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.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16687
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 06 Mar 2019 13:17

The basic problem is every day that passes, the MiG-21 spares, maintenance will likely be a challenge. We are getting by only because we built so many MiGs, HAL made spares, and IAF likely has huge stocks still of many MiG-21 engine, rotables etc spares. After a few more years though, we just won't have enough of a guarantee that ancillary systems will work as necessary & the aircraft can be certified flight-safe.

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 955
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

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

Postby ks_sachin » 07 Mar 2019 00:55

Also in this age of computerisation why an aircraft that does not have the level of comfort and safety unlike the LCA?
Even if we got all the spares till kingdom come - retire them and let the "three legged cheetah" kill the falcon.

gaurav.p
BRFite
Posts: 140
Joined: 04 May 2018 23:02

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

Postby gaurav.p » 07 Mar 2019 22:51

HAL presentation on SMFDs concept to be part of Tejas Mk1A @ Aero India '19


Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 65244
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

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

Postby Singha » 07 Mar 2019 23:06

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ne ... s?from=mdr

seems 3 Mig21/Mig27 squadrons were number plated last year and use for spares to keep rest flying.

1 fresh squadron of su30 would have been produced.

I guess while we started off with 125 Bisons, we will witness a steep fall in available a/c of Bisons down to maybe half that number now and less later.
all the more reason to ramp up Tejas mk1 and mk1a numbers with big orders and investments. HAL should be given the money to build a fat pipeline not trickle fed, because behind HAL are 500 suppliers who need large orders to invest and scale up parts production, these are long lead items not shoes or phones.

naird
BRFite
Posts: 193
Joined: 04 Jun 2009 19:41

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

Postby naird » 08 Mar 2019 01:09

gaurav.p wrote:HAL presentation on SMFDs concept to be part of Tejas Mk1A @ Aero India '19

Thanks Gaurav. Fantastic Video. Great to see all the different modes, coverage areas available in LCA. It seems extremely intuitive. No wonder our pilots are liking it. Lady in the video is totally perplexed and wondering why is she being made to do this video :D . Nevertheless, extremely good video.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16687
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 08 Mar 2019 01:28

Wow. So there will be a fused mode to display all the targets on one page plus the F-22 style threat awareness map on one page so the pilot can actually see real time where the threats are and make his way around them. Jingo khush hua. :mrgreen:

dkhare
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 39
Joined: 10 Feb 2009 03:30

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

Postby dkhare » 08 Mar 2019 03:36

gaurav.p wrote:HAL presentation on SMFDs concept to be part of Tejas Mk1A @ Aero India '19


Thanks gaurav.p! Awesome amount of information again in this video similar to the HAL SPORT video - must watch! We are seeing information & sensor fusion here. Glad to see the same concepts across LCA Tejas Mk1A and SPORT (both HAL projects) albeit on different display hardware.

Great to see women in the thick of it - lots of women following in Tessy Thomas' footsteps within the defense sector. She went through 2 of 3 displays on the Mk1A.

Just wanted to transcribe some of the information shared in the video - lots of acronyms are mentioned in very quick succession.

AESA Radar modes mentioned:
1. Air to Air mode: Nose Aspect search and track, All Aspect Search and Track, Radar Assessment (RA), Non-Cooperative Target Recognition (NCTR), Coherent Integration Time (CIT) for slow speed targets (ships).
2. Air to Ground mode: Real Beam Scanning Mode (RBM), Synthetic Aperture Scanning (High and Low Resolution mode)
3. Air to Sea mode
4. Terrain Awareness mode
5. Weather Awareness mode
6. Combined Awareness mode

Electronic Warfare View
1. Digital Radar Warning Receiver with 360 degree coverage
2. Self Protection Jammer Pod (Front & Rear - not 360 degrees but maybe 150 degrees front and rear)
3. Counter Measures Dispensing System (CMDS): auto, semi-automatic, manual modes with counts of flare and chaff dispensed.

Primary Flight Display (PFD)
1. Normal mode display
2. Perspective display gives area coverage of enemy radar and SAM site, new by ARDC. Seems to be the same Radar SAM bubble we saw in the SPORT.
3. High(?) Situational Awareness (HSA): tactical display combining all sensors - Radar, EW, LDP with high resolution digital maps overlay.

Smart Multi-Function Display (SMFD) has its own high end graphics processor reducing load on the Mission Computer (MC). Now MC will just send data to SMFD which will do all the rendering.

She also mentioned as and when new capabilities are available they will be incorporated such as Satellite Navigation, etc.

MeshaVishwas
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 58
Joined: 16 Feb 2019 17:20

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

Postby MeshaVishwas » 08 Mar 2019 11:51

Nice to see the PSA to the GoI's views on the Delta beauty.

Thanks Ashokk for the help

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10269
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

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

Postby Aditya_V » 08 Mar 2019 12:32

Singha wrote:https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/three-mig-21-mig-27-squadrons-to-be-phased-out-by-iaf-this-year/articleshow/47849954.cms?from=mdr

seems 3 Mig21/Mig27 squadrons were number plated last year and use for spares to keep rest flying.

1 fresh squadron of su30 would have been produced.

I guess while we started off with 125 Bisons, we will witness a steep fall in available a/c of Bisons down to maybe half that number now and less later.
all the more reason to ramp up Tejas mk1 and mk1a numbers with big orders and investments. HAL should be given the money to build a fat pipeline not trickle fed, because behind HAL are 500 suppliers who need large orders to invest and scale up parts production, these are long lead items not shoes or phones.


We should be adding 6 Rafale, 18 Su 30 and 16 LCA during the same period

JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2489
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

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

Postby JTull » 08 Mar 2019 12:37

gaurav.p wrote:HAL presentation on SMFDs concept to be part of Tejas Mk1A @ Aero India '19


Good find. For me the key take aways are the sensor fusion and integrated image processing to reduce load on MC. It's not clear if interlacing of A2G and A2A is possible.

Any word on MC itself? Are we going to see upgrades? Current h/w will be 15 years old when Mk1A comes out.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16687
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 08 Mar 2019 12:44

It does show interleaving of all 3 modes - A2A, A2G, A2S.
OAC is a DARE product.

I suspect HAL will go for an upgraded variant of OSAMC for "its" Mk1A since they are doing the bulk of the avionics integration, clearly. It is the stated fit on the Jaguar DARIN3.
http://www.haledgewood.com/hardware_solution.php
http://www.haledgewood.com/software_solution.php

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16687
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 08 Mar 2019 12:48

Dkhare, thanks for taking the time to do a transcript, much appreciated.
A few edits.

1. Air to Air mode: Nose Aspect search and track, All Aspect Search and Track, Radar Assessment (RA), Non-Cooperative Target Recognition (NCTR), Coherent Integration Time (CIT) for slow speed targets (ships).

Its actually RAID assessment to distinguish between closely packed targets
CIT is combined Interrogator transponder (basically IFF in a box)

Amazing HAL is doing all the software by itself and has come so far so quickly.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3969
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby JayS » 08 Mar 2019 14:58

JTull wrote:
gaurav.p wrote:HAL presentation on SMFDs concept to be part of Tejas Mk1A @ Aero India '19


Good find. For me the key take aways are the sensor fusion and integrated image processing to reduce load on MC. It's not clear if interlacing of A2G and A2A is possible.

Any word on MC itself? Are we going to see upgrades? Current h/w will be 15 years old when Mk1A comes out.


I doubt its 15yr old, given the level of changes happened in the LSPs, which CAG report mentioned. But may be KaranM knows exact info.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23046
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

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

Postby Austin » 08 Mar 2019 16:42

Why dont they do Lic Prod of GE Engine or even do a TOT of GE Engines for Tejas in India may be at HAL.

Looking at the numbers of Tejas across variants they would need more than 1000 plus engine during the entire life cycle ( if you catch the thumb rule of replacing 3 engine per aircraft in its entire life ).

If we are fully dependent on importing the engine from GE then all but a sanction on GE engine will bring the Tejas program on its knees.

jaysimha
BRFite
Posts: 792
Joined: 20 Dec 2017 14:30

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

Postby jaysimha » 08 Mar 2019 17:15

Austin wrote:If we are fully dependent on importing the engine from GE then all but a sanction on GE engine will bring the Tejas program on its knees.


no doubt about that..
In this regard, DRDO, I think, must be working on this like ATV project. every thing under the cover.
some news was reported on this issue while ago.

https://www.drdo.gov.in/drdo/pub/npc/20 ... ov2016.pdf
dont know what is the status now

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16687
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 08 Mar 2019 17:24

JayS wrote:I doubt its 15yr old, given the level of changes happened in the LSPs, which CAG report mentioned. But may be KaranM knows exact info.


It has the OAC which was slated to be replaced anyhow.. around 8-9 years "old" in design/conceptualization terms.. in contrast, Darin 2 Jags, Su-30 MKIs, MiG-29 UPGs are flying with systems from ~15 yrs back.. so years alone dont matter as long as there was growth potential. OAC has done its job well.. but you can upgrade anything only for so long till it becomes a pain. Anyhow, the OAC will be on Mk1s and Mk1A will end up in HALs hand, since its their baby.

mody
BRFite
Posts: 463
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Mumbai, India

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

Postby mody » 08 Mar 2019 17:40

Additional 1 squadron of MK1 and perhaps 2 additional squadrons of MK1A should be ordered. 9 Tejas MK1/MK1A squadrons to replace the 6 Mig-21 Bison and 2 Mig 27 squadrons. Will drive down the price for MK1A and keep the production lines buzzing. HAL can increase the production rate to 24 planes per year from 2022 onwards.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3969
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby JayS » 08 Mar 2019 19:20

Austin wrote:Why dont they do Lic Prod of GE Engine or even do a TOT of GE Engines for Tejas in India may be at HAL.

Looking at the numbers of Tejas across variants they would need more than 1000 plus engine during the entire life cycle ( if you catch the thumb rule of replacing 3 engine per aircraft in its entire life ).

If we are fully dependent on importing the engine from GE then all but a sanction on GE engine will bring the Tejas program on its knees.

That rule is only applicable for Russian aircrafts where they scrap engines in entirety, Su30MKI has 6000hrs Airframe life with its engine having life of 2000hrs (but its likely that life of Al31FP will be increased, HAL is working on that). Western engines have for decades modular design philosophy and much higher part lives. Only hot components mainly HPT, nozzle and combustor components need replacement, rest of the components are as good as for life. Especially when LCA is only designed for 3000h airframe life, unless its extended, LCA may see through entire life with single engine with one replacement of HPT module at max. F414 has ~2000hrs life for HPT. Cold side components have lives upwards of 4000hrs. Even if we consider low life in ISA+20 conditions, it will still be less than 2 engines equivalent of engine + spares per aircraft. Sweden for example has produced 240 odd Gripen and some 350 odd RM12 for all those aircrafts, including engine testing prototypes and spares for the Air Force, before shutting down the assembly line for RM12. Unless there is uprating requirement, no new RM12 will be produced anymore.

Engine manufacturing is G2G decision. As of now they are living in la la land with that DTTI initiative which hasn't given any output in itself and perhaps also bottlenecked funding on Desi program with fool's hope.

Lilo
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3788
Joined: 23 Jun 2007 09:08

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

Postby Lilo » 08 Mar 2019 20:50

^
Thanks for your illuminating post Jay ji.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23046
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

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

Postby Austin » 08 Mar 2019 21:13

JayS wrote:
Austin wrote:Why dont they do Lic Prod of GE Engine or even do a TOT of GE Engines for Tejas in India may be at HAL.

Looking at the numbers of Tejas across variants they would need more than 1000 plus engine during the entire life cycle ( if you catch the thumb rule of replacing 3 engine per aircraft in its entire life ).

If we are fully dependent on importing the engine from GE then all but a sanction on GE engine will bring the Tejas program on its knees.

That rule is only applicable for Russian aircrafts where they scrap engines in entirety, Su30MKI has 6000hrs Airframe life with its engine having life of 2000hrs (but its likely that life of Al31FP will be increased, HAL is working on that). Western engines have for decades modular design philosophy and much higher part lives. Only hot components mainly HPT, nozzle and combustor components need replacement, rest of the components are as good as for life. Especially when LCA is only designed for 3000h airframe life, unless its extended, LCA may see through entire life with single engine with one replacement of HPT module at max. F414 has ~2000hrs life for HPT. Cold side components have lives upwards of 4000hrs. Even if we consider low life in ISA+20 conditions, it will still be less than 2 engines equivalent of engine + spares per aircraft. Sweden for example has produced 240 odd Gripen and some 350 odd RM12 for all those aircrafts, including engine testing prototypes and spares for the Air Force, before shutting down the assembly line for RM12. Unless there is uprating requirement, no new RM12 will be produced anymore.

Engine manufacturing is G2G decision. As of now they are living in la la land with that DTTI initiative which hasn't given any output in itself and perhaps also bottlenecked funding on Desi program with fool's hope.


Jay it does not matter if you replace the engine or some hot or cold parts , In the end after x numbers of hours you will have to replace something.

So what is the risk hedge , If they are totally dependent of importing engine for the 250 Tejas we will be flying then its totally dependent on the benevolence of USG to not sanction us.

Else you better hedge your risk by either lic manuf the Engine parts in India or the engine itself made from Indian sources components so that in worst case you wont have to cannabilise your fleet or have to do least canabilisation.

Considering Tejas will have a life of atleast 35 years in IAF like any or the other fighter may be even more they better start thinking on Engine and other imported components in the Aircraft , Engine being the most risky aspect in there.

Or work with Snecma to make Kaveri replacing the GE eventually may be 10 years from now but atleast start working.

I see no risk hedge right now with the GE engine ..... I mean you have a history of being sanction from US and if you are not hedging you risk then it would be a single point of failure in future.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7112
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby brar_w » 08 Mar 2019 21:31

Short term, hedging via maintaining an inventory of components isn't something that is beyond reach or hard to do. I believe Sweden does this as a means of buying components in bulk and obtaining economies of scale. Some of these modules get you nearly a decade of utilization so that's a significant hedge in case supply is disrupted for whatever reason. I believe there are usually inventory level provisions that can be incorporated into long term sustainment PBL agreements as the US Navy and US Air Force does on the F-18 and F-35.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23046
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

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

Postby Austin » 08 Mar 2019 21:44

Short term hedging is not an issue you can plan out for 5-6 years but again its a very iffy thing , You may have 100 components but the next 3 with shorter life can screw your happiness and once you are under sanction all the manuf Gurantees/Warrantys are off , No OEM support etc its not just about spares but about others things too lots of legal hassels

Eventually they will have to figure out how they will maintain 250 strong fleet of tejas in 15 years from now if all goes well , Will they invest in Kaveri program to replace GE say 10-12 years from now , Lic Manuf parts or simply import hoping all goes well.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7112
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby brar_w » 08 Mar 2019 21:53

The components and expected component life of all the F-404/414 modules are well known and even publicly available. With a margin for variables, you could very easily stock full modules, or even full engines if need be. Air Forces do this all the time. The USAF for example has fully stocked all engine modules and any replaceable components on the F-119 engine and even shut the factory for the engine down. The F-22 will be in service till beyond 2050 and the inventory level confidence was required because the cost of re-start will be significant.

We on the forum have discussed the F404/414 components in detail here and there is really no reason to doubt, that via effective inventory build up and management, that you can easily build up a decade or so of buffer based on your utilization. You do not discard full engines after just 2000 hours so the compononents you need to replace and their cost is spread throughout the frame life. If the LCA MK1 airframe life is 3000-5000 hours then the cost will be even lower.

Of course long term, the best strategy is to develop the Kaveri and eventually transition to it, but I see very little risk of the GE-404/414 putting the LCA program at any risk and I guess with ADA/HAL/MODs choosing GE again on the MK2 and perhaps even the AMCA they also tend to agree with that notion.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23046
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

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

Postby Austin » 08 Mar 2019 22:37

Well it is not GE call it would be USG decision ......if old NATO allies like Turkey are threatened on CAATSA are not spared then India does not stand a chance.

You are also forgetting that CAATSA is still a US law and US can use it any time to sanction may be not in new few months then in few years.

In the end having to source material from a country that can sanction India on whims is a risk for Tejas program like it or not so better to think of option today to replace 10 years from now , We need to develop Kaveri engine and replace the GE engine.

The benefit of having Kaveri will extend beyond Tejas and would also benefit AMCA .........Hopefully our politicians are not short sighted and think long term about Engine Development .......It is a eternal risk for Tejas program be that be from US , French or Russia.

The only risk free option is to develop it our self.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7112
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby brar_w » 08 Mar 2019 23:06

I know its a GOTUS decision, and so do the authorities involved in selecting the GE F404/414 for the various programs. The fact still remains - Modern engines are highly reliable and their modular design allows for component replacement at different EOT intervals. This allows users to forecast demand and plan accordingly by building up inventory to sustain long term need or for other wartime contingencies. Examples of this are what Jay cited with the SAAB F404 derivative ending production and building up an inventory, and the same for the USAF with the F-119 where they had enough confidence in their forecasting of demand and need that they even shut the production program down knowing how expensive it would be to restart. ADA/HAL and the MOD are confident enough to go for the F-404/414 family probably for this very reason. The risk of the LCA or MWF program being impacted by any decision of GOTUS, even though if it is unlikely, can very easily be mitigated by having an inventory level that essentially accounts for a decade plus of usage.

Yes, the benifits of the Kaveri are endless to list and I am not even arguing against that so I don't know where this comes from. But at the moment, the current production and build rates scheduled for the LCA MK1A and the MWF cannot be sustained with the Kaveri which needs to be developed, and fully tested and integrated and production and scale established. It will be a long term solution not one that can effectively be used to address the immediate production need (the next 10 years of production) for the LCA and MWF or even early production of the AMCA prototypes and initial batches. So yes, the Kaveri needs to be pursued with no costs spared but realistically it is a post 2030 insertion into the program in any firm ##.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23046
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

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

Postby Austin » 08 Mar 2019 23:20

This is not just about inventory , lets say IAF pays X billion and get an inventory of 20 plus years assume even they can forecast such things with 100 % accuracy and has all the parts it needs to make the engine fly ( that itself would be a very expensive affair to start with just as a hedge ) and neither IAF or MOD could forecaste if sanction would take place to even pre-order such huge spares in advance.

If USG decides 2 years from today India needs to be sanctioned under CAATSA would MOD/IAF would have any clue to invest order and build up inventory over time ?

The OEM would withdraw any warranty gurantees on the spares , they wont deploy their personal in India which means what ever you do you do as your own risk ...... tommorow if there is a crash and if you need GE assistance for a COI that wont be available , Any thing that happens GE would say sorry use it at your own risk because we are prohibited by US laws to work with you.

All in All it would be HAL/IAF headache to make this work with likely zero OEM support .....even if some spares are defective or needs to be replaced that wont happen ........US might even says legally you are not allowed to use it under xyz US laws ( thats what I mean by legal hassel if its enforcable or not is another thing )

In that case any Lic Agreement would itself be null and void.

When LCA team was in US to verify their aircraft FBWstem , not only was the team told to return back due to 98 sanction but even their equipment was confiscated !

All in All this leads to conclusion Kaveri is not a choice any longer it neeeds to be done at all cost ......sanction or not.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7112
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby brar_w » 08 Mar 2019 23:25

Why can't the Indian MOD forecast demand based on current and future orders and using some slack when looking at module and component data available and provided by the OEM? The rest of the world can do this so they should be as well. Secondly, you do not need to stock on MASSIVE inventory. JAYS described some of those component lifetimes relative to the LCA airframe life but I have provided a very detailed writeup on each of those modules and when they need to be replaced including the cost of each of those modules and inspection and replacement intervals. It should be in one of the older LCA/Kaveri threads.

So what do you suggest for the 100-150 LCAs and MWFs that will be produced over the next decade? Should HAL stop production until the Kaveri is ready which will likely take a decade plus as far as a fully integrated engine with full rate production capable of meeting production goals?

As I have said there are some very easy ways to hedge and maintain inventory to sustain a decade plus of ops. In fact other air-forces do it for decades worth of future need with enough confidence to even terminate additional production.

But by all means, do suggest alternatives if you have them. Completing and integrating Kaveri and ramping its production is a long-long term solution not a short or medium term solution. Till then the GE F404/414 will remain and the MOD seems to be confident enough in its ability to source the engine given that this family will continue to power the MWF and even early AMCA.
Last edited by brar_w on 08 Mar 2019 23:27, edited 1 time in total.

Vivek K
BRFite
Posts: 1915
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

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

Postby Vivek K » 08 Mar 2019 23:26

Austin wrote:This is not just about inventory , ...

All in All this leads to conclusion Kaveri is not a choice any longer it neeeds to be done at all cost ......sanction or not.

It was never a choice! Kaveri is almost synonymous with national security! That it is in such poor shape is a reminder of our sad strategic leadership!

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 51352
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby ramana » 09 Mar 2019 05:41

JayS, What do you think of SAFRAN M 88 line set up in India?
To power the 50 M2ks, 36 + Rafale and 123 Tejas.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3359
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

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

Postby Cain Marko » 09 Mar 2019 06:55

brar_w wrote:Why can't the Indian MOD forecast demand based on current and future orders and using some slack when looking at module and component data available and provided by the OEM? The rest of the world can do this so they should be as well.


While your larger point is clear, the issue raised by Austin does remain. Who the phuck can trust the MOD, to maintain inventories that too well in advance. During the time of UPI, most Frontline fighters had terribly uptimes thanks to inventory issues. Even the fabled m2k was down to 50% or something. Similar issues with way time reserves in the army as well Trusting the mod to do anything with foresight could be a disaster in the making.

But I could be missing things up here.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7112
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby brar_w » 09 Mar 2019 07:04

Cain Marko wrote:
brar_w wrote:Why can't the Indian MOD forecast demand based on current and future orders and using some slack when looking at module and component data available and provided by the OEM? The rest of the world can do this so they should be as well.


While your larger point is clear, the issue raised by Austin does remain. Who the phuck can trust the MOD, to maintain inventories that too well in advance. During the time of UPI, most Frontline fighters had terribly uptimes thanks to inventory issues. Even the fabled m2k was down to 50% or something. Similar issues with way time reserves in the army as well Trusting the mod to do anything with foresight could be a disaster in the making.
.


Again, past incompetence aside, you are not stockpiling massive inventory here given the program has a fairly smooth ramp and the engine component life is measured in XXXX hours for the most part with the LCA Airframe expected to be 3K-5K so you aren't buying modules that will have to be replaced over the 6 or 9K hours like the SH. There is obviously going to be stockpiling for reserves and wartime contingencies as is the case all over the world so a small buffer beyond that won't be that big of a deal as a hedging strategy if one is needed at all.

When the fleet gets to about 100 aircraft operational, you are looking at roughly 2000-3000 hours of fleet operations a year. Again, by most standards this is not a very large problem for either inventory or organic depot capacity. Sweden maintains 70 odd Gripens and seems to be doing it fine without keeping the engine production hot.

Again, the data is publicly available on the F-404. I don't have time to look at it right now but below is the data for the F-414 that I have provided before -

Image

viewtopic.php?t=3351&start=2880#p2011725

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23046
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

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

Postby Austin » 09 Mar 2019 10:03

Vivek K wrote:
Austin wrote:This is not just about inventory , ...

All in All this leads to conclusion Kaveri is not a choice any longer it neeeds to be done at all cost ......sanction or not.

It was never a choice! Kaveri is almost synonymous with national security! That it is in such poor shape is a reminder of our sad strategic leadership!


All stake holder knew almost 10 years back from today that Kaveri wont see any any full scale production , Way back in 2005 GTRE told me that they are just looking to use Kaveri in prototypes to prove the engine is working and not in any production model because of issue with Thrust.

They wasted 10 years doing zilch on any JV , Even if Snecma charged a bomb or IAF was not satisified with TOT they should have gone with it , In 10-12 years we could have got kaveri working and in 2019 we still dont know if the boat of Kaveri will sail and if we have any indiginous engine in 90 kn class.

Atleast get a parallel program going with M88 as Ramana says so that it wont remain hostage to single engine.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16687
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 09 Mar 2019 10:21

Guys its all money money money... until proper funding is poured in these things remain stuck in perpetual mode. But things are changing. I still remember how we would crib about DRDO not having a testbed, now they do & are also taking innovative methods, see the advances in various flight capable avionic eqpt. Same needed for Kaveri etc.

It will happen. I still remember cribbing about how HAL did not invest in its people and wanted to remain a build-to-print org. Present GOI cleared a substantial proposal to re-invest sales % in R&D and just see the SPORT & LCA Mk2 display work from AR&DC. Our people are second to none, they just need the encouragement & support to go places.

And GOI is sitting on 10,000 proposals to spend its money. Its always guns vs butter in our sort of economy. Qn is always whether money spent in Ayushman Bharat is better to offset LWF or getting Cobra x more regiments. There is rarely money for both, so we end up making compromises.

So bottomline, GTRE probably has a half dozen proposals at DRDO, MOD level. The funding is a different issue. Agree its a single point of failure for the LCA etc, but even there our ability to redesign, retool is going up by leaps and bounds. Once that happens via Mk1, Mk1A, if a vendor backs out for Mk2 (say), trust me, finding alternate sources and fixing the design accordingly will no longer be a deal breaker, because it will have serious user support.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16687
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 09 Mar 2019 11:14

Very interesting point in LCA report to Public Accounts Committee.

The Vice Chief, IAF, while furnishing details regarding FSED Phase II, submitted during oral evidence as under:"Sir, an aircraft first undergoes for trail and then it is upgraded. So, the first stage is Initial Operational Configuration (IOC) in which some weapons are cleared. Like, Chairman, HAL has brought out, clearing a weapon in an aircraft is a flight safety issue and it is a very complexprocess. In this process, currently we are happy to report that as IOC goes, Tejas is quite well-equipped. Yes, Sir. It is combat ready in Initial Operational Configuration (IOC). That means, it can fire dummy missiles; it can fire the laser guided bombs;it can fire the dumb bombs and rockets.[b]Sir, for final operational clearance, these capabilities will have to be enhanced.
1.It will be carrying the missiles that are now being developed by DRDO and other new weapons we are buying from outside. They will beintegrated with it.
2.It will have a jammer;
3. it will have the new radar on it that DRDO is making and
4. its Fatigue Life willbe extended. This is the Final OperationalConfiguration.

Even the Mirage 2000 upgrade that we are using, it comes as Initial Operational Configuration. Even the Rafale and all other aircrafts always come with Initial Operational Configuration and then are upgraded into Final Operational Configuration. "


Now we know from the LRDE guys they intend to put Uttam on the Mk1, so from the above looks like it has official IAF sanction & also even Mk1 will get a jammer.

During oral evidence, the Vice Chief, IAF, submitted as under:"...........One of the reasons why LCA got delayed—I will be very candid to admit—is that the weapons have changed. The LCA started with R-60 MCOM air to air missile that I have flown as a pilot officer. Then, thereafter in 2005--of course, the project was delayed when this missile became obsolete--we asked them to induct R-73 missile. I am happy to report that unlike most of the aircraft that are in initial operational configuration, this particular aircraft can drop all 1000 pound of bombs. That can drop 250 kilogram bomb. That can drop LGB. That can fire an Astra, and itcan fire a derby missile too. So, combination of missile and combination of radar, which is very important for this long range missile, has been done.


So groundwork for Astra has already been done? Basically WCS/MC has the software, radar interface, basic setup for integrating missile datalink etc.

Again Vice Chief, looks like a specific jammer has not been selected, but the intent is to have one on the Mk1 itself as mentioned.

Sir, 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."


UEWS developed for the LCA was tested and it was successful. 5 emitters classified as "limited", gives a fair idea of the systems capability.

UEWS integration on LCA PV1 was successful and performance of the system was satisfactory against single and limited emitter environment (five emitters). It is to be noted that PV1 was specially modified to incorporate the EW suite by removing some LRUs.


Of course, we also have the D-29 program on the verge of approval from the IAF (and reports IAF is very pleased with it).

At present Tejas is equipped with RWR and passive jamming with chaff and flares (CMDS), only Jammers deferred and all the performance issues have been overcome and it is certified to use on SP Aircraft. However, the external podded Jammer was planned to be integrated on LCA Mk1A variant and the same couldbe retro-fitted on LCA Mk1 if required. In addition to this MMR andcommunication system has built-in features of advanced features of ECCM to avoid jamming


So, Tarang is fundamentally an OK design (one big concern we had is cleared) & its now working fine on the LCA.
Net net, even the one-so-called gap in Mk1 is on the plan to be fixed once the IAF makes its mind up on what jammer it wants.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3969
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby JayS » 09 Mar 2019 18:02

Austin wrote:
JayS wrote:That rule is only applicable for Russian aircrafts where they scrap engines in entirety, Su30MKI has 6000hrs Airframe life with its engine having life of 2000hrs (but its likely that life of Al31FP will be increased, HAL is working on that). Western engines have for decades modular design philosophy and much higher part lives. Only hot components mainly HPT, nozzle and combustor components need replacement, rest of the components are as good as for life. Especially when LCA is only designed for 3000h airframe life, unless its extended, LCA may see through entire life with single engine with one replacement of HPT module at max. F414 has ~2000hrs life for HPT. Cold side components have lives upwards of 4000hrs. Even if we consider low life in ISA+20 conditions, it will still be less than 2 engines equivalent of engine + spares per aircraft. Sweden for example has produced 240 odd Gripen and some 350 odd RM12 for all those aircrafts, including engine testing prototypes and spares for the Air Force, before shutting down the assembly line for RM12. Unless there is uprating requirement, no new RM12 will be produced anymore.

Engine manufacturing is G2G decision. As of now they are living in la la land with that DTTI initiative which hasn't given any output in itself and perhaps also bottlenecked funding on Desi program with fool's hope.


Jay it does not matter if you replace the engine or some hot or cold parts , In the end after x numbers of hours you will have to replace something.

So what is the risk hedge , If they are totally dependent of importing engine for the 250 Tejas we will be flying then its totally dependent on the benevolence of USG to not sanction us.

Else you better hedge your risk by either lic manuf the Engine parts in India or the engine itself made from Indian sources components so that in worst case you wont have to cannabilise your fleet or have to do least canabilisation.

Considering Tejas will have a life of atleast 35 years in IAF like any or the other fighter may be even more they better start thinking on Engine and other imported components in the Aircraft , Engine being the most risky aspect in there.

Or work with Snecma to make Kaveri replacing the GE eventually may be 10 years from now but at least start working.


I see no risk hedge right now with the GE engine ..... I mean you have a history of being sanction from US and if you are not hedging you risk then it would be a single point of failure in future.


It matters to know exactly what needs to be replaced and when because, you are not going to get manufacturing of all the components done in India at any rate, even if you buy 1000 engines. Even getting superalloys raw materials is not that easy always. Hence a careful planning is a must for stockpile. Its not unheard for Jet engine parts to be stockpiled even for 5 decades in some cases.

No arguments on attempts to mitigate the uncertainty of USG decisions. I was only countering the number 1000. I am all for asking GE to make as much of the engine components in India with Indian vendors and assemble them in India. I would like this to be worked out under SP model of DPP. But of coarse we are not going to get everything e.g. SCB technology. Some components would be imported directly from US. Those can be stockpiled for 3decades worth of life. On the other hand, an uprated Kaveri program be launched so we have a 110-120 kN, 10 T/W class engine which can be fitted to both AMCA and MWF as MLU.

So we need multi pronged approach.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3969
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby JayS » 09 Mar 2019 18:10

ramana wrote:JayS, What do you think of SAFRAN M 88 line set up in India?
To power the 50 M2ks, 36 + Rafale and 123 Tejas.


Ramana, M2Ks use M53. M53P20 already produces 98kN thrust. There is no need to change engine for it to M88. That itself will become another costly and unnecessary affair.

36 Rafales' engines are already under manufacturing and probably would be fully manufactured within next 2yrs. There is simply no time to move their manufacturing base.

I would not want to touch the 123 LCAs now for engine change now. We can get GE to manufacture the engines in India. GE is ready. They already set up a plant in Pune which was in anticipation of F404 orders for LCA, but we have not seen any order beyond 40odd engines.

For future MLU and AMCA, we could think of DRDO + Snecma JV engine (and not with french core, that would be meaningless). But as of now they are asking too steep price just to make the Kaveri flightworthy which in their own admission is quite near the finish line and needs a small push. (The caveat is to get a 95-100kN class engine which can be useful for LCA, for which GTRE is looking for french help with SCB tech).

But we are forgetting the tender for 110 MMRCA 2.0. Lets see what that one brings.

Vivek K
BRFite
Posts: 1915
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

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

Postby Vivek K » 09 Mar 2019 21:30

India needs to invest in a domestic MIC. And involve private players in the industry. We see that in its infancy. It is time to fund private competition to HAL and DRDO. Throw money and the best talent will also become available.

But in a country where we jail industrialists and give free money to farmers that may be the mental hurdle.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16687
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 09 Mar 2019 21:35

Vivek, we don't have the money right now to fund GTRE, where do we have the money to create a parallel GTRE?
These things aren't cheap. And "free money to farmers" is an oversimplification. India is still agrarian led, and any issues there have huge ramifications (including security) for the rest of India. Maoism, LWE do not develop in a vacuum.

ashbhee
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 49
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 07:05

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

Postby ashbhee » 10 Mar 2019 06:56

Where can I find a running count on how many Tejas has been inducted?

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6992
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Postby Rakesh » 10 Mar 2019 07:04

ashbhee wrote:Where can I find a running count on how many Tejas has been inducted?

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7691

Click on the above link and scroll down :)


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: banrjeer, brar_w, darshand, madhu, ritesh, sgopal, suryag, VikasM, vivekmehta, wasu and 129 guests