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

Sumeet · Post by **Sumeet** » 29 Nov 2019 03:52

If we decide to add scaled up Uttam AESA for super 30 upgrade we may also get to integrate Meteor with MKI well before SFDR is inducted.

jaysimha · Post by **jaysimha** » 29 Nov 2019 18:41

latest issue of VAYUAEROSPACE talks about 114th Report on ‘Design, Development, Manufacture and Induction of the Light Combat Aircraft (LCA)’ from the Public Accounts Committee
https://www.vayuaerospace.in/
https://www.vayuaerospace.in/Issue/vayu ... Report.pdf

When I loked around I got this. Posting for records. [MBD-if-RP]
https://eparlib.nic.in/handle/123456789 ... ype=search

srai · Post by **srai** » 30 Nov 2019 19:09

DARE EW Suite w/RWJ being standardized on IAF platforms

MiG-29 -> D-29

Jaguar -> D-JAG

LCA -> UEWS

Waiting to see DARE EW Suite customized for Su-30MKI ...

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 30 Nov 2019 22:07

Yes, the standardization is awesome, but what's even better is the third iteration on the MiG-29 has reportedly impressed the IAF and been cleared for production (the first 2 for the MiG-27 upg, the LCA Mk1 didn't get fixed).

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 01 Dec 2019 00:57

jaysimha wrote:latest issue of VAYUAEROSPACE talks about 114th Report on ‘Design, Development, Manufacture and Induction of the Light Combat Aircraft (LCA)’ from the Public Accounts Committee
https://www.vayuaerospace.in/
https://www.vayuaerospace.in/Issue/vayu ... Report.pdf

When I loked around I got this. Posting for records. [MBD-if-RP]
https://eparlib.nic.in/handle/123456789 ... ype=search

An article by that man Prodyut Das should be discounted from being posted here.

There are few who are as biased against the program as he is.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 01 Dec 2019 06:46

Yep. Like I mentioned, I am done with Vayu and their antics. They are clearly doing all they can to block the LCA program from being supported by the IAF with all this rubbish.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 01 Dec 2019 06:58

Karan M wrote:Yep. Like I mentioned, I am done with Vayu and their antics. They are clearly doing all they can to block the LCA program from being supported by the IAF with all this rubbish.

It is run by commission agents, influence peddlers and hired guns.

why would they deviate from main sources of their bread and butter

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 04 Dec 2019 03:41

Those slides showing EWS standardization across platforms warms the cockles of my heart. Inattention to adequate ECM capability is my pet peeve with IAF platforms.

Regarding the LCA, which version are they talking about in that graphic? Mk1A or Mk2?

The absence of the Su-30 in that list is noteworthy. We should look at integrating this system with the Su-30 as part of the Super-30 upgrade.

John · Post by **John** » 04 Dec 2019 04:54

Sumeet wrote:If we decide to add scaled up Uttam AESA for super 30 upgrade we may also get to integrate Meteor with MKI well before SFDR is inducted.

It is not the radar is Israeli it is that any radar that is not european will require government approval. So yes Meteor is not likely for Uttam as well.

ashishvikas · Post by **ashishvikas** » 04 Dec 2019 12:23

Indranil, any news on first flight of SP21 if you can share.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 09 Dec 2019 05:43

Metal-cutting for single-engine Tejas fighter planes to begin in February

Metal cutting, the first step in the start of commercial production, of the of indigenously made single-engine fighter plane Tejas (Mk-II) is scheduled for February 2020, according to Dr Girsh S Deodhare, director of the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) and head of the Tejas programme.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 09 Dec 2019 07:45

nachiket wrote:Regarding the LCA, which version are they talking about in that graphic? Mk1A or Mk2?

Now, Mk2

The absence of the Su-30 in that list is noteworthy. We should look at integrating this system with the Su-30 as part of the Super-30 upgrade.

That's because it will get wingtip mounted jammers more powerful than anything in that list.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 10 Dec 2019 05:29

So what exactly does this mean?

The prototype of the Tejas (Mk-II) is expected to be flying in about two years. The metal cutting will take about a year to 18 months. Tejas Mk -II, which will be fitted with a GE-414 engine, is scheduled to make its first flight in 2024. .

That the prototype will fly in approximately 24 months and then the first series production model at IOC level will fly in 2024? So 24 months for achieving IOC for the MWF?

Indranil, JayS, any chance you could shed any light on this?

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 10 Dec 2019 05:47

If you had earlier seen the video (sometime back) at Aero India, the MWF was mentioned to be SP version straight away than a prototype version.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 10 Dec 2019 06:11

no boss. He had simply said that those would be "production standard" prototypes. They're prototypes nevertheless.

Instead of TD -> to-> PV to -> LSP like transition as on the Tejas Mk1, where the TD simply demonstrated the basic technology and the PVs weren't upto the production standard spec at all..and then LSPs had to be used for proving out most of the test points and making changes.

Instead the MWF prototypes will be equivalent to LSP jets and will hopefully need minimal changes to get into production.

I would imagine the development will be phased, with the first 20 or 30 jets at IOC level and then once FOC is achieved, the production transitioning to FOC standard jets.

Clearly, the Tejas Mk1 has set the baseline to a level where ADA believes it can assume there will be minimal changes to the design during the test phase. With MWF development and testing under their belt, ADA and NFTC's level of competency will only get that much better. TEDBF and AMCA should benefit from this.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 10 Dec 2019 11:38

Kartik wrote:So what exactly does this mean?

The prototype of the Tejas (Mk-II) is expected to be flying in about two years. The metal cutting will take about a year to 18 months. Tejas Mk -II, which will be fitted with a GE-414 engine, is scheduled to make its first flight in 2024. .
That the prototype will fly in approximately 24 months and then the first series production model at IOC level will fly in 2024? So 24 months for achieving IOC for the MWF?

Indranil, JayS, any chance you could shed any light on this?

I don't have any more information than what is already in public domain.

The article talks about metal cutting in a funny way. in the quoted text, I think the clueless journo means to say the manufacturing will take 1-1.5yrs.

I think we can conclude first flight in 2022 or thereabout and first SP flight in about 2024, from the text. Of course the prototypes will be of production standard. Some fine tuning can be expected between the first PT and the first SP but no major changes. There will be four PTs as told by Dr Girish in AI2019.

Though, 2yrs is good enough for achieving IOC, I am not sure that we could make such assersion. The production is not going to wait for IOC or FOC like it did for MK1. So its may so happen that IOC may come a bit later than a few SP's are already flown.

Dileep · Post by **Dileep** » 10 Dec 2019 12:53

The prototypes of MK2 are likely to fly with mostly the current avionics with bare minimum changes. That is what I heard.

nits · Post by **nits** » 10 Dec 2019 13:22

nachiket wrote:Those slides showing EWS standardization across platforms warms the cockles of my heart. Inattention to adequate ECM capability is my pet peeve with IAF platforms.

May be OT but we need to seriously work on those slides and make them more jazzy and modern looking - In marketing and digital world this is the need of the hour

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 10 Dec 2019 13:55

Dileep wrote:The prototypes of MK2 are likely to fly with mostly the current avionics with bare minimum changes. That is what I heard.

In any development program, there are two elements - Aerodynamic & Structural evolution and Avionics and Systems Evolution

The MWF is an Aerodynamic evolution and deliberately has no or few Avionics and Systems updates to ensure the primary focus remains on aerodynamics, design and structural aspects.

Avionics and Systems Evolution can be done later like Tejas Mk1A or Project Vetrivale or DARIN 1 2 3.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 10 Dec 2019 18:09

Dileep wrote:The prototypes of MK2 are likely to fly with mostly the current avionics with bare minimum changes. That is what I heard.

Well, Dr Deodhar has said in video interview that the Prototypes would be of production standard. If above is true then he was not correct in claiming such thing, unless of course first few MK2 SP are planned with no big change in Avionics from MK1.

BTW, given MK1A is HAL's show, and MK2 and MK1A are almost running parallely and the co-ordination between HAL and ADA on MK1A is less than ideal, which Radar MK2 Prototypes are supposed to have..?? Same as MK1A..?? Or different, Uttam perhaps??

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 10 Dec 2019 18:14

tsarkar wrote:
Dileep wrote:The prototypes of MK2 are likely to fly with mostly the current avionics with bare minimum changes. That is what I heard.
In any development program, there are two elements - Aerodynamic & Structural evolution and Avionics and Systems Evolution

The MWF is an Aerodynamic evolution and deliberately has no or few Avionics and Systems updates to ensure the primary focus remains on aerodynamics, design and structural aspects.

Avionics and Systems Evolution can be done later like Tejas Mk1A or Project Vetrivale or DARIN 1 2 3.

But ADA said, MK2 will have all major systems upgrades and new features added and Dr Deodhar said, the Prototypes would be of production standard. So things don't add up here. I have not seen anyone from ADA making any distinction in Avionics vs airframe or initial batch vs later batch with full specs achieved.

srai · Post by **srai** » 10 Dec 2019 18:19

Given compressed timelines, probably best not to add too many new features right away.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 10 Dec 2019 18:47

JayS wrote:
tsarkar wrote:
In any development program, there are two elements - Aerodynamic & Structural evolution and Avionics and Systems Evolution

The MWF is an Aerodynamic evolution and deliberately has no or few Avionics and Systems updates to ensure the primary focus remains on aerodynamics, design and structural aspects.

Avionics and Systems Evolution can be done later like Tejas Mk1A or Project Vetrivale or DARIN 1 2 3.
But ADA said, MK2 will have all major systems upgrades and new features added and Dr Deodhar said, the Prototypes would be of production standard. So things don't add up here. I have not seen anyone from ADA making any distinction in Avionics vs airframe or initial batch vs later batch with full specs achieved.

MWF wont have any major avionics or system improvement to the best of my knowledge.

The Elta AESA radar and the Elisra/Indigenous EW system will come in Mk1A itself. Mk1 has the Elbit DASH helmet and Litening Pod.

Maybe a new flight computer/mission computer on Power PC instead of old 486 if not done already.

MWF is going to be a pure platform evolution. Airframe and Engine.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 10 Dec 2019 19:01

Significant improvements in MWF will be an entirely new display and human interface. It will likely have a single piece display system as on the F-35, and a unified avionics architecture. ADA was even contemplating a single processing engine though they may have dropped that.

The Elta radar is an interim fit. The Uttam is being considered for retrofit to the first 40 LCA Mk1s itself, and a derivative is planned for the MWF. By then, if we have GaN X-Band modules in production, it will be the icing on the cake as the baseline AESA architecture, modes, performance would have been debugged.

MK1A has a pylon mounted SPJ. The MWF will have an internal EW suite plus an IRST.

Dileep · Post by **Dileep** » 11 Dec 2019 07:13

MWF name is not used by ADA folk. It is still MK2. Yes, it will have the "Large Area Display", DMD based HUD and a brand new mission and display architecture. All are being worked on onlee. But the first set of prototypes will fly with the current display system. Getting the new system qualified before the prototypes will not fit the schedule.

That is a good call IMO. Using a well proven avionics suite for the new airframe reduces the risk.

The OAC moved to powerpc long time ago. The new display system will bring in ARM in all likelyhood. The MK1A display spec by HAL demands PowerPC, probably because the 'favourite vendor' already have a design in place. It specifies ARINC 818 1Gbps over copper, apart from the regular STANAG3350 video and MIL 1553B Data.

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 11 Dec 2019 22:32

They could be planning commonality with HAL Mk1A as both will be contempories.

Will the updated display and other cockpit changes be first worked on in Mk1 prototype?

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 11 Dec 2019 22:33

https://twitter.com/IAF_MCC/status/1204756479342891009

#INDRA2019 - The Second edition of bilateral Tri-Services Exercise INDRA commences with Joint Opening Ceremony at #Babina today.
The IAF contingent comprises of Su-30MKI, Mirage-2000, LCA (ADA), MI-17V5 helicopters, AN-32 aircraft along with AEW&C and GARUD Commandos.

IAF has included LCA in the list. But as "LCA (ADA)" not Tejas.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 12 Dec 2019 01:30

INDRA typically involves the Russian pilots flying on the IAF's own platforms and vice versa right? I don't recall seeing RuAF Su-30SMs, Su-35S, Su-34 or any other types actually flying into India for these exercises in the past. So there won't likely be any BFM or BVR exercises against any foreign type.

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 13 Dec 2019 03:44

Kartik wrote:INDRA typically involves the Russian pilots flying on the IAF's own platforms and vice versa right? I don't recall seeing RuAF Su-30SMs, Su-35S, Su-34 or any other types actually flying into India for these exercises in the past. So there won't likely be any BFM or BVR exercises against any foreign type.

Russians are bringing over 40 aircraft including 15 fighters, about 20 transport aircraft and more than 5 helicopters.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 13 Dec 2019 04:43

Will be good to see them employing RuAF types. I hope the Tejas gets it's first real exposure in this exercise. Fingers crossed.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 13 Dec 2019 12:22

When does HAL deliver more aircraft?

What does the MK1A fly?

kit · Post by **kit** » 13 Dec 2019 12:52

A low cost export-oriented version of Tejas is a good idea

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/2014 ... s-take-off

At this summer's Farnborough Air Show in England, the talk was dominated by the mishaps of one plane: the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II, also known as the Joint Strike Fighter. Due to be adopted by major air forces in the decades to come, it was supposed to be the star of the show. But in the end, the $100m-a-unit jet failed to turn up to its coming-out party after an engine fire in one of the production models grounded the fleet.

But another new jet fighter, which had taken less than two years to design, build and fly, did make it to Farnborough. The Textron Scorpion costs $20m, still not exactly a bargain by most people's standards, but a fifth of the cost of the F-35. It suggests that not every advanced defence project has to necessarily come in years late and billions over budget – and points to a new twist in not only the future of fighter-jet design, but also in more humanitarian roles that a budget jet could carry out.

A

At this summer's Farnborough Air Show in England, the talk was dominated by the mishaps of one plane: the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II, also known as the Joint Strike Fighter. Due to be adopted by major air forces in the decades to come, it was supposed to be the star of the show. But in the end, the $100m-a-unit jet failed to turn up to its coming-out party after an engine fire in one of the production models grounded the fleet.

But another new jet fighter, which had taken less than two years to design, build and fly, did make it to Farnborough. The Textron Scorpion costs $20m, still not exactly a bargain by most people's standards, but a fifth of the cost of the F-35. It suggests that not every advanced defence project has to necessarily come in years late and billions over budget – and points to a new twist in not only the future of fighter-jet design, but also in more humanitarian roles that a budget jet could carry out.

The Scorpion took only two years to go from concept to its first flight (Textron)

As Textron AirLand president Bill Anderson has said, the majority of work devoted to designing and developing fighters over the last several decades has focused on creating expensive, sophisticated machines. Whether it's Lockheed’s F-35 and F-22 Raptor, the Eurofighter Typhoon or the Boeing F/A-18, the designs have reflected the desire for advanced performance over affordability. Yet in today's economic environment, cost is becoming an unavoidably compelling issue for even the richest western nations.

Budget busters

Textron aren’t the only ones creating the tech to address this issue. The single jet fighter JF-17 is a Chinese design, currently being built in collaboration with its sole export customer, Pakistan, and is said to be available for around the same per-plane price of US$20m. Meanwhile, a Russian design, the Yak-130, has also been touted as a low-cost plane to carry out everything from air combat to reconnaissance, as well as train pilots.

This isn't the first time plane-makers have offered cheaper designs. The list of current and former operators of the Russian MiG-21 – a 1950s design still going strong today - reads like a who's who of the former Soviet bloc. And other nations who have more recently bought China’s modern upgrades of this old Soviet model show that cheap fighter planes are still a prized purchase for cash-strapped air forces.

The US used to create such designs as well; in the 1960s and 70s, air forces that couldn’t afford the heavy, twin-engined F-4 Phantom were offered the light, adaptable F-5 Freedom Fighter. The F-5 ended up serving in more than 30 air forces, and a reverse-engineered version built in Iran has just entered service with the Iranian Air Force.

There are three main classes of potential customers for planes like the Scorpion, which has a top speed of around 520mph. The first are air forces who want a small jet aircraft capable of carrying out a range of strike and intelligence-gathering missions, and who have either never flown combat jets before or are looking to replace older aircraft. The second are countries who already have, or are developing, high-end fighter forces, but who might buy fewer of the more expensive jets to obtain a larger number of cheaper aircraft. The third are the major military powers who will need the advanced jets for simpler missions in low-risk environments.

But how exactly do you make something as complex and technologically challenging as a fighter plane cheaper? Textron looked to its existing suppliers and used components that were already in production, rather than designing everything from scratch (the F-35, for example, uses an engine which was developed especially for the aircraft). The development team was deliberately kept very small, so Anderson and Scorpion chief designer, Dale Tutt, could make decisions quickly.

"Once we'd developed the initial design concept we set high-level design requirements for the team, and we didn't overburden them with a lot of detailed requirements," Tutt says. “We didn't have to invest time in developing, for example, a new engine or ejection seat. We were able to focus on putting those components together for the airplane and get it flying."

Patrol role

Textron also had the advantage of not having to meet the requirements of a specific nation or an air force. This meant that the development team could make changes to the design if they felt it would help the overall project.

"A great example is [British ejection-seat specialists] Martin Baker," says Anderson. "They sent a group of engineers over and they looked at our cockpit cup design, and they said, 'Well, our seat's not gonna work. It'll be several million dollars and 18 months for us to redesign it. But if you can give us about five more inches of volume - three in length and two in width – it will work.' So guess what we did? We made the cockpit tub a little bigger."

The Scorpion followed its Farnborough appearance with a demonstration at an exercise in Textron's home state of Kansas, designed to simulate the aftermath of a natural disaster (a major tornado strike) on the region. The jet wasn't used in a fighter role: instead it supplied full-motion video surveillance footage to ground commanders, in a role much like the one carried out today by drones in Afghanistan. Textron wants to enter the Scorpion in the competition the US Air Force will run next year to buy 350 jet trainers to replace its obsolete fleet of T-38s, which have been serving since the 1960s. It also points to additional roles, such as border surveillance, humanitarian assistance and maritime patrol, as jobs the jet can also comfortably carry out.

"Even among the very wealthy countries we're speaking to, everyone is recognising we have to become more economical," Anderson stresses. "No doubt we need high-end fighters: but pilots need to fly, and we can't afford the airplanes we have and to fly the pilots enough to make them combat-sufficient. I think most countries recognise that you don't always need a high-end aircraft.”

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 13 Dec 2019 14:29

Might work in a less evolved battle field, but won’t stand much of a chance in our neighborhood.

kit · Post by **kit** » 13 Dec 2019 15:23

Cybaru wrote:Might work in a less evolved battle field, but won’t stand much of a chance in our neighborhood.

The export Tejas is for all other countries in Africa and SE Asia, would be a good option to address trade imbalances !!

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 14 Dec 2019 02:55

Any updates on SP-21's first flight? We are in the mid December and no news on when the first flight will be.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 14 Dec 2019 04:05

Kartik wrote:Any updates on SP-21's first flight? We are in the mid December and no news on when the first flight will be.

Waiting!! Hopefully someone can update.

chola · Post by **chola** » 14 Dec 2019 09:05

Cybaru wrote:Might work in a less evolved battle field, but won’t stand much of a chance in our neighborhood.

Check out my post on the J-11/Gripen exercise in 2015 between Cheen and Thailand. The Gripen annihilated the Flanker in BVR range because of the difference in RCS. The Gripen detected the J-11 way before itself could be detected. The Tejas' RCS is smaller than the Gripen's.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 14 Dec 2019 11:10

I am surprised at those results. I would like to understand the setup. A Gripen shows up on a BARS class radar well in excess of 100 kms.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 14 Dec 2019 11:52

Indranil wrote:I am surprised at those results. I would like to understand the setup. A Gripen shows up on a BARS class radar well in excess of 100 kms.

The J-11 has N001 Myech with cassegrain anternna that is way inferior to Bars that we paid to custom develop.

Given that the world’s largest land annexation was Russian annexation of Chinese Siberia that is immensely rich in oil, Uraniun & Titanium and China coveting it, the Russians don’t share their best stuff with the Chinese.

Having said that, Myech would still detect the Gripens unless the Gripens used superior tactics.

nam · Post by **nam** » 14 Dec 2019 14:10

chola wrote: Check out my post on the J-11/Gripen exercise in 2015 between Cheen and Thailand. The Gripen annihilated the Flanker in BVR range because of the difference in RCS. The Gripen detected the J-11 way before itself could be detected. The Tejas' RCS is smaller than the Gripen's.

I always wonder how do they record BVR hits in these exercises. There is no actual BVR fired. So i guess it is a case of keeping the target locked on your radar, for the flight time of the BVR.

If that is the case, then the Gripen pilots BVR tactics whipped PLAAF pilots anti-BVR tactics.There will be lot of things to consider in BVR, as seem on 27 Feb.

One of the aspect of BVR fight is height. You want to get higher than your adversary. J11 being double engine should be able to get higher..

PLAAF pilots train BVR with.. PAF, . Ours train with USAF, France, UK, Israel etc.. Our pilots dodged Aim120 in real life, PLAAF could
not in training!