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: 9566
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Postby Rakesh » 05 Oct 2020 20:08

LakshmanPST wrote:I guess it is SP18 only...
I remember reading somewhere that HAL has not changed their internal numbering...

Thank you. I have updated page 1

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9566
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Postby Rakesh » 05 Oct 2020 20:09

basant wrote:
sankum wrote:Harsh Vardhan Thakur
@hvtiaf
·
Sep 28
Tejas LIFT (earlier SPORT) is being pursued as a full project.

Why!? :?:
I don't think we are getting our priorities right with limited resources and limited time to standing up to two adversaries.

One of the key pillars to standing up to two adversaries is having your own MIC.

This is a necessity, not a desirable. Rather than waste money on MMRCA, invest in the Tejas program. The money pot is finite.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9566
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Postby Rakesh » 05 Oct 2020 21:29

This one is for all you folks on BRF who wept (why?) when five Rafales landed in India.

https://twitter.com/livefist/status/131 ... 35809?s=20 ---> The IAF's focus will be on the 83 LCA Mk.1A contract. Will be signed this calendar year, says IAF chief ACM RKS Bhadauria.

Image

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9566
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Postby Rakesh » 05 Oct 2020 21:35

https://twitter.com/strategic_front/sta ... 27104?s=20 ---> The Tejas project the in 1990s forced India to take up ab-initio manufacturing of aviation grade composites. Tata Advanced Materials Ltd took the role of production partner. NAL was awarded for it multiple times, even ISRO started ordering autoclaves from NAL to make composites.

https://twitter.com/sudiptaranjan98/sta ... 86274?s=20 ---> Not just composites, forged components for landing gear, actuators, ceramic brakes and so on. This project along with ALH Dhruv pushed India in aviation manufacturing. Now need of hour is to churn these in numbers.

Image

Image

Image

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

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

Postby basant » 05 Oct 2020 22:09

Rakesh wrote:
basant wrote:Why!? :?:
I don't think we are getting our priorities right with limited resources and limited time to standing up to two adversaries.

One of the key pillars to standing up to two adversaries is having your own MIC.

This is a necessity, not a desirable. Rather than waste money on MMRCA, invest in the Tejas program. The money pot is finite.

Admiral, your view is unclear to me but let me explain mine. Tejas Mk1/Mk1A (and may be Mk2) are quite good and we should have them in numbers. More projects make demands on meagre resources and we have to go a long way to catch up with the Chinese as on today who already fielded 5th gen (with US claiming flying 6th gen already); however underwhelming J-20 is vis-a-vis F-35/F-22. By the time we get to AMCA and produce in some strength, they would have moved on much further. Unlike other countries, we don't make money selling jets to fund at least a part of R&D. For jets, if we start now, we may catch up after a decade and a half, at best. So to catch up with Chinese after 15 years, we have to begin today, and I am not sure that is on the horizon. AMCA is necessity and inevitable. AMCA will definitely contribute in a big way. But some sort of start for a new project is a necessity, even if it is some basic R&D. And we are not looking beyond AMCA with its limitations, and that worries me.

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

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

Postby Cain Marko » 06 Oct 2020 11:09

Rakesh wrote:One of the key pillars to standing up to two adversaries is having your own MIC.This is a necessity, not a desirable. Rather than waste money on MMRCA, invest in the Tejas program. The money pot is finite.

Yes. Call the TEDBF MMRCA -> AMCA mk1, scrap TEjas Mk2. If we don't have money what is the point of running 3 different fighter jet programs at once? None of which are past the drawing board yet? Instead place confirmed orders for more than 200 additional TEjas mk1A. Lets see how that little dose affects local industry.

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

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

Postby tsarkar » 06 Oct 2020 12:16

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

Twitter link

@DynamaticTech
gets First Article-ICY Jig clearance from
@HALHQBLR
for #Tejas #LCA Front Fuselage Assembly. This is a milestone in our Nation’s Aerospace journey and #MakeInIndia
@DefProdnIndia

@IAF_MCC
#AtmaNirbharBharat


Video link


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

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

Picklu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2097
Joined: 25 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Picklu » 06 Oct 2020 13:42

What is ICY?

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

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

Postby tsarkar » 06 Oct 2020 14:10

Picklu wrote:What is ICY?

https://www.onmanorama.com/news/nation/ ... light.html
ICY (inter-changeability) of pipes and panels

Aircraft parts if not built to ICY standards, then every time it needs a pipe or panel, a standalone one will need to be manufactured. It will cause serious maintenance headache.

The video showing first forward fuselage built to ICY standards indicates aircraft built and inducted before are not to ICY standards. They will either require stand alone maintenance or need retrofit with ICY standard parts at a later date.

Achieving ICY was a gradual process

https://english.mathrubhumi.com/news/in ... -1.1373414
The SP-3 comes with more value additions with around 340 pipelines and 50 panels now achieving ICY or interchangeability standards. (ICY ensures quick replacement of a component without any design changes affecting operational performance.) “In the next aircraft, around 100 panels and 700-plus pipelines will be in the ICY standards,” says an official


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


So to summarize from these news reports -
SP3 - 50 Panels and 340 pipelines are achieving ICY
SP4 - Around 100 Panels and 700+ pipelines are achieving ICY
by SP7 - All 147 panels and for 830 pipelines out of 934 pipelines are achieving ICY
SPXX onwards - forward fuselage achieving ICY (October 2020)

This is the reason why the first two squadrons are based at Sulur, Coimbatore, close to HAL Bangalore, so that non-unique parts can be custom built at HAL Bangalore for repairs/maintenance.

Those doing rona dhona on large orders being not placed need to track when ICY is completely achieved so that proper mass production can commence and aircraft maintenance can be standardized at IAF bases.

BTW this is normal growth profile for an aircraft, just like a baby takes 18 years to become a voting adult.

Just like a human doesnt get a job unless he reaches a certain age and maturity.

Reason I am highlighting this is to counter the rona dhona and fake conspiracy theories of IAF not ordering/inducting Tejas.

@Rakesh - Can the ICY achievements of each SP aircraft be posted against it in the first page of this thread?

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

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

Postby basant » 06 Oct 2020 16:00

Check this link for the video of SP-22 first flight.
Last edited by basant on 06 Oct 2020 18:56, edited 1 time in total.

manjgu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2471
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

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

Postby manjgu » 06 Oct 2020 16:43

tsarkar wrote:....

The reason for non standard parts is evolving design??
Last edited by Rakesh on 06 Oct 2020 22:56, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Do not quote an entire post to put in a one liner

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

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

Postby basant » 06 Oct 2020 17:23

I am not from engineering background and so I am surprised. I thought by the time of FSED most of elements would have got ICY details finalised and adhered to. I can't understand how even panels took so much time for interchangeability clearance. These perhaps have nothing to do with evolving design. Can any of the gurus/engineers explain this please?

Picklu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2097
Joined: 25 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Picklu » 06 Oct 2020 22:27

Thanks tsarkar-da.

Does "forward fuselage achieving ICY" means the entire forward fuselage of one aircraft can be replaced by a brand new one?

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9566
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 2020 22:57

tsarkar wrote:@Rakesh - Can the ICY achievements of each SP aircraft be posted against it in the first page of this thread?

By all means. Please provide the info and I will add it in. More than happy to promote the Tejas.

Tanaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3293
Joined: 21 Jun 2000 11:31

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

Postby Tanaji » 07 Oct 2020 04:46

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


The other aspect is even if one assumes that HAL is designing planes and by some feat of engineering and manufacturing each part of the plane uniquely so that it differs from the same part on another plane (a stunning accomplishment), is it that much of an issue? Yes, homogenity of parts is desirable. But in these days of performance based contracts, vendors ensure high availability by stock piling parts at forward depots. In this case, it would be a multitiude of parts, but the availability would be there. Not ideal, but it would not be a show stopper. At least not for an airforce that is starved for platforms and is facing dwindling squadron numbers.

Lastly, if this is so important that prevents the IAF from placing big orders, is this in the GSQR? This is the first time we are hearing that the issue is so important that orders cannot be placed. The requirements placed on vendor would be that the platform be available for x hours in a year. One wonders if the same requirements were placed on Russian aircraft before they were ordered.

Is there a source or article which clearly states that IAF is not placing orders because of this ICY issue?

Any engineering firm worth its salt, will first ensure that major design is frozen before stating the product is ready for serial production. HAL adopted the policy of LSP followed by SP to ensure precisely this. Once they declare SP, they know the tolerances for each part of the product, espeically given some of them have long lead times and they will ensure that they know how to produce this in a repeated manner.

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

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

Postby pandyan » 07 Oct 2020 07:05

well said saar. HAL contract includes several years of parts supply and maintenance.

This article talks about manufacturing evolution in the Tejas line. (2019-02 article by IR and NR). Even though article is about MK2 - it gives an idea of direction in which HAL and ADA are moving.
http://delhidefencereview.com/2019/02/2 ... t-fighter/
On the manufacturing side, ADA and HAL are working on bringing next generation processes and technologies in the manufacturing of the MWF. Currently, the entire LCA Mk1 airframe structure is first assembled and then all LRUs, electric looms, piping and so on are fitted in an equipping stage. This is a serial process which takes up a significant amount of time. Instead, for MWF, ADA is working on a modular concept in which electric looms, piping, and connectors are terminated at sub-assembly interfaces with appropriate interconnectors [18]. All the major sub-assemblies namely the three fuselage sections, wings, and the fin are also being designed with this modular approach in mind. Four Tier-1 suppliers have already been identified to take up these high-level sub-assemblies. These high level sub-assemblies are further subdivided into modular sub-sub-assemblies and so on. These, in turn which will be outsourced to Tier-2/3 suppliers. The assembly will take place using a ‘jig-less’ assembly process [3]. In this approach, the jigs are modular by design and have more versatility to adapt to any changes in the build standard of the aircraft. Such jigs can also be repurposed for a completely different assembly process in the future when required. Since the jig-less assembly approach does away with the conventional locating function, more automated operations such as robotic holes drilling are expected to be introduced in the assembly process. This approach could enable the Tier-1 suppliers to supply fully equipped sub-assembly modules to HAL. HAL can then simply connect these sub-assemblies using the interconnectors to quickly arrive at the final product, significantly reducing the final assembly time. With all these changes, HAL is confident of producing MWF at the rate of 24 aircraft per year from the currently existing two assembly lines

JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2765
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

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

Postby JTull » 07 Oct 2020 16:05

Why wait for MWF? Nothing is stopping HAL from introducing these jig-less assembly methods for Mk1a.

Bharadwaj
BRFite
Posts: 383
Joined: 09 Oct 2006 11:09

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

Postby Bharadwaj » 08 Oct 2020 14:08

Interview with IAF Chief
https://www.onmanorama.com/news/nation/ ... -iaf-.html

Deal for MK1a likely to be closed by calendar year.

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

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

Postby basant » 08 Oct 2020 14:14

JTull wrote:Why wait for MWF? Nothing is stopping HAL from introducing these jig-less assembly methods for Mk1a.

MTR (Money, Time and Red-tape), I guess. ;)

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5341
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Kartik » 08 Oct 2020 18:10

Pics from today's display flight

link

Image
Image
Image

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5341
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Kartik » 08 Oct 2020 18:12

And this one from Angad Singh. The first time I've seen flares from a Tejas during a display.

Image

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5341
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Kartik » 08 Oct 2020 18:14

More..

link

Image
Image

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9566
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Postby Rakesh » 08 Oct 2020 21:17

basant wrote:Admiral, your view is unclear to me but let me explain mine. Tejas Mk1/Mk1A (and may be Mk2) are quite good and we should have them in numbers. More projects make demands on meagre resources and we have to go a long way to catch up with the Chinese as on today who already fielded 5th gen (with US claiming flying 6th gen already); however underwhelming J-20 is vis-a-vis F-35/F-22. By the time we get to AMCA and produce in some strength, they would have moved on much further. Unlike other countries, we don't make money selling jets to fund at least a part of R&D. For jets, if we start now, we may catch up after a decade and a half, at best. So to catch up with Chinese after 15 years, we have to begin today, and I am not sure that is on the horizon. AMCA is necessity and inevitable. AMCA will definitely contribute in a big way. But some sort of start for a new project is a necessity, even if it is some basic R&D. And we are not looking beyond AMCA with its limitations, and that worries me.

Let me put some clarity to what I have said and apologies if I was not clear in my earlier post.

SPORT is not a new project like the initial Tejas TD platforms were. The Mk1 variant has gone far ahead from TD-1 that flew on 04 Jan 2001. Flight characteristics, weapons load, mission profile, etc are all verified and proven over nearly two decades of flying. Today there is very little, if any, significance to prove in the Mk1. Therefore SPORT takes that "proven" Mk1 platform and optimizes it for the supersonic training role. This is easily doable for HAL with the knowledge they have gained on the Mk1 presently. It is that knowledge and confidence - that the Mk1 has provided - that gives HAL the ability to develop the Mk1A, a far superior platform to the Mk1. Equally, it is that same that knowledge and confidence that gives ADA the ability to design the Mk2 MWF, the TEDBF, the ORCA and even the AMCA.

With regards to the J-20, the previous Air Chief (Dhanoa Sir) has said that the J-20 is not a 5th generation fighter and has given his reasons. Other Air Marshals (Nambiar Sir for one) has indicated that while the J-20 does exhibit some VLO head-on, she is not a 5th generation fighter. The J-20 is still very much a work in progress. As I have stated in the past, just slapping on a few sharp angles on a platform does not make a plane a true 5th generation aircraft. The IAF is well aware of this fact and is inducting a 4th generation platform (i.e. Rafale) and is conducting a contest (MRFA) in which all participants are also 4th generation. The IAF knows what the J-20 is capable of and what she is not capable of. Even the contestants (especially the Western participants) in MMRCA are confident that their platform is capable of prevailing over the J-20. The proof lies in the pudding.

In the Indian model, the money invested in R&D is best recouped by developing multiple & improved variants of one platform which is bought by the local customer (i.e. IAF) in large numbers, so a "potential" phoren customer can see the value in the product. We always complain that India is the guinea pig for many of Russia's military hardware. Why would the same not apply for the Tejas, if the local customer does not support it in large numbers (multiple variants)? So as below....

Tejas TD ---> Tejas PV ---> Tejas LSP ---> Tejas SP (Mk1) ---> Tejas Mk1A ---> Tejas SPORT ---> LCA TejEx.

The above development gives birth to Tejas Mk2 MWF ---> TEDBF/ORCA ---> etc, etc, etc.

And the lessons learned from above gives impetus to AMCA. But one is only fooling himself/herself, if they believe that HAL/ADA can move from Tejas Mk1 to AMCA. However, that is another topic.

Now the above is just the "design, development & flight test" phase. There is another very crucial phase and that is production. The greater the production number of the platforms listed above, the greater the lessons of manufacturing capability that is learned along the way. And that is valuable, even more than doing screwdrivergiri of phoren platforms. Could HAL produce 24 Tejas (in multiple lines obviously) on 04 Jan 2001, when TD-1 flew? It took close to two decades to master that and HAL has still to achieve that number. But take a look at page 1 of this thread and see the year-over-year production figures. It has dipped in 2019 and 2020 over extenuating factors, but otherwise the graph is pointed upwards.

In production capacity, the Chinese have a clear edge. They churn out platforms like pancakes, with each production block, having an improvement over the previous one. Even in the phoren platforms they induct, it is a smaller number over the xerox copy models they produce afterwards. Some examples;

* 76 Su-27 variants were bought by the PLAAF. The xerox-copy of the Su-27 is the J-11 and there are 346 examples in service with the PLAAF.
* 72 Su-30 variants were bought by the PLAAF. The xerox-copy of the Su-30 is the J-16 and there are 122 examples in service with the PLAAF.
* 1 Su-33 was acquired from Ukraine and reversed engineered as the J-15. More than 50 examples of the J-15 serve with the PLAN.
* 20 Su-35 were bought by the PLAAF. A xerox-copy variant will be out fairly soon. That xerox train is never late and will be J-XX.
* While Israel never sold any Lavi prototypes to the PLAAF, there are around 425 xerox-copied J-10s in service with the PLAAF.

Rather than waste money on 114 MRFA (which is why I said the money pot is finite), it is better to invest it within the country. Even if additional Tejas Mk1/Mk1As are not needed by the IAF, at least invest "MRFA money" in the production lines to improve production capacity. And if Tejas production lines do not need the investment, then invest the money into other production lines i.e. HJT-36, HTT-40, LUH, LCH, etc.

For me basant, the worry lies *NOT* in investing in a new *DESI* platform (which the Tejas SPORT is not), but in production capacity. So like the Chinese...we need to churn out platforms like pancakes, but unlike the Chinese....with rigorous quality control. For me, the worry lies in the 114 MRFA program. Because the money pot is finite and now even more so because of COVID. Money invested in one program will result in the starvation of another program. So starve the right program (MRFA) and feed the program that needs to succeed i.e. Tejas.

I do get the argument, that fighters are needed for the IAF. But MRFA is not the solution for that. And time is not something the IAF has on its side. The answer for the IAF to build up her squadron strength, lies in the Tejas. Phoren fighters, on the other hand, should be silver bullets to conduct very mission specific roles. Once AMCA comes on board, then even the phoren platforms will not be needed. True strength lies only in having your own robust MIC, which Tejas will provide.

Apologies for my long rant, but moral of my story is a production run of a minimum of 40 Tejas SPORT will be a welcome addition to the Indian Air Force and to the Indian Aviation Industry as a whole.

darshan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2945
Joined: 28 Jan 2008 04:16

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

Postby darshan » 08 Oct 2020 21:56

I don't think that it's a rant. How else one would build and grow? Anyone involved with weapon design and building would be in agreement. There's no shortcut (even if you're handed over blueprints). One has to keep growing various ecosystems. The training of workforce has to keep going along with the knowledge transfer. With so many educated people graduating every year, it will be treasonous to not use a documented platform like Tejas to create pool of talent to be used on the other major efforts. This is the pool that various next generation platforms will leverage in 10+ years.

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

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

Postby basant » 09 Oct 2020 10:45

Rakesh wrote:Let me put some clarity to what I have said and apologies if I was not clear in my earlier post.
...
Apologies for my long rant, but moral of my story is a production run of a minimum of 40 Tejas SPORT will be a welcome addition to the Indian Air Force and to the Indian Aviation Industry as a whole.

Admiral, please! It was no rant and I (almost) agree with all of what you say. I am perfectly okay with Mk1, Mk1A and Mk2/MWF in numbers and will be okay if they replace MMRCA/MRFA/whatever. If GoI pumps enough money towards this, we are in complete agreement. My take differs only when GoI is not supporting MII enough and resources are scarce. J-20 is a kind of unknown jet and we do not know anything of its next block -- estimates are educated but they are just estimates. I will take such statements sans analysis with a pinch of salt (as we should) -- they are on the same turf as 'India can take on 2-front war' while we go running for emergency purchases, including rifles, when it seems possible!

As on date, apart from statements on J-20 by IAF top brass, the only (even if very limited) analysis done so far by an IAF officer that I am aware of on J-20 vs Rafale is by Sqn Ldr Vijainder Thakur. He does not give a big advantage to Rafale over J-20. And J-20 is still an evolving program and we have to go through lot of red-tape to improvise Rafale and it amy not be in near future. Under such circumstances, not having a program on 6th gen. and still being committed to variants on 4th gen while 5th gen is in works (that might take 15 years to enter service), is terrible! It is absolutely fine, if funds are available for futuristic programmes but there was not talk on it. For the first time, just a couple of days back in fact, IAF chief talked of sixth generation technologies so I am happy. Clearly, ADA and HAL are different but I believe their funding demands a piece from the same pie. To give some analogy, the repeated failures of ASLV did not deter ISRO to come up with a spectacular success in PSLV which did not give a successor with same reliability (GSLV). It worked on these programmes simultaneously, feeding experience as it progressed.

To summarize my views, Tejas Mk1/As in large numbers should be produced. If adequate funds are available, developing newer versions is a good idea. If not, we should not axe development works on futuristic technologies for delta increments.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9566
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Postby Rakesh » 10 Oct 2020 06:25

basant wrote:Admiral, please! It was no rant and I (almost) agree with all of what you say. I am perfectly okay with Mk1, Mk1A and Mk2/MWF in numbers and will be okay if they replace MMRCA/MRFA/whatever. If GoI pumps enough money towards this, we are in complete agreement. My take differs only when GoI is not supporting MII enough and resources are scarce. J-20 is a kind of unknown jet and we do not know anything of its next block -- estimates are educated but they are just estimates. I will take such statements sans analysis with a pinch of salt (as we should) -- they are on the same turf as 'India can take on 2-front war' while we go running for emergency purchases, including rifles, when it seems possible!

MII for Defence is a very murky lake to navigate. It is a lake filled with blood thirsty sharks that will eat you and your family for lunch and spit you out right after. Kudos to the private players in India who take this leap, because it is fraught with great danger. The import lobbies will literally be baying for your blood, once you enter. Defence deals have humbled the mighty and have brought down ruling governments in India. So while the Govt appears not to be supporting MII, the govt has to ensure every I is dotted and every T is crossed. Your own bureaucrats will stab you in the back or your own ministers may do it. A number in North Block and South Block are pushing agendas which may not necessarily be in line with the vision of the govt of the day. In India, over defence matters, a simple comment in a file is enough to kill a deal. I am sure you remember the IAS Babu who wrote a comment on the Rafale file, which later turned out to be a Babu who had no business even commenting on the deal. The Rafale deal was not even under his purview, but yet he wrote his opinion! And you are well aware of the fallout that happened after that.

This present Govt has a much better track record of MII than all previous govts and that includes BJP and Congress. But the mindset of import will take decades to change. For the past 75+ years, India has been importing platforms. No govt can turn that switch off in an instant, no matter how motivated or eager they are. Changes are happening, but in drip mode. Adopting a "flood mode" concept will result in catastrophic failure, as India's real enemies are within the country. A lot of Desh Drohis are there to ruin it. That drip will take time to turn into a trickle and then into full on "Atmanirbhar Bharat" mode. Frustrating as it is for jingos like ourselves, it is a reality that we have to accept. Desh Drohis are like cockroaches. You cut off the head and it still lives.

Take a look at the artillery program. See the success there compared to the malaise the Artillery Corps suffered post Bofors in the 80s. BR has been around since 1997. In 2020, the artillery program is going leaps and bounds. For many on BRF, it was an agonizing 23 years to watch the Artillery Corps go through one hoop after another to acquire a decent howitzer only to fail every time. Now the reverse is true. There is a buffet of local howitzers to choose from! Yes there are hiccups along the way (like the barrel burst on ATAGS), but those are issues that will be resolved. The artillery wheel is moving full steam ahead. As they say in the Armoured Corps - Bash on Regardless! There is no stopping that wheel now.

Take a look at the missile program. Over the years, KaranM has written multiple posts of various missile programs, with nearly all being successful. The missile wheel is also moving full steam ahead. Did anyone in their wildest imaginations ever conceive that when the Integrated Guided Missile Development Program (IGMDP) was launched in the early 1980s, India would test fire a 650 km SMART torpedo in 2020 or conduct an ASAT test in 2019? Even Kalam Sir would not have imagined this day, but I am sure he is smiling from heaven.

Look at the knowledge Team Tejas has gained with nearly 20 years of flying the Tejas. That knowledge can only be learned and not bought with doing screwdrivergiri on Rafale or any other plane, no matter how much money you throw at an OEM. What HAL has learned in 20 years of flying Tejas, far exceeds what HAL learned in doing screwdriverigiri since independence. In the 90s, when I had no grey hair, I first heard of Tejas. If you told me back then, from an initial prototype (which did not even fly in the 90s), India would be designing & developing multiple Tejas platforms...I would have laughed you out of the room.

Look at the knowledge Team Dhruv has gained with the Advanced Light Helicopter. From a single prototype that flew on 20 August 1992, there are more than 300 variants in service in military and civilian roles today. The Dhruv spawned the Light Utility Helicopter, the Light Combat Helicopter, the HAL Rudra and now a Medium Lift Helicopter is under development. Would any of these programs exist, if Dhruv did not exist?

In 1997, when BR started, how many private defense players were there? Now fast forward to 2020 and see the number of them cropping up in various defence sectors. The stupendous success of Tonbo Imaging (TI) comes to mind. TI may seem small and miniscule compared to high value programs, but nevertheless very important. Bharat Forge is another excellent example. The "Atmanirbhar Bharat" bug has caught even companies in India that have no experience in defence, but yet want to take the leap into defence because the possibilities are endless.

Yet despite all this success, even in 2020, there is strong resistance over local maal. With small arms, imports are preferred over OFB's maal. But, IMVHO, that is OFB's fault alone. That is another story though. But promising small arms private players are coming on board, but it will take time to build that confidence. Same resistance is there with the Arjun. The Arjun saga is a sad one, but it is what it is. But that too will be overcome, but it takes time. In that timeframe, the Arjun will also undergo changes.

To change the mindset from "buy imported maal" to "invest in local maal", you are looking at a generational change. But the investments made now, will pay off in future generations. You and I may not be around to witness it, but future generations will enjoy it and live it. That is the idea, the dream and the hope. I know it sounds fairy tale, but that is how it works. And you have to stick to it, despite the opposition from the cockroaches.

J-20 is an unknown jet to the aam admi in India, but not to the IAF. They are well aware of what the J-20 is capable of. Will explain in response to your statement below.

basant wrote:As on date, apart from statements on J-20 by IAF top brass, the only (even if very limited) analysis done so far by an IAF officer that I am aware of on J-20 vs Rafale is by Sqn Ldr Vijainder Thakur. He does not give a big advantage to Rafale over J-20. And J-20 is still an evolving program and we have to go through lot of red-tape to improvise Rafale and it amy not be in near future. Under such circumstances, not having a program on 6th gen. and still being committed to variants on 4th gen while 5th gen is in works (that might take 15 years to enter service), is terrible! It is absolutely fine, if funds are available for futuristic programmes but there was not talk on it. For the first time, just a couple of days back in fact, IAF chief talked of sixth generation technologies so I am happy. Clearly, ADA and HAL are different but I believe their funding demands a piece from the same pie. To give some analogy, the repeated failures of ASLV did not deter ISRO to come up with a spectacular success in PSLV which did not give a successor with same reliability (GSLV). It worked on these programmes simultaneously, feeding experience as it progressed.

I respect Sqn Ldr Thakur's service to the nation, but his analysis on the J-20 is flawed. And that is because his analysis is based on open source info. He obviously does not have access to the information that Air HQ and Military Intelligence has. And why would he? He left the IAF in 1994.

Any fifth generation fighter has to be compared to the baseline fifth generation fighter, of which there are only two in existence in the world i.e. the F-22 and the F-35. America has invested not years, but decades in VLO technology and billions, not millions, of dollars in the venture. A fifth generation fighter is not just about sharp angles, but is also about the engine, the sensors, the radar...the list is a long one. What China has attempted to do, is take what is publicly available, then cyber hack what is humanly possible and then put an aircraft out on the tarmac and call her a fifth generation bird. I am sorry, but that does not pass the smell test. Ask any of the Western OEMs - in the MRFA contest - a simple question. Is their bird capable of prevailing over the J-20, in her current form? And the answer will be an emphatic yes. And that is not even marketing talk, that is just the reality. In her current form, the J-20 is anything but a fifth generation fighter. That is the plain and simple truth.

I am not making light of the J-20, but it is detrimental to India's war planning to over estimate the adversary's military capability. Surely the J-20 has the ability to become a fifth generation fighter, but China is looking at a long lead time to catch up with the F-22 or the F-35. And the plane has to undergo not just a radical form factor change, but also an intensive internal change as well. That requires significant investment in R&D (which the Chinese will do), but the learning will take time. No one can defeat the laws of science and R&D. No one.

basant wrote:To summarize my views, Tejas Mk1/As in large numbers should be produced. If adequate funds are available, developing newer versions is a good idea. If not, we should not axe development works on futuristic technologies for delta increments.

Tejas SPORT (or any Tejas variant) will not rob funds from AMCA development or any sixth generation program that the Air Chief talked about. You can be confident about that. No worries there.

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

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

Postby suryag » 10 Oct 2020 07:02

Rakesh garu if you had told me in the 90s that we can develop missiles(A2g, A2A, ARM, SMART, ABM, ASAT etc), aircrafts, artillery guns, nuke subs, ATGMs, Radars, Fighters, helicofters etc I would have been reminded of Mungeri Lal Key Haseen sapney serial. I recollect very vividly seeing APJ garu's statements and full page news spreads on LCA and was wondering when this would all be true. IMO, HAL is actually a very decent production and design agency but it was stifled. The GoI's(starting 2014) change in attitude has infused great spirit in HAL that they came up with MK1A, LCH, LUH, HTT proposal and funded it themselves. Again, it just takes one signature with one reynolds pen by some Jt.Secy in Delhi to scuttle these but that hasnt happened and all credit to this GoI. The last 6 years we have transformed so many Protos to Production and i believe HAL has come of age as proto to production is the most difficult part to be accomplished in a design cycle. The ability of the arms lobby to scuttle things will diminish rapidly once the defence corridor is operationalized, then it will be one politician over the other asking more of the arms to be bought even if there is no utility to keep local jobs and the local economy humming(ala US)

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

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

Postby basant » 11 Oct 2020 17:48

^^^
+100 to Admiral's and suryag's opinion. Under PV, India learnt to get out of the way of the business and India was never the same again. However, DRDO actually fought with the system despite so many pressure points being used to stall or mothball. This would not have been possible but for the great number of scientists, servicemen and good number of bureaucrats chipping-in and toiling for years. And definitely the institution CAG and PAC whose reports have thrown more light than what the vested interests would have let out. Hope the juggernaut of Desi R&D continues.

asbchakri
BRFite
Posts: 274
Joined: 14 Sep 2007 11:20
Location: Chennai
Contact:

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

Postby asbchakri » 11 Oct 2020 19:54

I only wish the we had the same success in the Engine technology development. Do we have any private players entering or already working in regards to that.

Raveen
BRFite
Posts: 817
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 » 12 Oct 2020 02:22

basant wrote:^^^
+100 to Admiral's and suryag's opinion. Under PV, India learnt to get out of the way of the business and India was never the same again. However, DRDO actually fought with the system despite so many pressure points being used to stall or mothball. This would not have been possible but for the great number of scientists, servicemen and good number of bureaucrats chipping-in and toiling for years. And definitely the institution CAG and PAC whose reports have thrown more light than what the vested interests would have let out. Hope the juggernaut of Desi R&D continues.

Halla over the Farm Bill proves that India still hasn't fully overcome its desire to get in the way of business, retrospective tax anyone?

D.Mahesh
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 37
Joined: 02 Oct 2016 02:57

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

Postby D.Mahesh » 12 Oct 2020 08:41

Rakesh wrote:
basant wrote:Admiral, please!....


Missing in all this 5G 6G Haan-Ji talk is is any discussion of doctrine, strategy tactics etc

100% true that Massah has spent millions of manhours to get here. Russia, if nothing, has spent incredible amount of time thinking thru the VLO business in actual battle scenarios. They have the smarts to model stuff - making it is another matter.

PRC can produce stuff on a very large scale. What can they produce?

Russ has some v.well informed questions on abilities of VLO given its own resources.

Roop
BRFite
Posts: 378
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby Roop » 13 Oct 2020 13:56

Prem Kumar wrote:... Our too-cautious & must-never-fail approach was one of the reasons why the Tejas took as long as it did. ...


This is true, but I will here cite the old comic strip Pogo: "We have met the enemy and he is us".

Let us remember that the "too cautious and must never fail" approach has a basic reason for being -- the panicky shivering-dhoti nature of the Indian polity (outside of the core working groups of front-line military warriors and scientists/engineers involved in weapons programs).

I am sure that the scared/nervous/risk-averse neta-babu-mantri complex (NBMC) would have immediately cancelled the LCA program and terminated all funding if there had been a single crash during the development program. God knows, maybe the general Indian janta would have supported such a cancellation. We are, after all, a panicky shivering-dhoti nation at heart, hence India's international reputation for being a "soft state".

While this attitude may not have been spelled out in advance by the govt, it would have been obvious to the authorities in DRDO /ADA / whatever that they just could not afford the risk of a crash during the development cycle. Hence the ultra-cautious attitude.

I think things are probably different now. With the proven success of Tejas under their belt (a truly excellent safety record), the NBMC would probably be calmer and more forgiving of a failure in the next program, if (God forbid) it occurs. After all, I doubt that there has been any major fighter development program in the world that has proceeded without an accident/crash of some kind (assuming they proceed faster than the Tejas rate of progress).

Anyway, I will stop now on this topic in this thread, or else I would risk thread hijacking.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9566
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Postby Rakesh » 13 Oct 2020 21:13

Roop wrote:Anyway, I will stop now on this topic in this thread, or else I would risk thread hijacking.

Indeed :)

I have moved your post to this thread.

Vamsee
BRFite
Posts: 643
Joined: 16 Mar 2001 12:31

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

Postby Vamsee » 13 Oct 2020 21:38


naird
BRFite
Posts: 281
Joined: 04 Jun 2009 19:41

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

Postby naird » 13 Oct 2020 22:48

Vamsee wrote:Link

:eek: :eek: :eek:


Wait ! What !!!! - This is crazy video . Epic angle and climb is super awesome.

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

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

Postby suryag » 13 Oct 2020 23:41

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

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

kvraghav
BRFite
Posts: 935
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 » 13 Oct 2020 23:53

naird wrote:
Vamsee wrote:Link

:eek: :eek: :eek:


Wait ! What !!!! - This is crazy video . Epic angle and climb is super awesome.

What was there in this vedio? We only found a Rafael and m2k

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54780
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby ramana » 14 Oct 2020 00:14

JTull wrote:Why wait for MWF? Nothing is stopping HAL from introducing these jig-less assembly methods for Mk1a.


Mk1A is incremental approach over Mk1.
To adopt the MWF approach would require total redesign of the aircraft leading to further delays and cost overruns.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54780
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby ramana » 14 Oct 2020 00:25

manjgu wrote:
tsarkar wrote:....

The reason for non standard parts is evolving design??


And mfg capability. Early production parts wont be 100% ICY but some will be machined to fit as part of disposition of non-conformance.
Purist will say scrap it but has to be weighed against the need and value of the item.


Usually tolerance is 0.030" for parts.
Mfg will try to to hold to 0.010" to setup SPC.
After a production run of a few xx numbers, the tolerances will be relaxed as the process capability is established.

xx depends on the product.
Tolerance relaxation has to be with a many stakeholders assent.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5341
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Kartik » 14 Oct 2020 16:57

naird wrote:
Vamsee wrote:Link

:eek: :eek: :eek:


Wait ! What !!!! - This is crazy video . Epic angle and climb is super awesome.


This was filmed by someone on a lower res camera. Sadly the DD cameraman who was supposed to film it, made a hash of the display regularly interspersing the flying display with generous amounts of audience gazing. Not unexpected actually.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: asbchakri, rkhanna, Roop and 34 guests