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: 285
Joined: 20 Mar 2020 20:58

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

Postby basant » 19 Jul 2020 19:11

The notion of MMRCA did enormous damage to IAF. IMHO, there is nothing to be gained talking of Plan A/B/C a/c that no one ever thought about. There is a specified role for which fighters are built. In some scheme for US, we can argue that F-22 is Plan A and F-35 as Plan B (for air superiority), and in yet another the other way round (affordable, numerous, more payload and good for both strike and defense), and definitely one can argue that both should be Plan A (latest gen). To me, discussing this idea is like trying to milk a buffalo. ;)
Last edited by basant on 20 Jul 2020 00:29, edited 3 times in total.

basant
BRFite
Posts: 285
Joined: 20 Mar 2020 20:58

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

Postby basant » 19 Jul 2020 21:05

Is it just me, or there is some slight difference for SP-21's gun?

Image

Also, is that a small exhaust at the front end of the tail (facing rear end) or some sensor?

Image

Image

This image is just for beauty :D
Image

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5288
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Kartik » 20 Jul 2020 16:41

Some really good air to air shots of the Tejas trainer. These were originally uploaded by Vishnu Som to Keypubs forum many years ago and I had it saved somewhere. Luckily found them, upsized and enhanced them. That's Sanjay Simha in the backseat, taking images of the Tejas trainer in which Vishnu Som is flying in the backseat.

I had earlier written about how the Tejas trainer truly looks good in the air. On the ground, it looks a little ungainly thanks to the small landing gear, but up in the air, she's a real beauty.

View these images in a new window to see them in full size.

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

MeshaVishwas
BRFite
Posts: 508
Joined: 16 Feb 2019 17:20

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

Postby MeshaVishwas » 20 Jul 2020 18:33

Thank you for the lovely refresher!
The Tejas trainer looks very graceful, always has.

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2923
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

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

Postby abhik » 20 Jul 2020 19:40

FAQ question - Does the trainer carry less fuel (or gimped in any other way) compared to single seat version?

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4687
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

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

Postby Manish_Sharma » 20 Jul 2020 21:08

https://idrw.org/lca-tejass-american-f4 ... serves-it/

LCA-Tejas’s American F404 Engine gets rare praise from Indian Air Force chief and why engine deserves it

Outgoing Air Chief Marshal Birender Singh Dhanoa probably in his last interview to the Indian media as Chief of Indian Air Force had high praise for American engine which powers LCA-Tejas fighter jet making it first instance where General Electric developed F404 turbofan engines got rare praise from the Air chief himself. Dhanoa while speaking at India today conclave praised F404-GE-IN20 engines which power production LCA-Tejas Mk1 fighter jets and will also be powering its upgraded Mk1A variant which IAF will order from HAL soon. Dhanoa said that F404-GE-IN20 engines have excellent fuel efficiency which he has rarely seen among contemporary fighter jets he has flown. Dhanoa who is a Mig-21 Veteran compared MiG-21bis’s R-25 engine with F404-GE-IN20 and said that fuel efficiency you had from F404 at 8000 feet altitude you only get that around 30000 feet altitude when flying a MiG-21.

All fighter jets theoretically when flying at higher altitudes have lower fuel consumption due to lower throttle frictions due to the wider throttle opening as the air is less dense at higher altitudes and this also leads to lower fuel consumption but at low altitudes the fuel consumption is very high and the true airspeed relatively low, due to the high air density . theoretically, fighter jet flying at 8000 feet altitude will burn about double the amount of fuel then jet which is flying at 30000 feet altitude and above. MiG-21bis’s R-25 engine which were designed in the early ’50s is not really a great benchmark to compare it to a modern engine which was designed in early 80s but F-404 has received numerous technical upgrades to keep them in pace with similar engines and the comparison more has to do with two-point defense Interceptor which was designed to replace the former in the airforce fleet.

Mig-21 and LCA-Tejas fighter jets both designed as a point defense Interceptor aircraft are small and nimble in characters due to which they have smaller internal fuel carrying capability. Mig-21 Pilots in Combat Air Patrol (CAP) missions usually took off at high speeds and gain altitudes quickly to intercept incoming threats and also that he can have enough fuel to carry out Intercept and return to the base well under 1 hour of combat range of the aircraft. F404-GE-IN20 engines have performed better than expected in numerous times and even surprised designers of the LCA-Tejas who had factored in lower ferry and combat range. People who have flown LCA-Tejas Mk1 fighter jets coming from Mig-21 and Mirage-2000 flying background in past have called it better than M53-5 P2 turbofan engine which powers Mirage-2000 in terms of operational performance and fuel efficacy. In numerous sorties in far fledged areas of India, while the aircraft was in trials, LCA-Tejas Mk1 was not only able to demonstrate better ferry range then what engineers had expected but also demonstrated that it can safely operate under different weather conditions. LCA due to better Thrust to Weight Ratio ( 1.07 vs Migs 0.7) has a better climb rate, less drag and requires less take off-speed and landing distance. LCA has a balanced performance in all speed regimes due to which it has better fuel efficiency then Mig-21 flying at lower altitudes. GE engineers and HAL/ADA engineers have worked in tandem to get optimum performance from the engine at various speed regimes and altitudes and LCA-Tejas jet has surprised them with better performance than expected.

In the early ’90s when India was scouting for fighter jet engines to power its LCA-Tejas fighter jets, then Russia had offered India’s its Klimov RD-33 turbofan engine which powered IAF’s Mig-29 fleet but poor operational availability record and spares issues insured that using not so reliable RD-33 engine on single-engine fighter configuration like LCA-Tejas was pretty dim from the start . French reportedly had offered India it’s M53-5 P2 turbofan engine which powers its Mirage-2000 aircraft and was leading the race it time french existed LCA-Tejas Program when it was still in advance stages in the early ’90s. Later French was not so forward in offering their engines without their collaboration on the program which made India look towards Great Britain and Turbo-Union RB199 turbofan jet engine used exclusively on Panavia Tornado was considered for a while but it was not designed for single-engine configuration and could have required heavy modifications to make it a safer engine for single-engine fighter jet-like LCA-Tejas.

General Electric F404 engines were initially designed for Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk and McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet both in twin-engine configuration but by 90’s it was also to power Northrop F-20 Tiger-shark which was cancelled but did power early prototypes and later GE later also signed up to provide engines for the SAAB’s Gripen fighter jet program and had carried out necessary safety checks to ensure that it can be used on single-engine fighter jets like Gripen and were actively also scouting for more buyers for the same engine. Warming of the relationships with Washington and New Delhi ensured that Indian Air Force for the first time had given the go-ahead to procure and fly American jet engines for the first time in fighter jets developed by India. General Electric had supplied India, 8 baseline F404 engines in the mid-’90s but Pokhran-II Nuclear tests in 1998 by India ensured that American military sanctions followed soon and supply of spares and services were suspended by GE on orders from US Government . 8 engines supplied by GE to India remained operational and Indian engineers regularly carried out periodic inspections and service of the engines and also carried out engine runs in-ground test-beds to keep them ready in anticipation of the first flight of the LCA-Tejas which happened in 2001. By the time American military sanctions were lifted off India. GE engineers on a visit to India found 4-5 engines still in airworthy conditions and stringent service intervals and proper following of the service manuals by Indian engineers ensured that over 50% of them remain active while one was out of service due to core damage and other two had been cannibalized for spares. General Electric later supplied India with LCA-Tejas specific enhanced F404-GE-IN20 engines to India which had better thrust levels and had additional safety measures for single-engine operations, especially for extreme Indian weather conditions. F404-GE-IN20 engines will not only power 40 Tejas Mk1 fighter jets but will also power 83 Tejas Mk1A. HAL’s SPORT LIFT Trainer variant will also be powered by the same engines and upgraded F-414 engines will be used on upcoming MWF-Mk2, Navy-Mk2 fighter jets and also on early prototypes of 5th generation AMCA fighter jets. Safety Record F404-GE-IN20 engines have ensured that in 18 years of LCA-Tejas flight development trial program not a single aircraft has been lost due to in-flight engine failure.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5288
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Kartik » 21 Jul 2020 11:14

abhik wrote:FAQ question - Does the trainer carry less fuel (or gimped in any other way) compared to single seat version?


Yes it does. The fuel tank behind the pilot is replaced with the cockpit for the back seater. So the internal fuel capacity is lesser, although not sure by exactly how much. The day proper specifications of LCA SPORT or Tejas trainer come out, we'll know. But in every other way, it is similar to the single seater and is very much a combat capable two seater.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8174
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Postby Indranil » 21 Jul 2020 11:36

Actually, the fuel capacity is almost the same. The trainer has more internal volume due to the enlarged hump.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8174
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Postby Indranil » 21 Jul 2020 11:39

Kartik wrote:
Image

The light is playing tricks here. But imagine all Tejases in this dark single tone grey colour. 8)

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5288
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Kartik » 22 Jul 2020 10:51

IR, it'd look good in dark grey or light grey, but single tone grey. Sadly, no one's listening at HAL and IAF.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7754
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

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

Postby nachiket » 23 Jul 2020 00:50

Kartik wrote:IR, it'd look good in dark grey or light grey, but single tone grey. Sadly, no one's listening at HAL and IAF.

The weird part is this two tone color scheme is only found on the Tejas. All the other fighters have the single tone Tipnis grey. Not sure why Tejas is different.

Another question I've never found the answer to is why the M2k's were never repainted in Tipnis grey. Even after the upgrade they have the original paint scheme. Don't get me wrong they look beautiful in the blue camo, but that doesn't answer the question.

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1541
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

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

Postby Gyan » 23 Jul 2020 01:23

Has Trainer LCA got its IOC & FOC ? Is its final drawings released for production?

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4708
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

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

Postby chola » 23 Jul 2020 01:26

Manish_Sharma wrote:https://idrw.org/lca-tejass-american-f404-engine-gets-rare-praise-from-indian-air-force-chief-and-why-engine-deserves-it/

LCA-Tejas’s American F404 Engine gets rare praise from Indian Air Force chief and why engine deserves it
...
Safety Record F404-GE-IN20 engines have ensured that in 18 years of LCA-Tejas flight development trial program not a single aircraft has been lost due to in-flight engine failure.


The F404 is without doubt a great engine but the Tejas has a hand in that too.

Btw, the R-25 of the MiG-21 is a turbojet and the reason why turbofans like the F404 were designed was for exactly fuel efficiency. So not the best comparison.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4442
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

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

Postby Cain Marko » 23 Jul 2020 04:39

chola wrote:
Manish_Sharma wrote:https://idrw.org/lca-tejass-american-f404-engine-gets-rare-praise-from-indian-air-force-chief-and-why-engine-deserves-it/

LCA-Tejas’s American F404 Engine gets rare praise from Indian Air Force chief and why engine deserves it
...
Safety Record F404-GE-IN20 engines have ensured that in 18 years of LCA-Tejas flight development trial program not a single aircraft has been lost due to in-flight engine failure.


The F404 is without doubt a great engine but the Tejas has a hand in that too.

Btw, the R-25 of the MiG-21 is a turbojet and the reason why turbofans like the F404 were designed was for exactly fuel efficiency. So not the best comparison.

The f404 has been in plenty of other birds and has seen it's share of accidents. Tejas' record has little to do with f404 and more to do with the people who made the bird. Jmtp

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7754
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

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

Postby nachiket » 23 Jul 2020 04:58

Cain Marko wrote:
chola wrote:
The F404 is without doubt a great engine but the Tejas has a hand in that too.

Btw, the R-25 of the MiG-21 is a turbojet and the reason why turbofans like the F404 were designed was for exactly fuel efficiency. So not the best comparison.

The f404 has been in plenty of other birds and has seen it's share of accidents. Tejas' record has little to do with f404 and more to do with the people who made the bird. Jmtp

Dhanoa saab's comment was about fuel efficiency not accidents/reliability. Even in terms of reliability the best designed and made bird will have a terrible safety record if the engine is unreliable and prone to failures. Best example of that is the ruggedly built Mig-27 whose unreliable engine became its achilles heel. In that respect, the F404 has served us quite well and I'm eternally thankful that we chose that engine considering what might have happened if there had been a crash or two during the development of the Tejas (particularly mid-late 2000's and early 2010's), even if it had been an engine failure with no responsibility going to ADA/HAL. Simply too many people around with motivation to kill the project using any excuse, especially in those days.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5288
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Kartik » 23 Jul 2020 10:41

nachiket wrote:
Kartik wrote:IR, it'd look good in dark grey or light grey, but single tone grey. Sadly, no one's listening at HAL and IAF.

The weird part is this two tone color scheme is only found on the Tejas. All the other fighters have the single tone Tipnis grey. Not sure why Tejas is different.

Another question I've never found the answer to is why the M2k's were never repainted in Tipnis grey. Even after the upgrade they have the original paint scheme. Don't get me wrong they look beautiful in the blue camo, but that doesn't answer the question.


because this two tone color scheme emanated from HAL. They began painting the prototypes in this color long ago and since then they have not changed anything except for the Naval LCA prototypes being in the Navy's colors. And the IAF has not asked for any change in the color scheme as yet, they don't seem to care. So, while every other fighter has a single Tipnis grey scheme (apart from the Mirage-2000s), the Tejas continues with that seriously out-dated paint scheme.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5288
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Kartik » 23 Jul 2020 14:51

nachiket wrote:
Cain Marko wrote:The f404 has been in plenty of other birds and has seen it's share of accidents. Tejas' record has little to do with f404 and more to do with the people who made the bird. Jmtp

Dhanoa saab's comment was about fuel efficiency not accidents/reliability. Even in terms of reliability the best designed and made bird will have a terrible safety record if the engine is unreliable and prone to failures. Best example of that is the ruggedly built Mig-27 whose unreliable engine became its achilles heel. In that respect, the F404 has served us quite well and I'm eternally thankful that we chose that engine considering what might have happened if there had been a crash or two during the development of the Tejas (particularly mid-late 2000's and early 2010's), even if it had been an engine failure with no responsibility going to ADA/HAL. Simply too many people around with motivation to kill the project using any excuse, especially in those days.


Indeed, the choice of the GE F-404 engine was good from the point of view of the engine's reliability and maintainability. From both those aspects, the F-404 is excellent. After all, the F-404 engine family has flown millions of hours, so no surprises left to be seen hopefully.

I was reading a book on the Lavi and one nugget that was shared there related to engine choice. Initially the Lavi as a light-weight fighter was supposed to be F-404 powered, like the LCA and Gripen. But, the Israeli AF and it's designers at IAI changed the requirements and the F-404 no longer met the T/W ratio that was expected of the Lavi. What happened then is that P&W offered the in-development PW1120 that had max 91.7 kN thrust in AB and 60.3 kN dry thrust in military power. They wanted a T/W ratio of 1.11 in air combat config, which the Israeli AF allowed to be reduced to 1.07. But as the sizing of the airplane began, they found that even the most powerful F-404 variant available to them at that time, at 80.1 kN AB thrust, fell short of their requirements. So 2 other engines were looked at - PW F100 and the PW1120.

The PW F100 was a proven engine that powered F-16s and F-15s. The PW1120 on the other hand was a derivative of the F100, sharing ~60% of it's components but incorporating a new fan design and a simplified afterburner. And importantly, it was tailored for the export market, with fewer parts and improved reliability over the PW F100.

But Pratt & Whitney never found a customer for their new engine and were willing to offer a great deal to the Israelis if they chose the PW1120 instead of the F-404. I was musing about what might have been- if India had decided to go with the PW1120 instead of the F-404. But of course, at the time the Kaveri was already being planned and it was in the F-404 size and thrust class.

If India had chosen to go with the PW1120, the LCA itself could have been up-sized with an attendant increase in thrust, fuel and payload. Eventually the Lavi was abandoned and so was the PW1120 turbofan, not having found any other customers for it. As things panned out, the IAF later on wanted the F-414 to replace the F-404 and so did the Swedes with the Gripen E/F.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4708
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

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

Postby chola » 23 Jul 2020 15:29

Kartik wrote:
The PW F100 was a proven engine that powered F-16s and F-15s. The PW1120 on the other hand was a derivative of the F100, sharing ~60% of it's components but incorporating a new fan design and a simplified afterburner. And importantly, it was tailored for the export market, with fewer parts and improved reliability over the PW F100.

But Pratt & Whitney never found a customer for their new engine and were willing to offer a great deal to the Israelis if they chose the PW1120 instead of the F-404. I was musing about what might have been- if India had decided to go with the PW1120 instead of the F-404. But of course, at the time the Kaveri was already being planned and it was in the F-404 size and thrust class.

If India had chosen to go with the PW1120, the LCA itself could have been up-sized with an attendant increase in thrust, fuel and payload. Eventually the Lavi was abandoned and so was the PW1120 turbofan, not having found any other customers for it. As things panned out, the IAF later on wanted the F-414 to replace the F-404 and so did the Swedes with the Gripen E/F.


Kartik ji, what an interesting post! Now we know what eventually became of the Lavi after it was abandoned by Israel.

It was passed on by the Israelis to Cheen as the J-10.

Which in turn was originally supposed to be powered by the WS-10.

Which was reversed engineered from the CMF-56.

Which was the civilian version of the F101.

Which was in the class of the F100.

Thus, the J-10C (productionized with the WS-10 engine) is the embodiment of the PW1120 Lavi: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EM97AelXUAE ... name=large

If India had gone with the PW1120, we would have had a complementary aircraft to the SU-30 MKI with the same class engine. Just as the J-10 is to the J-11. Both J-10 and J-11 fly with WS-10 as well as AL-31. An Indian development of this class might have been more successful since we would have gain from HAL's manufacturing of the AL-31FP.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5288
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Kartik » 23 Jul 2020 16:58

chola wrote:
Kartik wrote:
The PW F100 was a proven engine that powered F-16s and F-15s. The PW1120 on the other hand was a derivative of the F100, sharing ~60% of it's components but incorporating a new fan design and a simplified afterburner. And importantly, it was tailored for the export market, with fewer parts and improved reliability over the PW F100.

But Pratt & Whitney never found a customer for their new engine and were willing to offer a great deal to the Israelis if they chose the PW1120 instead of the F-404. I was musing about what might have been- if India had decided to go with the PW1120 instead of the F-404. But of course, at the time the Kaveri was already being planned and it was in the F-404 size and thrust class.

If India had chosen to go with the PW1120, the LCA itself could have been up-sized with an attendant increase in thrust, fuel and payload. Eventually the Lavi was abandoned and so was the PW1120 turbofan, not having found any other customers for it. As things panned out, the IAF later on wanted the F-414 to replace the F-404 and so did the Swedes with the Gripen E/F.


Kartik ji, what an interesting post! Now we know what eventually became of the Lavi after it was abandoned by Israel.

It was passed on by the Israelis to Cheen as the J-10.

Which in turn was originally supposed to be powered by the WS-10.

Which was reversed engineered from the CMF-56.

Which was the civilian version of the F101.

Which was in the class of the F100.

Thus, the J-10C (productionized with the WS-10 engine) is the embodiment of the PW1120 Lavi: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EM97AelXUAE ... name=large

If India had gone with the PW1120, we would have had a complementary aircraft to the SU-30 MKI with the same class engine. Just as the J-10 is to the J-11. Both J-10 and J-11 fly with WS-10 as well as AL-31. An Indian development of this class might have been more successful since we would have gain from HAL's manufacturing of the AL-31FP.


It wasn't passed on as it is to the Chinese. That much is for sure, given how optimized the Lavi was and how under-optimized the J-10A was. Also, the Lavi had a large percentage of carbon fiber composites (mostly in the wings and empennage) but the J-10 was nearly all alloy with no composites.

But, when reading the book on the Lavi, there were interesting revelations- for instance, there was a predecessor to the Lavi, with a boxy square intake. This configuration was developed internally at IAI and didn't use US FMS funds as the Lavi did later on.

I personally believe that the older wind tunnel data along with configuration studies related data might have been passed along to the Chinese for a fee. The Israelis were rather short of money even for the development of the Lavi (their economy was under hyper inflation back then) and selling Lavi predecessor data might've been considered ok. But we don't know anything about how good the J-10A's FBW was. One thing's for sure- without external help, the Chinese couldn't have developed it. So some sort of assistance would've been done by the Israelis, once again for a fee.

The J-10 is nowhere near as good as the Lavi was. The Lavi's empty weight to MTOW was very impressive, as was it's design payload, although of course it wasn't fully demonstrated before the program was terminated. the J-10 OTOH has none of those advantages and for a F-16 sized fighter has rather underwhelming payload capability. I suspect that the choice of the AL-31 engine imposed some penalties on the design that the J-10 couldn't compensate for as well as the Lavi did with the PW1120.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4708
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

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

Postby chola » 23 Jul 2020 19:48

Kartik wrote:I personally believe that the older wind tunnel data along with configuration studies related data might have been passed along to the Chinese for a fee. The Israelis were rather short of money even for the development of the Lavi (their economy was under hyper inflation back then) and selling Lavi predecessor data might've been considered ok. But we don't know anything about how good the J-10A's FBW was. One thing's for sure- without external help, the Chinese couldn't have developed it. So some sort of assistance would've been done by the Israelis, once again for a fee.

The J-10 is nowhere near as good as the Lavi was. The Lavi's empty weight to MTOW was very impressive, as was it's design payload, although of course it wasn't fully demonstrated before the program was terminated. the J-10 OTOH has none of those advantages and for a F-16 sized fighter has rather underwhelming payload capability. I suspect that the choice of the AL-31 engine imposed some penalties on the design that the J-10 couldn't compensate for as well as the Lavi did with the PW1120.


Great stuff again, Kartik ji. I had always assumed the Chinese had gotten the Lavi in some form for the J-10. But always wondered how brazen the Israeli were in giving US related tech to Cheen. Maybe selling the earlier data was a way to work around that as you stated.

For the record, the FBW on J-10 was not good. There were multiple crashes on J-10 prototypes and LSPs blamed on FBW/engine unlike the pristine record of Tejas and its FBW. You know, the maybe the F404 was the better choice after all. The AL-31 had its own issues on the MKI and as other had said, a crash would have doomed the project if Tejas was a J-10 class fighter using that engine.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4442
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

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

Postby Cain Marko » 24 Jul 2020 00:13

nachiket wrote:
Cain Marko wrote:The f404 has been in plenty of other birds and has seen it's share of accidents. Tejas' record has little to do with f404 and more to do with the people who made the bird. Jmtp

Dhanoa saab's comment was about fuel efficiency not accidents/reliability. Even in terms of reliability the best designed and made bird will have a terrible safety record if the engine is unreliable and prone to failures. Best example of that is the ruggedly built Mig-27 whose unreliable engine became its achilles heel. In that respect, the F404 has served us quite well and I'm eternally thankful that we chose that engine considering what might have happened if there had been a crash or two during the development of the Tejas (particularly mid-late 2000's and early 2010's), even if it had been an engine failure with no responsibility going to ADA/HAL. Simply too many people around with motivation to kill the project using any excuse, especially in those days.

Apologies, didn't actually read the statement by ACM Dhanoa, just responded to the post. Yes the f404 was the only choice tbh. Even the Rafale used it during tests iirc. Although I'm not entirely sure about the choice of the f414 over the ej200 for the mk2. considering caatsa and such shenanigans from the US

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9322
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Postby Rakesh » 24 Jul 2020 00:46

Cain-ji, CAATSA came much after the selection of the F414 for the Tejas Mk2.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4442
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

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

Postby Cain Marko » 24 Jul 2020 11:28

Rakesh wrote:Cain-ji, CAATSA came much after the selection of the F414 for the Tejas Mk2.

Ji sir. Lekin it's not like ADA didn't have such experiences before. Such things are par for the course with US maal wonlee. Even aam brf Abdul knows that.

Frankly, this might be the one reason we see relatively low orders for the bird... But that's just a suspicion.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9322
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Postby Rakesh » 24 Jul 2020 21:03

https://twitter.com/HarshalPal5/status/ ... 98051?s=20 ---> What are your views on LCA deploying Smart Anti-Airfield Weapon (SAAW)?

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/12848 ... 84064?s=20 ---> Yessss

Image

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5288
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Kartik » 26 Jul 2020 12:53

Tejas Mk1 carrying 2 Derby BVRAAMs and 2 R-73Es. Daggers are getting properly armed now.

Twitter link

Image

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3695
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

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

Postby nam » 26 Jul 2020 16:07

This is the simple point IAF seems to be missing or ignoring. IOC getting upgraded quickly with BVRs. Similarly FOC built in numbers can be upgraded to MK1A, when it is available.

MeshaVishwas
BRFite
Posts: 508
Joined: 16 Feb 2019 17:20

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

Postby MeshaVishwas » 26 Jul 2020 16:19

@Kartik
Looks like a LSP with the "Speed Tape"(IIRC Nilesh@JayS mentioned this).
Also why the control surface for the CCM on the left is Kaala?

Nihat
BRFite
Posts: 1246
Joined: 10 Dec 2008 13:35

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

Postby Nihat » 26 Jul 2020 18:45

Kartik wrote:Tejas Mk1 carrying 2 Derby BVRAAMs and 2 R-73Es. Daggers are getting properly armed now.

Twitter link

Image


The derby and R73e are very short ranged weapons for a modern multi rule aircraft. We need at least the derby er, r77 and astra to be integrated with the LCA to make it combat effective.

I don't see what nature of tactics the aircraft can employ if thrust into air to air combat today.

kvraghav
BRFite
Posts: 907
Joined: 17 Apr 2008 11:47
Location: Some where near the equator

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

Postby kvraghav » 26 Jul 2020 19:55

This after the fact that the only missile with which we got a kill in balakot is using a short ranged r73?

John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2409
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

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

Postby John » 26 Jul 2020 20:34

nam wrote:This is the simple point IAF seems to be missing or ignoring. IOC getting upgraded quickly with BVRs. Similarly FOC built in numbers can be upgraded to MK1A, when it is available.

Why is IAF missing the point? Even if there more orders HAL is struggling to build the orders as it is. We need to look at other private companies that can take on this manufacturing.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8174
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Postby Indranil » 26 Jul 2020 22:56

Huh! Most of the FOC Tejas onwards is built by the private sector.

John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2409
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

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

Postby John » 27 Jul 2020 02:22

Indranil wrote:Huh! Most of the FOC Tejas onwards is built by the private sector.

Rather than simple "collaboration" with private companies on second assembly line you won't see any improvement till responsibility and the execution is handed off to a private company like L&T. Even with mk2 private contribution will only be 30%.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8174
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Postby Indranil » 27 Jul 2020 09:58

Sirjee, "simple collaborations"?

Image

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 1372
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

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

Postby ks_sachin » 27 Jul 2020 11:32

Indranil wrote:Sirjee, "simple collaborations"?

I think John wants another company assembling the aircraft entirely....

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8174
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Postby Indranil » 27 Jul 2020 12:35

And would should HAL agree to that? Is like saying can Lockheed assemble 737s too because Boeing seems to be running behind the clock.

basant
BRFite
Posts: 285
Joined: 20 Mar 2020 20:58

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

Postby basant » 27 Jul 2020 13:41

^^^
Just playing a bit of Devil's advocate, Tejas is ADA's product for Government of India. If 1 company cannot produce enough, it can be allowed to be produced by another. Boeing and Lockheed Martin are private companies and 737 belongs to one of them. Just like Boeing can decide to allow LM to produce 737s for them, if it makes profit.

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 1372
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

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

Postby ks_sachin » 27 Jul 2020 13:49

basant wrote:^^^
Just playing a bit of Devil's advocate, Tejas is ADA's product for Government of India. If 1 company cannot produce enough, it can be allowed to be produced by another. Boeing and Lockheed Martin are private companies and 737 belongs to one of them. Just like Boeing can decide to allow LM to produce 737s for them, if it makes profit.

Question is weather another player with all the skills will still deliver better than HAL.
is not prod rate and robust supply chain a function of the orders?

basant
BRFite
Posts: 285
Joined: 20 Mar 2020 20:58

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

Postby basant » 27 Jul 2020 13:58

^^^
It is orders, agreed. However, what happened to FOC-2/SP-22 that did EGR in March? Other FOCs that were to fly by April? Even in emergency, we can't get almost ready birds into air it seems.

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 1372
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

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

Postby ks_sachin » 27 Jul 2020 15:18

basant wrote:^^^
It is orders, agreed. However, what happened to FOC-2/SP-22 that did EGR in March? Other FOCs that were to fly by April? Even in emergency, we can't get almost ready birds into air it seems.

Sirjee,

This is not my realm of knowledge so I would not venture an opinion.

Are we absolutely sure that hat HAL is to blame??

Perhaps IR or JS or K could educate us.

Kind Regards

S

kvraghav
BRFite
Posts: 907
Joined: 17 Apr 2008 11:47
Location: Some where near the equator

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

Postby kvraghav » 27 Jul 2020 15:21

basant wrote:^^^
It is orders, agreed. However, what happened to FOC-2/SP-22 that did EGR in March? Other FOCs that were to fly by April? Even in emergency, we can't get almost ready birds into air it seems.

The indian armed forces works on a no Cost-No commitment basis. Good luck with finding a new private manufacturer building them planes. The share holders will literally haul them on coal if they agree to such tenders.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Kakarat, Khalsa, Nishant Kumar Jha, ravikr and 44 guests