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.
basant
BRFite
Posts: 216
Joined: 20 Mar 2020 20:58

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

Postby basant » 06 Jun 2020 11:40

Specifically, the statement was as follows:
The Ministry replied that Integration of SPJ pod as a role equipment would essentially mean reduced weapon carrying capability, due to the SPJ pod occupying one store location. Internal EW system demanded more real estate and therefore was not feasible in Tejas Mk1 class of aircraft. Therefore, integration of EW system on light aircrafts of Tejas class would have an adverse impact on other aspect of the aircraft performance and capability.


Whereas IAF said:
... the current radar is an Elta radar but our own radar is also being developed.
....
As far as the jammer is concerned, first the radar has to be developed and then the jammer can be integrated with the radar. There are many jammers-radar available. Towed jammers and Towed Decoy jammers are available. They can be carried on the wing stores and that does not inhibit the aircraft’s performance in any way. Once we are getting a jammer with Rafale type, we could always see how it performs.


Both are sourced from PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE (2018-19) report available online.

csaurabh
BRFite
Posts: 801
Joined: 07 Apr 2008 15:07

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

Postby csaurabh » 07 Jun 2020 12:12

Manufacturing of aircrafts and launch vehicles is a complex affair involving hundreds upon hundreds of sophisticated machines for fabrication, assembly, inspection and accessories. Autoclave is just a part of the puzzle. Maybe a big part of the puzzle.

I have visited several facilities in ISRO and HAL and seen the machinery installed there. I would estimate not more than 30% of them are indigenous and the rest are imported from USA,Germany,Japan and even Russia. This is why aerospace production is hard to scale, since doing so would require substantial capex investment and support from foreign companies/countries.
One of the most impressive indigenously built machines I witnessed is a massive rotary vacuum brazing machine. This is used to braze the cooling channels around the combustion chamber of a liquid fuelled rocket engine. Essentially it is one of the things that makes cryogenic rocket possible. But for every one of such ( autoclave may be an example ), there are like 5 others which are imported.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4618
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

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

Postby chola » 07 Jun 2020 13:03

^^^ I imagine even the US and Russia have tooling from many different countries. No one country makes everything. At least currently (might change in post chini virus world.)

It is also a matter of investment for which goal. If goal is the production of aircraft then it makes sense to buy the necessary tooling off the shelf and concentrate human and financial resources on the manufacturing and assembly of aircraft parts.

If the goal is complete self-reliance then maybe you need to invest the tooling as well. That would be going into a rat hole. There will always something that we don't make even tools are made by other tools.

A better way is developing a thriving and growing manufacturing ecosystem where consistent investment in growth and replacement encourages local firms to make machines that compete for those cogs in the build chain. Again, you need consistent investment decades upon decades to build up local industry.

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3579
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

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

Postby nam » 07 Jun 2020 13:52

It is not economically viable to built all aerospace production machines in India. Who will buy them other than HAL?

The Chini are able to produce them given every tom dick and harry OEM gave orders to Chini companies for producing parts of these machines. Not to mention aircraft OEM setting up up shops in China for the sake to getting a pie of the Chinese airline market.

We as usual want to make sure the DPSU employees are not given a reason to strike. National interest is secondary.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4618
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

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

Postby chola » 07 Jun 2020 14:36

nam wrote:It is not economically viable to built all aerospace production machines in India. Who will buy them other than HAL?

The Chini are able to produce them given every tom dick and harry OEM gave orders to Chini companies for producing parts of these machines. Not to mention aircraft OEM setting up up shops in China for the sake to getting a pie of the Chinese airline market.

We as usual want to make sure the DPSU employees are not given a reason to strike. National interest is secondary.


If there are consistent contracts for indigenous aircraft then we can expand to say Tata, Adani or Mahindra as well as HAL. Or even if no private sector aerospace company arise, a growing and expanding HAL would provide increasing orders for companies. Nothing is done overnight. It takes time. The idea is consistent investment in the manufacturing ecosystem so that companies can plan and compete for contracts that they know will be coming.

Cheen makes many tools inhouse because they are forced by Western embargo (but they still get around that through the helping hands of Germans, Israelis, Japanese and Koreans.) In general they have to make due with indigenous equivalents even inferior ones. But this gives their local industry the resources to grow and get better.

We have access to Western equipment so as opposed to
Cheen we need to make a conscious effort to go local even when the initial quality can't match the Westerners. No Indian firm can instantly match products made by Western firms with decades of headstart. I've followed chini engines and I can tell you they are now on the edge of a breakthrough because they insisted on buying and installing the horrible first marks of the WS-10 on J-11s instead of just importing or doing screwdrivergiri of AL-31s.

As for Airbus and Boeing setting up shop in Cheen. Now who else has a billion plus population and one of the top three aviation markets in the world? With the US-Chini trade war, Boeing will soon lose one of the top three markets in Cheen. India will have massive leverage to make Boeing create a production eco-system in India just as they have in Cheen.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8762
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby brar_w » 07 Jun 2020 15:55

somdev wrote:F35 programme for instance has a very large supplier ecosystem. The composite skin of F35s is supplied by multiple vendors (e.g. Orbital ATK). The vendors gained from a ‘Out-of-Autoclave’ innovation which came out of the MIT labs. I believe in our case the need of the hour is increase in number of Tejas produced every year to meet the drastic shortfall. Off the shelf tooling will definitely boost our production rates. In tandem, govt labs and Universities can do the R&D on such tooling. Even missile casings are made with OoA process these days. Carbon nanotube film is the latest research for aerospace composite manufacturing at fraction of cost and time, again developed by MIT again and sponsored by Airbus, Lockheed etc.^


viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7625&start=1680#p2436884

csaurabh
BRFite
Posts: 801
Joined: 07 Apr 2008 15:07

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

Postby csaurabh » 07 Jun 2020 18:09

chola wrote:^^^ I imagine even the US and Russia have tooling from many different countries. No one country makes everything. At least currently (might change in post chini virus world.)

It is also a matter of investment for which goal. If goal is the production of aircraft then it makes sense to buy the necessary tooling off the shelf and concentrate human and financial resources on the manufacturing and assembly of aircraft parts.

If the goal is complete self-reliance then maybe you need to invest the tooling as well. That would be going into a rat hole. There will always something that we don't make even tools are made by other tools.

A better way is developing a thriving and growing manufacturing ecosystem where consistent investment in growth and replacement encourages local firms to make machines that compete for those cogs in the build chain. Again, you need consistent investment decades upon decades to build up local industry.


Chola ji I disagree with this goal thing. If you really look at it then the 'goal' is not producing aircrafts but defending the country. Which can be done just as well by buying Rafales or whatever from other countries. In the case of space industry, the goal ( such as obtaining satellite images or communication bandwidth ) can also be achieved by buying the same from other countries.

I think we at BR are mature enough to understand (atleast by now) that these are things of national importance and prestige, and sovereignty cannot simply be bought off the shelf anytime we like with no consequence. Why not extend the same logic to the machinery, components, raw material input, software and so on?

Like you said this is not going to happen quickly notwithstanding slogans of atmanirbharta or whatever. And we don't need complete self reliance. Lets have around 60-70% self reliance instead of the current 20-30%. Great powers like France and Russia are probably at that level. What is required is a consistent push in incentives for the development of technologies and not looking down upon our 1-2 yr efforts in comparison to some 30-40 year old Western company already in the business for decades. ( I am involved in this so I see this kind of thing happening ).

csaurabh
BRFite
Posts: 801
Joined: 07 Apr 2008 15:07

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

Postby csaurabh » 07 Jun 2020 18:12

nam wrote:It is not economically viable to built all aerospace production machines in India. Who will buy them other than HAL?


This is a little hyperbolic, most aerospace production machinery (and companies) are used for other things as well. Such as automobile, ship-building, oil and gas, energy and even medical devices. It is about the development of a manufacturing ecosystem of which aerospace is just one part.

ashishvikas
BRFite
Posts: 540
Joined: 17 Oct 2016 14:18

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

Postby ashishvikas » 08 Jun 2020 00:36

Good luck & godspeed, #FlyingDaggers & #FlyingBullets!

The best aircraft is the one made in own country. But don't give an inch. Because the enemy won't.

IAF Chief - "LCA is the best in its class; take my word for it"

By KAYPIUS

https://kaypius.com/2020/06/07/iaf-chie ... rd-for-it/

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19531
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 08 Jun 2020 01:17

This guy keeps trying to run down desi industry whilst pretending to say the exact opposite. As if the TPs needed him to tell them not to give an inch. No wonder with his attitude he is in the pvt sector and didnt stick around to actually helm a serious program to the max.

sankum
BRFite
Posts: 829
Joined: 20 Dec 2004 21:45

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

Postby sankum » 08 Jun 2020 01:29

The guy is extremely prejudiced against indigenous products and promoter of imports and after reading critisism of his ALH article writes about segmented folding of main rotors being developed from his sources and on footnote writes about pending 32 nos naval ALH order for IN and CG.

His views are non serious and best ignored.

Basically he is subtly marketing imports for reasons best known to him.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8161
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Postby Indranil » 08 Jun 2020 03:26

I find him pretty okay. I find myself slightly left of center in trying to portray the side of DRDO/HAL etc. He is slightly on the other side. But that is okay. I have argued with him many times, and I find him reasonable. I will say this, he knows much more than me at least. He is qualified TP!!!!

When it comes to ALH, his experience is from old naval ALH which frankly was not up to the mark for operations at sea. ALH past Mk3 is very different from the first couple of batches. Full marks should be given to IAF And IA to hand hold the project during those difficult times. IN got the raw deal, and it has every right to rebuff ALH. Kaypius and Arun P are both strong proponents of desikaran. But Naval ALH as it was fielded a few years back was simply not acceptable. I stand with them on that. By the way, Kaypius is not critical of ALH in IA/IAF service! Who can be?!

Where Kaypius and I don't see eye to eye is the new Naval ALH. He wants to have a private sector Tier-1 competitor to HAL. He sees this new tender as an opportunity to lay the seeds of that. I disagree. I also want a Tier-1 competitor to HAL, but not at the cost of a desi bird. No country does that. I want Ka-226 talks to subside too. We have the ALH and NUH which are state of the art products wand we shouldn't share any part of the pie with others. I also want HAL and GOI to look at the autonomous helicopters seriously. Many people are trying to peddle snake oil there. We must be cautious.

The world is moving towards faster helis with longer endurance and payload. Coaxial rotors with pusher props seem to be the most efficient and robust solution. HAL and India has no design knowledge there. IA/IAF/IN should formulate the requirement, and start a competition. The private sector should be given extra incentives to offset the advantage that HAL has currently.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8161
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Postby Indranil » 08 Jun 2020 03:27

Kakkaji wrote:Indranil ji:

Any news on installing SPJ on Mk1 IOC & FOC?

I wouldn’t want to send them in battle without it

Thx in advance

Why "ji" for me?

Why would IOC/FOC fighters not be installed with SPJ whenever the tech is ready and proven on Mk1A?

Kakkaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3282
Joined: 23 Oct 2002 11:31

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

Postby Kakkaji » 08 Jun 2020 06:51

^^

But why can’t jammer pods be installed now on IOC/ EOC aircraft. It with provide some protection, as compared to none currently, against incoming missiles.

IIRC there was no jammer pod on Abhinandan’s Bison

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

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

Postby srai » 08 Jun 2020 07:10

^^^
It will in time!

Integration is no trivial task. SPJ, by its nature, interferes with existing avionics, EW and radar. Requires additional power and wirings. Flight tests on all expected Gs and maneuvers. And so on.

Be thankful FOC has been achieved. If the IAF had increased its scope to make SPJ mandatory, FOC would still not have completed.

basant
BRFite
Posts: 216
Joined: 20 Mar 2020 20:58

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

Postby basant » 08 Jun 2020 09:51

HVT Tweet
HV @hvtiaf
Ah! Brutal work-days.
Tejas take-off roll values published on OS are way-off.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5251
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Kartik » 08 Jun 2020 12:29

HVT Tweet

Twitter link
Why is there so much duff-gen on Tejas, everywhere you look on internet?

The aircraft takes-off from a carrier without catapult, and within two markers on a runway. Not underpowered by any yardstick in the world.


2 runway markers = 2000 feet.

So the Tejas can take off within 2000 feet distance on a runway.

Neela
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3642
Joined: 30 Jul 2004 15:05
Location: Spectator in the dossier diplomacy tennis match

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

Postby Neela » 08 Jun 2020 12:35

HVT mentioned that parachute brakes will be a thing of the past and Carbon brakes are next.
How do the Carbon brakes work ?

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

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

Postby srai » 08 Jun 2020 13:00

Kartik wrote:HVT Tweet

Twitter link
Why is there so much duff-gen on Tejas, everywhere you look on internet?

The aircraft takes-off from a carrier without catapult, and within two markers on a runway. Not underpowered by any yardstick in the world.


2 runway markers = 2000 feet.

So the Tejas can take off within 2000 feet distance on a runway.

500-600 meters

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4618
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

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

Postby chola » 08 Jun 2020 13:15

csaurabh wrote:
chola wrote:^^^ I imagine even the US and Russia have tooling from many different countries. No one country makes everything. At least currently (might change in post chini virus world.)

It is also a matter of investment for which goal. If goal is the production of aircraft then it makes sense to buy the necessary tooling off the shelf and concentrate human and financial resources on the manufacturing and assembly of aircraft parts.

If the goal is complete self-reliance then maybe you need to invest the tooling as well. That would be going into a rat hole. There will always something that we don't make even tools are made by other tools.

A better way is developing a thriving and growing manufacturing ecosystem where consistent investment in growth and replacement encourages local firms to make machines that compete for those cogs in the build chain. Again, you need consistent investment decades upon decades to build up local industry.


Chola ji I disagree with this goal thing. If you really look at it then the 'goal' is not producing aircrafts but defending the country. Which can be done just as well by buying Rafales or whatever from other countries. In the case of space industry, the goal ( such as obtaining satellite images or communication bandwidth ) can also be achieved by buying the same from other countries.

I think we at BR are mature enough to understand (atleast by now) that these are things of national importance and prestige, and sovereignty cannot simply be bought off the shelf anytime we like with no consequence. Why not extend the same logic to the machinery, components, raw material input, software and so on?

Like you said this is not going to happen quickly notwithstanding slogans of atmanirbharta or whatever. And we don't need complete self reliance. Lets have around 60-70% self reliance instead of the current 20-30%. Great powers like France and Russia are probably at that level. What is required is a consistent push in incentives for the development of technologies and not looking down upon our 1-2 yr efforts in comparison to some 30-40 year old Western company already in the business for decades. ( I am involved in this so I see this kind of thing happening ).


Goals are set to focus resources so things are not scattershot. A 60-70% self reliance is a proper goal. That can only be achieved through a consistent market for local goods. Without it, indigenous institutions and companies cannot survive and grow in enough numbers to give you that 60-70 percent.

I'll point to Cheen as an example again. The chini mil aerospace sector is under embargo so today it is pretty much 100% self-reliant. Their consumer IC is (was) not so they ended up dependent on foreign imports for about 70% of the chips they use in their consumer electronics. But their HPC industry is under embargo so the chips for their HPCs are local. Embargoes are double-edged swords. They can slow down development and reduce standards by locking you from the best products on the market but they also protect the local industry by removing foreign competition.

Our examples of the duel nature of embargos are best exemplified by the excruciating delay of the LCA program and the monumental success of ISRO in indigenizing rockets.

India's aviation industry is not under embargo (currently) so it means there is constant competition everywhere in the build chain from established foreign firms. It has to be a conscious effort to buy local. This by necessity has to be GOI led. There must be mandate for PSU's to but local and subsidies for products made in country. You need to fund this development with orders consistently year after year, decade after decade to grow an ecosystem.

basant
BRFite
Posts: 216
Joined: 20 Mar 2020 20:58

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

Postby basant » 08 Jun 2020 13:39

Kartik wrote:HVT Tweet

Twitter link
Why is there so much duff-gen on Tejas, everywhere you look on internet?

The aircraft takes-off from a carrier without catapult, and within two markers on a runway. Not underpowered by any yardstick in the world.


2 runway markers = 2000 feet.

So the Tejas can take off within 2000 feet distance on a runway.

Isn't take-off distance a function of weight? Wonder what is the generic take-off distance refers to for fighters.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5251
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Kartik » 09 Jun 2020 06:33

LCA Mk1 itself already has Carbon-carbon brakes.

What HVT mentioned is a more optimized, newer gen of carbon-carbon brakes.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5251
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Kartik » 09 Jun 2020 06:34

From the Tejas LCA FB page

LA-5017 over Bangalore

Image

LA-5017 (the first FOC standard Tejas) over Bangalore during a scheduled production test flight.

#TejasLCA #Tejas #TejasOfficialArchive #HAL
#HindustanAeronauticsLimited #ADA


srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

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

Postby srai » 09 Jun 2020 07:35

Neela wrote:HVT mentioned that parachute brakes will be a thing of the past and Carbon brakes are next.
...

That will open up a fairly large space (parachutes storage) for additional gear!

khan
BRFite
Posts: 830
Joined: 12 Feb 2003 12:31
Location: Tx

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

Postby khan » 09 Jun 2020 08:53

srai wrote:
Neela wrote:HVT mentioned that parachute brakes will be a thing of the past and Carbon brakes are next.
...

That will open up a fairly large space (parachutes storage) for additional gear!

Or fuel. Thats a drop-tank worth of fuel I would imagine.

yensoy
BRFite
Posts: 1752
Joined: 29 May 2002 11:31
Location: USA

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

Postby yensoy » 09 Jun 2020 09:40

Kartik wrote:From the Tejas LCA FB page
LA-5017 over Bangalore

LA-5017 (the first FOC standard Tejas) over Bangalore during a scheduled production test flight.
#TejasLCA #Tejas #TejasOfficialArchive #HAL
#HindustanAeronauticsLimited #ADA


Did they take off the refueling probe?

karan_mc
BRFite
Posts: 699
Joined: 02 Dec 2006 20:53

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

Postby karan_mc » 09 Jun 2020 10:10

yensoy wrote:
Kartik wrote:From the Tejas LCA FB page
LA-5017 over Bangalore



Did they take off the refueling probe?


Its Plug and Play can be removed when not needed

basant
BRFite
Posts: 216
Joined: 20 Mar 2020 20:58

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

Postby basant » 09 Jun 2020 10:41

khan wrote:
srai wrote:That will open up a fairly large space (parachutes storage) for additional gear!

Or fuel. Thats a drop-tank worth of fuel I would imagine.

F-16 drouge parachute weighs about 10kg! Hardly any useful fuel that can replace it!

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12038
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

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

Postby Aditya_V » 09 Jun 2020 11:28

yensoy wrote:
Kartik wrote:From the Tejas LCA FB page
LA-5017 over Bangalore



Did they take off the refueling probe?


Yes it is a bolt on /Bolt off refueling probe. But what is more important that the orange lid of the landing Parachute is also missing- have they fitted better carbon fiber brakes on the FOC aircraft?

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8161
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Postby Indranil » 09 Jun 2020 13:04

Parachutes exist. The cover is no longer painted red.

Tejas already uses C-C brakes with life of 300 landings. Next generation brakes with 700 landings in qualifications. Goal is to reach brakes with life of 1000 landings.

ashishvikas
BRFite
Posts: 540
Joined: 17 Oct 2016 14:18

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

Postby ashishvikas » 09 Jun 2020 13:29

Who makes tyres for LCA Tejas ?

MRF was planning to make it, but not sure if this has clear all tests.

https://twitter.com/rahulsinghx/status/ ... 88704?s=19

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 1281
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

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

Postby ks_sachin » 09 Jun 2020 14:11

Indranil wrote:Parachutes exist. The cover is no longer painted red.

Tejas already uses C-C brakes with life of 300 landings. Next generation brakes with 700 landings in qualifications. Goal is to reach brakes with life of 1000 landings.

Why is it called Carbon-Carbon Indranil?
Is one carbon not enough?

basant
BRFite
Posts: 216
Joined: 20 Mar 2020 20:58

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

Postby basant » 09 Jun 2020 14:35

^^^
Called C-C as it combines structural carbon discs with carbon brake pads. There are also carbon-ceramic brakes available.

csaurabh
BRFite
Posts: 801
Joined: 07 Apr 2008 15:07

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

Postby csaurabh » 09 Jun 2020 20:08

basant wrote:^^^
Called C-C as it combines structural carbon discs with carbon brake pads. There are also carbon-ceramic brakes available.


Not sure if this is has a specific meaning for brakes. But Carbon Carbon is a generic name for a type of composite material which has carbon fibres embedded inside a matrix of graphite ( graphite is also carbon ).
C-C is a super material used for the toughest and hottest parts of aerospace industry (like nose cones ). Very few orgs. in the world have the capability to manufacture it because it is really hard to make. ISRO is one of them.
That is why it is also very expensive. I once held a small piece of C-C about 10cmx2cmx2cm in my hand and was told it cost around Rs. 10000!

basant
BRFite
Posts: 216
Joined: 20 Mar 2020 20:58

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

Postby basant » 09 Jun 2020 20:29

csaurabh wrote:
basant wrote:^^^
Called C-C as it combines structural carbon discs with carbon brake pads. There are also carbon-ceramic brakes available.


Not sure if this is has a specific meaning for brakes. But Carbon Carbon is a generic name for a type of composite material which has carbon fibres embedded inside a matrix of graphite ( graphite is also carbon ).
C-C is a super material used for the toughest and hottest parts of aerospace industry (like nose cones ). Very few orgs. in the world have the capability to manufacture it because it is really hard to make. ISRO is one of them.
That is why it is also very expensive. I once held a small piece of C-C about 10cmx2cmx2cm in my hand and was told it cost around Rs. 10000!

I could be wrong. Thanks for the correction. :)

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8161
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Postby Indranil » 09 Jun 2020 21:29

csaurabh wrote:
basant wrote:^^^
Called C-C as it combines structural carbon discs with carbon brake pads. There are also carbon-ceramic brakes available.


Not sure if this is has a specific meaning for brakes. But Carbon Carbon is a generic name for a type of composite material which has carbon fibres embedded inside a matrix of graphite ( graphite is also carbon ).
C-C is a super material used for the toughest and hottest parts of aerospace industry (like nose cones ). Very few orgs. in the world have the capability to manufacture it because it is really hard to make. ISRO is one of them.
That is why it is also very expensive. I once held a small piece of C-C about 10cmx2cmx2cm in my hand and was told it cost around Rs. 10000!

Correct. But AFAIK it is not built by ISRO, but Graphite India.

Raveen
BRFite
Posts: 769
Joined: 18 Jun 2008 00:51
Location: 1/2 way between the gutter and the stars
Contact:

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

Postby Raveen » 09 Jun 2020 21:43

basant wrote:
csaurabh wrote:
Not sure if this is has a specific meaning for brakes. But Carbon Carbon is a generic name for a type of composite material which has carbon fibres embedded inside a matrix of graphite ( graphite is also carbon ).
C-C is a super material used for the toughest and hottest parts of aerospace industry (like nose cones ). Very few orgs. in the world have the capability to manufacture it because it is really hard to make. ISRO is one of them.
That is why it is also very expensive. I once held a small piece of C-C about 10cmx2cmx2cm in my hand and was told it cost around Rs. 10000!

I could be wrong. Thanks for the correction. :)


Basant, you are actually correct from the perspective of brakes

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5251
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Kartik » 09 Jun 2020 23:12

Indranil wrote:Parachutes exist. The cover is no longer painted red.

Tejas already uses C-C brakes with life of 300 landings. Next generation brakes with 700 landings in qualifications. Goal is to reach brakes with life of 1000 landings.


Thanks for the update Indranil.

Vamsee
BRFite
Posts: 610
Joined: 16 Mar 2001 12:31

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

Postby Vamsee » 09 Jun 2020 23:59

When will SP-22/18 fly? :((

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3579
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

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

Postby nam » 14 Jun 2020 19:28

Just compared the Mig21 length to that of LCA. The Mig21 is actually around 3 mtrs longer than LCA!

I wonder why did we make it so shorter than Mig21. Looks like IAF specified a "better Mig21" spec and these were met by a 3 mtr shorter LCA! Then they compained about short legs!

Gripen E is actually .5 mts shorter than Mig21!

We are doing 1.5 mtrs shorter than Mig21, for the same spec as Gripen E.

LCA: 13M Gripen C: 14.3M Gripen E: 15.5M MWF: 14.5M Mig21: 16M


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ashok Sarraff and 45 guests