stress and other related forces it must withstand. As far as I know, HAL does not have kabadiwalas working for them that hammer sheet metal into aircraft skin panels or people running around with blow torches curing composites. They in most likely will have a reasonably competent QA department (given that they are not OFB), that will or should reject articles manufactured outside the said tolerances. Most likely the parts are being manufactured using multi axis CNC machines that are programmed for repeativity which further ensure tolerances are met. So I am not sure where this inter changeability comes from, or more to the point, I am not grasping some fundamental concept that causes each part to be so different from each other even when meeting its tolerance. Aeronautical tolerances must be even more stricter, than say, automobile tolerances, so margin of error would be even less. Ppeople have remarked that the Tejas skin seems to be like Hema Malini's cheeks, so this is not Marut era design tolerance...


ICY is NOT about quality as your post implies. ICY is about standardization to enable mass production.

Its nothing to do with Hema Malini or Om Puri's cheeks. Its about how the cheeks are made and maintained.

There are many luxury automobiles that are hand built. Many high end hunting / sniping rifles are hand built. The Munger and Darra Adam Khel AK-47's do their job well.

ICY is an important factor for achieving mass production as well as maintainability in the field by standardizing and having interchangeable tools and parts. Otherwise aircraft will need their parts custom built for repair or replacement.

And since those aircraft are one off, unless refitted, their parts arent stocked but custom made by the factory. This is the reason why initially manufactured aircraft are stationed near the factory. Eg. Sulur near Bangalore. They may make occasional deployments to forward bases but stay close to the factory for ease of maintenance.

Ofcourse during mid life upgrades, they are retrofitted to full standards.

This is the story of every aircraft. Even the Su-30MKI initial deliveries in batches were not "Full MKI".

https://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Gall ... Induction/
The 10 Su-30 MKI aircraft of this squadron started arriving in semi-knocked down condition soon after,with the first bach of two MKIs landing on 25 June 2002 aboard an An-124....The second consignment of 12 aircraft will be delivered by June 2003.The third consignment of 10 aircraft will be completed by end 2003/beginning 2004.On completion of the delivery of the third consignment,Su-30K and the earlier MKI variants will be upgraded to the standards of the third consignment.


Of these first 32 Su-30MKI, the first MKI squadron was deployed at Pune close to HAL Nashik and the second MKI squadron at Bareilly, again not a forward base. Though by now they would be upgraded to full standards.

And manufacture of Su-30MKI at HAL Nashik started 2004 after full MKI standard ICY was achieved.

From first flight of Su-30MKI in 1997, it took until 2004 for production of the "full MKI" to start
Last edited by tsarkar on 16 Oct 2020 18:38, edited 1 time in total.

basant
BRFite
Posts: 320
Joined: 20 Mar 2020 20:58

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

Postby basant » 16 Oct 2020 18:09

^^^
tsarkar, Su30's MKI standard was more to do with capability rather than ICY standard. Isn't it? If I may quote Wiki:
"The first batch were eight Su-30MKs, the basic version of Su-30. The second batch were to be 10 Su-30Ks with French and Israeli avionics. The third batch were to be 10 Su-30MKIs featuring canard foreplanes. The fourth batch of 12 Su-30MKIs and final batch of 10 Su-30MKIs were to have the AL-31FP turbofans."

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3222
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

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

Postby tsarkar » 16 Oct 2020 18:42

Basant, Wiki is incorrect.

The first 18 Su-30K were all K's without any French or Israeli avionics. They were returned.

The remaining 32 had canards and Al-31FP engines from the start.

Read the Bharat Rakshak Link I posted. The writer and photographer is member Kapil Chandni. He personally attended the Su-30MKI induction ceremony in September 2002. His facts are absolutely correct

You can see Su-30MKI in Pune with canards and Al-31FP engines from September 2002 itself.

Also check this aircraft walkaround from September 2002 http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Galle ... s/Su30MKI/

The Litening Pod is there in September 2002. The drooping TVC nozzles of AL-31FP is there in September 2002. Request someone to update wiki with Kapil's notes.

I also discovered the trapeze pylon. Looks like NGARM uses a standard Russian trapeze pylon that with a longer forward arm to impart a downward tilt to the missile while dropping it.

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Galle ... 6.jpg.html

So my earlier post in the missile thread was wrong.
Last edited by tsarkar on 16 Oct 2020 20:44, edited 1 time in total.

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3222
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

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

Postby tsarkar » 16 Oct 2020 20:42

suryag wrote:Not that we dont know of this or we havent discussed, however moving from proto to production is the most difficult thing, echoed by Elon Musk recently, HAL is getting there

Elon Musk
@elonmusk
Replying to
@elonmusk
The extreme difficulty of scaling production of new technology is not well understood. It’s 1000% to 10,000% harder than making a few prototypes. The machine that makes the machine is vastly harder than the machine itself.

Precisely. Which is why people need to be patient and wait for the production to stabilize before larger orders can be placed.

It takes 9 months to get a baby and 18 years for the baby to become a productive adult. No matter what one does can shorten that process.

basant
BRFite
Posts: 320
Joined: 20 Mar 2020 20:58

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

Postby basant » 16 Oct 2020 21:08

Thanks tsarkar for the informative response :)

disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7405
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

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

Postby disha » 16 Oct 2020 22:05

fanne wrote:so what was AOA? Instant one and it was able to sustain itself? Any idea how does it compare to its counterpart - Gripen and Blunder?


Note FOC AOA has been opened up to 24*. So take that as your maximum. Unfortunately cannot compare with Bandar. Since Bandar never flies. Gripen is 26 (purported).

suryag
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3810
Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14

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

Postby suryag » 16 Oct 2020 22:07

Tsarkar ji thats the wrong conclusion to draw from that. Only if you place orders of reasonable and sizeable quality can you enable production tool chains. Im sure you would agree it is stupid and foolish to think one can make a production chain without producing sizeable quantities.

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3222
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

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

Postby tsarkar » 17 Oct 2020 00:03

suryag wrote:Tsarkar ji thats the wrong conclusion to draw from that. Only if you place orders of reasonable and sizeable quality can you enable production tool chains. Im sure you would agree it is stupid and foolish to think one can make a production chain without producing sizeable quantities.

To answer this question,
Manufacturing is always in blocks to strike a balance between achieving consistency while ensuring economic viability of the production line.

For example, Navy ships are built in blocks of 3 or 4 to ensure one gains enough experience before making the next iteration. 3 Delhi followed by 3 Kolkata followed by 4 Vishakhapatnam. Or 3 Shivalik followed by 7 Nilgiris. 4 Kukhri followed by 4 Kora. 3 Talwar followed by 3 Teg followed by 4

The IAF does in blocks of 32/36/40 -
40 Batch 1 Jaguars followed by batches of similar size
40 Mirage 2000 followed by 9 followed by 10.
46 MiG-29s followed by 23 more.
18+32 initial Su-30MKI followed by 40+18 additional/replacement 2007 orders followed by 42 additional 2012 orders. And 140 license manufacture by HAL
36 Rafales
40 Tejas

IAF has never inducted the first batch beyond this number for all its aircraft. Thereafter once consistency has been achieved, more numbers are ordered. Like 140 Su-30MKI or 83 Tejas Mk1A

But IAF never went ahead with manufacture starting right from MiG-21, 27, Jaguar, Su-30MKI until the first batch/block achieved consistency. All the previous lines attest to this pattern

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8215
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Postby Indranil » 17 Oct 2020 05:48

AoA by itself is meaningless. The lift generated by a wing at 20 degrees AoA may be more than the another wing at 24 degree AoA.

putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4493
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

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

Postby putnanja » 17 Oct 2020 11:54

tsarkar wrote:
suryag wrote:Tsarkar ji thats the wrong conclusion to draw from that. Only if you place orders of reasonable and sizeable quality can you enable production tool chains. Im sure you would agree it is stupid and foolish to think one can make a production chain without producing sizeable quantities.

To answer this question,
Manufacturing is always in blocks to strike a balance between achieving consistency while ensuring economic viability of the production line.

For example, Navy ships are built in blocks of 3 or 4 to ensure one gains enough experience before making the next iteration. 3 Delhi followed by 3 Kolkata followed by 4 Vishakhapatnam. Or 3 Shivalik followed by 7 Nilgiris. 4 Kukhri followed by 4 Kora. 3 Talwar followed by 3 Teg followed by 4

The IAF does in blocks of 32/36/40 -
40 Batch 1 Jaguars followed by batches of similar size
40 Mirage 2000 followed by 9 followed by 10.
46 MiG-29s followed by 23 more.
18+32 initial Su-30MKI followed by 40+18 additional/replacement 2007 orders followed by 42 additional 2012 orders. And 140 license manufacture by HAL
36 Rafales
40 Tejas

IAF has never inducted the first batch beyond this number for all its aircraft. Thereafter once consistency has been achieved, more numbers are ordered. Like 140 Su-30MKI or 83 Tejas Mk1A

But IAF never went ahead with manufacture starting right from MiG-21, 27, Jaguar, Su-30MKI until the first batch/block achieved consistency. All the previous lines attest to this pattern


The issue is that those batch sizes of 30-40 works well for imported orders, as those foreign defence firms have other orders and can hence production of scale kicks in. For indigenous products where Indian armed forces are the only customers, persisting with same batches makes little sense. Jaguar was ordered by British/French/India etc, Rafale for India/France/Qatar among others, similar for Mirage etc. If we persist with similar batch sizes, the cost becomes more than that for imported aircraft of similar capabilities

Ramu
BRFite
Posts: 142
Joined: 18 Feb 2011 17:05

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

Postby Ramu » 17 Oct 2020 14:54

[rant on]My idea:

We should copy the western aryans and have our own version of pardon the turkey and pardon drdo instead spanning 9 days.

The MoD, Armed forces, the guy with the big bag of money should order a token qty of each item drdo produced on each day like 20 LCA, 20 Stags, 20 arjuns, 1 aew, 100 bombs etc.
At the end of 9 days we should display everything we bought last year and worship them.

If we have excess bombs and rockets we should go to the border and use them all.

This entire duration should be celebrated as 'The Great Indian Featival'.

[rant off]

Barath
BRFite
Posts: 194
Joined: 11 Feb 2019 19:06

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

Postby Barath » 17 Oct 2020 20:39

disha wrote:Note FOC AOA has been opened up to 24*. So take that as your maximum. Unfortunately cannot compare with Bandar. Since Bandar never flies. Gripen is 26 (purported).


So your claim is that 135+ planes of the PAF have been permanently grounded and that whatever IAF controllers saw was a mirage ?

We need not be so shy or afraid


The very first link from global security.org talks about AoA claimed for the JF-17 as 26 deg and for F16 as 28 deg.

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military ... a/fc-1.htm

AoA is not the be all and end all, or the single determinative factor for how quickly a plane can gain altitude. Nor does that decide winners or losers

Saichand K
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 4
Joined: 29 Sep 2016 21:41

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

Postby Saichand K » 18 Oct 2020 11:46

So your claim is that 135+ planes of the PAF have been permanently grounded and that whatever IAF controllers saw was a mirage ?

We need not be so shy or afraid


The very first link from global security.org talks about AoA claimed for the JF-17 as 26 deg and for F16 as 28 deg.


The below link indicates that AoA was updated to 26 degrees and prototype Tejas can pull of 8.5G/-3.5G as well

http://delhidefencereview.com/2019/02/22/tracking-the-tejas-the-design-evolution-of-an-indian-fighter-part-i/

Barath
BRFite
Posts: 194
Joined: 11 Feb 2019 19:06

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

Postby Barath » 18 Oct 2020 12:54

That same link (co-authored by Indranil) says that in-service limits are 24 . (The test pilots took it to 26. It's possible that test pilot flights/planes may have additional safety measures such as spin recovery chutes etc; possibly he can shed light on this rather minor point ). What's confusing is what the IAF requirements are

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2013/07/ ... -into.html says that the IAF asked for 26 deg. https://defenceupdate.in/sinusoidal-journey-lca-tejas/ talks about 1995 ASR asking for 24 degrees. A later IAF ask could explain it.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8215
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Postby Indranil » 19 Oct 2020 06:39

IAF's requirements are not in terms of AoA. Because frankly, that is not IAF's job. IAF's job is define the minimum turning performance at various speeds.

disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7405
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

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

Postby disha » 19 Oct 2020 06:56

Barath wrote:
disha wrote:Note FOC AOA has been opened up to 24*. So take that as your maximum. Unfortunately cannot compare with Bandar. Since Bandar never flies. Gripen is 26 (purported).


So your claim is that 135+ planes of the PAF have been permanently grounded and that whatever IAF controllers saw was a mirage ?

We need not be so shy or afraid


The very first link from global security.org talks about AoA claimed for the JF-17 as 26 deg and for F16 as 28 deg.

AoA is not the be all and end all, or the single determinative factor for how quickly a plane can gain altitude. Nor does that decide winners or losers


Totally agree on the bolded part. Okay vehemently agree.

My response on AoA was on a query on what is the angle at which Tejas at the display peeled out from ultra low level straight flight. And I mentioned that the AoA is 24*. One can use that as guidance. After that you took the post in a tangent. Since the second part of the post was just alluding to the bolded part. One can only compare if Bandars fly in airshows. Or fly at all. Since they do not fly, no point in paper comparison!

On the comparison part, comparing Tejas to Bandar is futile. It does not matter if the AoA on Bandar is either 26* or 69*. I think it is 69*.

Barath'ji, and I also think the underlined statement above in your post is to me your own unconsciousness doing a recursivity. Let's leave it at that.

Yes, 120+ Bandars of PAF are grounded. Just because 15 are flying does not mean that all of the Bandars are flying. You will have to prove to me that Bandars are flying at least 400 hours average in a year and all their uptime is 75%.

Till then 4 or so odd bandars showing up on the radar are just blips.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4561
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

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

Postby Cain Marko » 19 Oct 2020 06:59

disha wrote:[You will have to prove to me that Bandars are flying at least 400 hours average in a year and all their uptime is 75%.
Till then 4 or so odd bandars showing up on the radar are just blips.

While your larger point remains, a note about flying hours. I doubt the best in the world get more than 200-250 hours per year on a given airframe.

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3222
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

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

Postby tsarkar » 19 Oct 2020 12:41

putnanja wrote:The issue is that those batch sizes of 30-40 works well for imported orders, as those foreign defence firms have other orders and can hence production of scale kicks in. For indigenous products where Indian armed forces are the only customers, persisting with same batches makes little sense. Jaguar was ordered by British/French/India etc, Rafale for India/France/Qatar among others, similar for Mirage etc. If we persist with similar batch sizes, the cost becomes more than that for imported aircraft of similar capabilities

The size I was referring to was for the initial batch. IAF asked HAL to build 125 Jaguar and 140+40+18+42+12 Su-30 after the first batch


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: rkhanna, Varuna and 35 guests