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.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7767
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Postby Rakesh » 06 Oct 2019 20:51

First flight of Tejas Mk2 is in 2022.

Mort Walker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7812
Joined: 31 May 2004 11:31
Location: The rings around Uranus.

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

Postby Mort Walker » 06 Oct 2019 21:13

Rakesh wrote:First flight of Tejas Mk2 is in 2022.


The funds allocated for Rafale, had they been used for the Tejas could have moved the Mk II up earlier or even the Mk IA to serve in a similar role. The fact is too much money is being spent on too few Rafales when the IAF has a fighter program.

Ganesh_S
BRFite
Posts: 186
Joined: 09 Mar 2010 06:40
Location: united kingdom

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

Postby Ganesh_S » 06 Oct 2019 22:15

srai wrote:There isn’t enough money for 114 MMRCA and 200 MWF. India will need to fork out over $40 billion for both between 2025 and 2035. It’s one or the other

Well a 5 plus trillion economy Can't afford 40 billion over some years? Assuming this figure to be true.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11144
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

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

Postby Aditya_V » 06 Oct 2019 23:15

It can't afford to donate it for 1 type of fighter to a foreign country

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4255
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

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

Postby srai » 06 Oct 2019 23:19

Ganesh_S wrote:
srai wrote:There isn’t enough money for 114 MMRCA and 200 MWF. India will need to fork out over $40 billion for both between 2025 and 2035. It’s one or the other

Well a 5 plus trillion economy Can't afford 40 billion over some years? Assuming this figure to be true.

Plus, add other capital purchases by the IAF, IN and the IA during that same period. Then add revenue expenditure (as high as 80% of its budget for IA currently) on salaries, pensions, and fleet operations. Let’s see what can be afforded ;)

darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2475
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

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

Postby darshhan » 06 Oct 2019 23:47

Mort Walker wrote:^^^In which case the right tool would be the Tejas Mk. II. The Rafale won’t be in any significant numbers until 2022, but the same amount of money or less on the Tejas development would not only bring numbers, but the production capacity up to make at least 25-30 Tejas Mk. II per year.


No disagreement with you here. I have always maintained the same. However IAF is too enamoured with rafale and as per the hearsay reports they love spectra EW system. Now I have no idea whether Spectra is really as good as they say. And probably very few people on the planet do. But IAF is surely hooked on it.

So even if Tejas is mass ordered, they will try to do their best to keep Rafale as their silver bullet force. Even the renewed MMRCA efforts are nothing but a facade for ordering more rafales.

Production capacity of Tejas(all variants) will anyways go up to reach the figure quoted by you. In fact if we land an export order of which there is a fair chance, HAL will have to increase the output even more.

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3307
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

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

Postby kit » 07 Oct 2019 00:24

Some rumours about active radar (return) cancellation by the spectra system, like the noise cancellation in high-end headphones, don't know if this is true or not

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7767
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Postby Rakesh » 07 Oct 2019 03:59

Cain Marko wrote:
Rakesh wrote:https://twitter.com/SJha1618/status/1180067528204120064 ---> Let me make this prediction. I see more Tejas Mk1As beyond the 83 currently projected joining the Air Force in the 2020s. Perhaps, it may even end up being called Mk1B or C.

Yes. The noises are in the right direction. Good willing this will be procured in 100s

I believe when the 83 Mk1As come in, they will (rightfully) exceed expectations and the IAF will then order more of them to replace the older Jaguar squadrons. Also a nice way to keep the production line going, till the Mk2 gets ready.

Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2268
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

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

Postby Prem Kumar » 07 Oct 2019 09:23

If its clear that the IAF wants more Rafales, wouldn't it make sense for the MoD to sit down with the IAF, tell them that there is X amount of budget, lets order Y Rafales and Z Tejas MK1A's? You get both the high-end fighters & numbers.

Scrap MMRCA and everyone goes home happy - except the dalals

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2410
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby Cybaru » 07 Oct 2019 10:42

Performance of LCA was superlative - 8 aircraft for 14 days had 90 percent availability and easily generated 6 sorties a day!!

Please add to first page.

https://twitter.com/SandeepUnnithan/status/1181049947455541249/photo/1

Image

Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 1927
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

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

Postby Manish_P » 07 Oct 2019 13:13

Cybaru wrote:Performance of LCA was superlative - 8 aircraft for 14 days had 90 percent availability and easily generated 6 sorties a day!!


:shock: Wow.

The little fighter, which punches well above it's weight, is going to be the big hero in the near future.

F-16 killers one day, for sure.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2133
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

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

Postby Vivek K » 07 Oct 2019 19:49

Ganesh_S wrote:
srai wrote:There isn’t enough money for 114 MMRCA and 200 MWF. India will need to fork out over $40 billion for both between 2025 and 2035. It’s one or the other

Well a 5 plus trillion economy Can't afford 40 billion over some years? Assuming this figure to be true.

Did you factor in all the welfare schemes, tax evasion and other revenue losses through brazen embezzlement? Add on top of that Global warming induced emergencies/disasters etc.

And like already stated - a fool and his money are easily parted. If you donate the money to pricey equipment that will not pull their weight in battle then are you better off with or without them?

IAF should have bought the Qatari Mirages and upgraded to current standards.

Bart S
BRFite
Posts: 1993
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 00:03

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

Postby Bart S » 07 Oct 2019 20:22

Vivek K wrote:
Ganesh_S wrote: Well a 5 plus trillion economy Can't afford 40 billion over some years? Assuming this figure to be true.

Did you factor in all the welfare schemes, tax evasion and other revenue losses through brazen embezzlement? Add on top of that Global warming induced emergencies/disasters etc.

And like already stated - a fool and his money are easily parted. If you donate the money to pricey equipment that will not pull their weight in battle then are you better off with or without them?

IAF should have bought the Qatari Mirages and upgraded to current standards.


Plus, the services spend a lot more on OPEX than on CAPEX. Along with growth in GDP will be a rise in cost of living and hence proportionately higher OPEX. So while being a larger economy will certainly provide more funds for CAPEX, OPEX will rise significantly.

Dileep
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5654
Joined: 04 Apr 2005 08:17
Location: Dera Mahab Ali धरा महाबलिस्याः درا مهاب الي

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

Postby Dileep » 07 Oct 2019 20:31

Cooling electronics is a very interesting field. Your typical bajaj cooking stove is 2 KW. Now, imagine four of them sitting at the nose of the plane, and you need to keep the temperature well below the temperature of boiling water. You need to pass liquids through a very complex channel system within the array to collect the heat. Design of this system is more complex than the actual electronics sometimes.

Electronics behaves well and matches well with the simulation. Heat flow doesn't.

To brag a bit, we are currently breaking our heads on how to dissipate something like 6 kilowatts from a small Aluminium brick, and maintain it at some where less than 40 Deg C. Not for flight though. But it may help bring flights down one day.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7041
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

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

Postby nachiket » 07 Oct 2019 23:08

Prem Kumar wrote:If its clear that the IAF wants more Rafales, wouldn't it make sense for the MoD to sit down with the IAF, tell them that there is X amount of budget, lets order Y Rafales and Z Tejas MK1A's? You get both the high-end fighters & numbers.

Scrap MMRCA and everyone goes home happy - except the dalals

You should know by now that the MoD does not work that way. Otherwise we wouldn't have had the original decade+ MMRCA process with nothing to show for it in the first place.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7608
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Postby Indranil » 07 Oct 2019 23:29

Wasn't the IAF chief categorical in his statement. IAF has no separate plan for extra Rafales. Then why this talk?

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7608
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Postby Indranil » 07 Oct 2019 23:42

I am happy that Tejas's success at Gaganshakti is coming out. Its availability was such that pilot's couldn't be made ready fast enough. Its accuracy in ground delivery was best in class.

It's not without reason that IAF has accepted it with open arms based on its performance at that exercise. Yes, chotu sir and Nambiar sirs have played huge parts in changing IAF's perception to the plane.

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2499
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

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

Postby nam » 08 Oct 2019 02:01

18 sqd of MK1/A & MWF i.e. 18 jets per sqd= 288

288 jets at 90% availability generating 6 sorties each! That is lot of jets in the air, constantly :D

Now ghar ki murghi, has the same availability has firangi dal...!

Clearly the new Air Chief has seen that the country's scientific establishment and the much maligned HAL can produce quality jets which matches the availability rates of their gold standard, M2000. The cherry on the top was the he was right there in the middle, seen it grow.

Hence the confidence, "we are going in for AMCA, no firangi option"! He is confident IAF will get a good product in AMCA, even if there is some delay. It is not a pipe dream.

JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2640
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

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

Postby JTull » 08 Oct 2019 02:15

nam wrote:18 sqd of MK1/A & MWF i.e. 18 jets per sqd= 288

288 jets at 90% availability generating 6 sorties each! That is lot of jets in the air, constantly :D

Now ghar ki murghi, has the same availability has firangi dal...!


Engines will be the Achilles heel.

HAL record isn't stellar on that matter, as it never plans for providing support!

Unless we can overhaul those GE engines in India, 90% availability from 288 jets is a pipe dream! You can be assured that we'll start seeing issues before Mk1A deliveries are completed. Anyone remember recent Su-30MKI deliveries with refurbished engines!

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7749
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby brar_w » 08 Oct 2019 02:20

There should have been a PBL in which case all the module replacement and service for those F404's would be performable using HAL or IAF's existing depot capacity.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7041
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

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

Postby nachiket » 08 Oct 2019 02:43

90% serviceability for a small contingent during an exercise does not equal 90% serviceability in squadron service! The two are very different. Let's not set unrealistic expectations and give more ammo to the usual suspects to beat the Tejas with a decade down the line. I am sure some DDM cretin will, someday, complain that "HAL had promised 90% serviceability when they first delivered the aircraft but now it is down to "only" 75%! Horrible! Let's import F-16s!"

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4435
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Kartik » 08 Oct 2019 02:54

I don't believe it is setting up unrealistic expectations. The exercise was to test and prove 2 things- the firepower and the ability of the IAF to put up a surge of sorties to validate the theory that they could handle a 2 front scenario. With 8 Tejas Mk1 jets that were almost brand new to the squadron, they were able to maintain 90% readiness, which means that 90% of the time, all 8 jets were available and no systems were down. For a brand new jet in service anywhere, it is a phenomenal readiness level and indicates that a lot of the expected teething issues have already been licked. 6 sorties per day indicates best in class turn-around times and availability.

Obviously, in actual squadron service, they will not see such readiness levels and they don't need to either. If they maintain 70% readiness itself, they'll be better than all other IAF fast jet types.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2410
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby Cybaru » 08 Oct 2019 02:55

Generally the initial years see lower uptimes as things are being setup. Once the issues settle down, the readiness levels go up!

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7608
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Postby Indranil » 08 Oct 2019 03:01

90% availability is not the typical requirement in operational service. Remember what Gaganshakti was: A simulation of a two-front war. An ongoing full blown war on one front, while a second one opens ups. They simulated the redistribution of  assets to handle both fronts. This obviously required very high sortie rates. As high as the platforms can provide (unsustainable in peace time). It is safe to say that Tejas was in the top echelon.

And yes, IAF is negotiating PBL with HAL. HAL had previously quoted something unreasonable. It was not palatable with anybody other than HAL. And that was the hold-up in placing Mk1A orders that Vidurji was referring to. A committee was set up to look into HAL's quote and rationalize it with HAL. This has now been done and you have read the reports on the new quotes. IAF is satisfied with the new price and has now moved the ball forward in MoD/MoF's court for financial clearance. 

The new price is a steal for an aircraft of LCA's calibre (anywhere in the world)!

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36385
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

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

Postby SaiK » 08 Oct 2019 05:58

OT, but functionally relevant on Sandeep Unnithan's article above^^^.

Converting MKI to Super 30 will not avoid an AMRAAM, but focusing on purely stealth skins, towed decoys and reducing RCS will. It applies to Tejas/AMCA too.

Nalla Baalu
BRFite
Posts: 119
Joined: 24 Aug 2006 07:16
Location: Yerramandi, Dhoolpeta

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

Postby Nalla Baalu » 08 Oct 2019 06:59

C saar, I agree.

Initial years of operational service is also where you discover early life failure modes related to Serial Production QA/QC pit-falls, workmanship, etc. Once these are addressed out, random failure modes and wear related failure modes remain. The former get tackled with some proactive/predictive means and the latter with periodic scheduled maintenance. But the surge usage during the said exercise is akin to highly accelerated stress screening (HASS). I am hopeful that it has generated a lot of useful data for HAL/ADA Reliability & Maintainability engineers.

There are two ways to look at 90% since Availability is function of Reliability and Maintainability of a widget. Either it has high MTBF (very reliable) or it has good MTTR (good time to repair/renew despite low reliability).

Cybaru wrote:Generally the initial years see lower uptimes as things are being setup. Once the issues settle down, the readiness levels go up!

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4278
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby JayS » 08 Oct 2019 12:14

Just to put the 90% availability number in perspective - Su30MKI fleet we sent to Red Flag managed 100% availability. But we know their actual fleet wide availability was piss-poor.

This was a demonstration of ability to conduct extremely high tempo ops for a short period of time when War breaks out. 6/per day is a sortie rate larger than max allowed for many jets. 3-5 is typical and even that can be maintained only for a small number of days before fatigue set in in the machines and the men. For a pilot 2 missions per day is sometimes too much to take. Fleet-wide availability is a strong function of money spent. Unless the jet is badly designed and has terrible reliability, any Fighter fleet can be maintained at very high % of availability (100% throughout is never possible as there will always be schedules maintenance downtime, but avg 85-90% could be a reasonable ceiling in real life) given enough money and efforts. So see these numbers in light of these realities.

One more important thing, the jets were produced under pressure, sent from production line directly to the frontline and still managed to deliver 90% uptime. That indicates good QA from the production line.

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3307
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

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

Postby kit » 08 Oct 2019 16:01

Dileep wrote:Cooling electronics is a very interesting field. Your typical bajaj cooking stove is 2 KW. Now, imagine four of them sitting at the nose of the plane, and you need to keep the temperature well below the temperature of boiling water. You need to pass liquids through a very complex channel system within the array to collect the heat. Design of this system is more complex than the actual electronics sometimes.

Electronics behaves well and matches well with the simulation. Heat flow doesn't.

To brag a bit, we are currently breaking our heads on how to dissipate something like 6 kilowatts from a small Aluminium brick, and maintain it at some where less than 40 Deg C. Not for flight though. But it may help bring flights down one day.



A relevant article

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2018-07-11/aesa-radar-and-technology-developments

Current Blue Competitions

The AESA models that are part of the latest “off-the-shelf” fighters in production are the Leonardo Raven ES-05 that is installed in the Saab JAS 39E, the Thales RBE2 Active Array on-board the current-production Dassault Rafale, the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet’s Raytheon AN/APG-79, and the Northrop Grumman (NG) AN/APG-81 that equips Lockheed Martin’s F-35. These aircraft are in play in several markets—most notably in Canada, where the current government has ordered a full-up evaluation and competition to replace the nation’s current F/A-18A/B models still in service.

All of these aircraft except the F-35 are currently competing in India for what is still billed as the largest export fighter aircraft sale in more than 30 years. The sale should total more than 114 aircraft plus anticipated follow-on orders. In place of the F-35, Lockheed Martin is offering a revamped version of the F-16 Block 50 with an entirely new internal, electronic infrastructure. This version of the 1970s-design fighter is designated “Block 70” and includes NG’s AN/APG-83 AESA radar. The aircraft is roughly the same “F-16V” that Lockheed Martin is proposing to begin building once the production completes its move from Fort Worth, Texas, to Greenville, South Carolina.

Developed more than a decade ago, the APG-83 was originally known as the Scalable Agile Beam Radar (SABR) and was intended as part of the upgrade package for older F-16 models. Singapore, South Korea, and the Republic of China are the first three nations that are slated to have this radar set installed to replace different models of the older, mechanically steered NG AN/APG-68 radar set.

Specialists at other radar design houses question how effective the APG-83 can be since the set depends on using the airflow that cools the other avionics in the F-16 and then using an internal liquid-cooling module and heat exchanger that is on-board the radar set itself.

“This has the advantage of not having to plumb a liquid-cooling system into the aircraft, as Lockheed Martin did with the F-16E/F Block 60 for the UAE,” said a U.S. airborne radar firm’s representative. “But the question is whether or not that cooling solution allows you to run the radar’s T/R modules at their maximum capacity because of the heat that they generate. Plus there are other questions about whether the modules could be software limited in order to be in compliance with U.S. government policy” on the export of sensitive technology.

GAN Advantage

AESA radars have been in use for more than 20 years and hence the technology that is the basis for them is evolving. Most of the AESA models in production now are based on Gallium Arsenide (GaAs)-based T/R modules. However, the emerging standard now for these models of radars is the use of Gallium Nitride (GaN) technology. GaN is more efficient than the roughly 40 to 43 percent signal generation/power consumed rating of GaAs radar modules, and it also generates less heat and extends the range of the radar.

Representatives from Saab pointed out to AIN that the Indian request for proposals (rfp) calls out specifically that “the aircraft they procure must incorporate GaN technology in the radar.” Although the Leonardo ES-05 radar in the Gripen E being produced for Sweden and Brazil has GaAs technology, Saab is believed to be developing a GaN-based radar that could be offered to India as part of its Gripen proposal.

What remains to be seen is how resource-intensive or costly it would be to retrofit GaN modules into the previous-generation AESAs already in service. Most of the specialists that AIN has consulted agree that GaN is the way forward, and eventually, all of the manufacturers will have to incorporate some kind of technology-insertion regime into their production.

The Other Side

Both Russian and Chinese design bureaus have been working on developing AESA designs for their latest aircraft, but with mixed results. Russia’s NIIP had developed a new N036 model for the Sukhoi Su-57 fifth-generation fighter aircraft program. However, the Su-57 has been embraced neither by its domestic Russian Aerospace Forces (VKS) nor by India, the export customer that had been expected to purchase it in large numbers.

Thus far, there are only 12 firm orders by the VKS for the Su-57. The IAF team that examined the aircraft assessed the radar design as having significant technology shortcomings that would make it difficult to have in service on time. These included not just problems with T/R modules, but also software programming issues.

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3307
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

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

Postby kit » 08 Oct 2019 16:04

Indranil wrote:90% availability is not the typical requirement in operational service. Remember what Gaganshakti was: A simulation of a two-front war. An ongoing full blown war on one front, while a second one opens ups. They simulated the redistribution of  assets to handle both fronts. This obviously required very high sortie rates. As high as the platforms can provide (unsustainable in peace time). It is safe to say that Tejas was in the top echelon.

And yes, IAF is negotiating PBL with HAL. HAL had previously quoted something unreasonable. It was not palatable with anybody other than HAL. And that was the hold-up in placing Mk1A orders that Vidurji was referring to. A committee was set up to look into HAL's quote and rationalize it with HAL. This has now been done and you have read the reports on the new quotes. IAF is satisfied with the new price and has now moved the ball forward in MoD/MoF's court for financial clearance. 

The new price is a steal for an aircraft of LCA's calibre (anywhere in the world)!



Agree with you. A real force multiplier would be how much HAL (AND) its primary vendors can ramp up and keep up the production rates, this will bring up real juice flow into the whole supply chains

SidSoma
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 61
Joined: 16 Feb 2018 15:09

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

Postby SidSoma » 08 Oct 2019 16:52

1. If the requirement was to deliver 8 planes for Gagan shakti. The 8th did its first flight almost month before Gaganshakti. Its another question to determine the first flight to handover date. 9th probably was very close to the start date and hence was not sent. 7th was a full 4 Months before.I think jets being sent from production line to frontline is creative writing at best (definitely cannot be applied to the implied plural)
2. We have heard time an again that GE 404 is a reliable and efficient engine. One thing that we can be sure of is that Tejas availability will be among the highest with IAF, assuming that most issues of availability arise from engine issues. However, no pressure on the little kid.
3. Either which ways, the target of building 16 Tejas in FY 19-20 is not possible now, unless HAL has a few magic wands.

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2499
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

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

Postby nam » 08 Oct 2019 17:04

HAL cannot build 16 per year, for the simple reason you cannot have a 16 per year line with a 16 jet order.

sajaym
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 58
Joined: 04 Feb 2019 09:11

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

Postby sajaym » 08 Oct 2019 18:48

Dileep wrote:To brag a bit, we are currently breaking our heads on how to dissipate something like 6 kilowatts from a small Aluminium brick, and maintain it at some where less than 40 Deg C. Not for flight though. But it may help bring flights down one day.


Death Rays ! :shock:

Ganesh_S
BRFite
Posts: 186
Joined: 09 Mar 2010 06:40
Location: united kingdom

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

Postby Ganesh_S » 08 Oct 2019 19:34

Vivek K wrote:
Ganesh_S wrote: Well a 5 plus trillion economy Can't afford 40 billion over some years? Assuming this figure to be true.

Did you factor in all the welfare schemes, tax evasion and other revenue losses through brazen embezzlement? Add on top of that Global warming induced emergencies/disasters etc.

And like already stated - a fool and his money are easily parted. If you donate the money to pricey equipment that will not pull their weight in battle then are you better off with or without them?

IAF should have bought the Qatari Mirages and upgraded to current standards.


I would still be skeptical on the 40 billion mark provided there is significant tot or offsets on the deal. There is always a better deal by virtue of economies of scale. By brazen embezzlement do you mean financial irregularities in the current g2g deal?

Ganesh_S
BRFite
Posts: 186
Joined: 09 Mar 2010 06:40
Location: united kingdom

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

Postby Ganesh_S » 08 Oct 2019 19:46

Whole reason why IAF would like to have more rafales is because they are convinced of its abilities to pull its weight during a battle. Let's leave this judgment to them.

The current ACM has indicated his intentions on supporting LCA MWF, so be it. As for the numbers it's not us jingos fighting it out there.

Ganesh_S
BRFite
Posts: 186
Joined: 09 Mar 2010 06:40
Location: united kingdom

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

Postby Ganesh_S » 08 Oct 2019 19:54

Where does the opex vrs capex argument dissapear when a case for 500 mk1 is made. Isn't a progressive development 200 mwf plus exports suffice to move over AMCA. What's the point in having a production line for MWF while AMCA enters production?
Last edited by Ganesh_S on 08 Oct 2019 20:06, edited 1 time in total.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4255
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

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

Postby srai » 08 Oct 2019 19:54

^^^
$40 billion is on the lower side. If 36 Rafales cost around $8-9 billion, 112 a/c would easily go over $20 billion.

$40+ billion break down:
* $20+ billion -> 112 MMRCA
* $20+ billion -> 200 MWF

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53199
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby ramana » 09 Oct 2019 00:51

I propose we name Tejas Sridevi
Svelte, Desi and totally bewitching

https://twitter.com/ramana_brf/status/1 ... 82752?s=19

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7608
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Postby Indranil » 09 Oct 2019 02:02

I suggest the more earthy Smita Patil ji. Plus, many of us are smitten by both. Gorgeous, understated, potent.

PratikDas
BRFite
Posts: 1919
Joined: 06 Feb 2009 07:46
Contact:

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

Postby PratikDas » 09 Oct 2019 02:25

Dileep wrote:To brag a bit, we are currently breaking our heads on how to dissipate something like 6 kilowatts from a small Aluminium brick, and maintain it at some where less than 40 Deg C. Not for flight though. But it may help bring flights down one day.


Dileep ji, you probably already know about this but please have a look at this: https://mezzotech.com/performance-applications/pcm-heat-exchangers/

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2133
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

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

Postby Vivek K » 09 Oct 2019 03:09

Ganesh_S wrote:Whole reason why IAF would like to have more rafales is because they are convinced of its abilities to pull its weight during a battle. Let's leave this judgment to them.

The current ACM has indicated his intentions on supporting LCA MWF, so be it. As for the numbers it's not us jingos fighting it out there.

Ganesh ji - I'm done making the case. Of course there are no decision makers here, only keyboard warriors.

BTW, when does the current ACM retire? Will the next ACM have the same opinion or will he want 36 F-35s?

The world over one understands

a) investing in local MIC makes more sense - when was the last time the United States or France imported fighters?
b) In WW2,the hurricanes struggled against the German Me-109s and the US P-40s had a difficult time against the Japanese Zeroes. However with serial developments, the P-51 came good and so did the British Spitfire. For a real war fighting capability, imports cannot be relied upon.Against the Zero, the P-40 had a hard time as the Zero could turn on a dime. However, the P-40s developed tactics to engage and defeat the zero.
c) Fighting Pak is not the real threat to India. To fight China, India's real threat, it is going to need the ability to fight a long, hard battle of attrition. That is where India may rue its decision to fund Russian, French MICs instead of its own. to throw up your aircraft in the sky needs a vast inventory of spares to not only account for peace time requirements but permit the re-building of shot up aircraft damaged in combat. Will IAF have to resort to scavenging to keep flying its long list of imported fighters? What percentage of IAF fleet would be fighting fit at 30 days / 60 days?
d) IAF knows best - agreed. Then what happened to the Su-30 air dominance fighter? Now Rafale has that crown. Is the MKI not an air dominance fighter any more? Are we buying Rafales for their radars and Meteors? Beware, the US plays God. It can at any time introduce disruptive tech to the Pukis that can handle these mighty purchases (aka AMRAAM to PAF). So then should India buy such expensive hardware that tomorrow will not retain its dominant position? If there is no local MIC that can step up and build the radars and missiles to upgrade the MKIs, then India should keep buying new aircraft everytime the PAF gets a new toy?? Like this purchase to respond to PAF's AMRAAMs? Or is it better to work on mating Astra and Astra NG on the LCA, the MKI, the M2K, the 29s and Jags? And how accurate are these missiles at extreme ranges?

But IAF knows best - there was no option B to the Rafale purchase and now the Rafales are here. Let's rejoice.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: rakall, yensoy and 61 guests