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.
kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3411
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

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

Postby kit » 04 Jun 2019 23:25

yensoy wrote:
Prem wrote:Rumor that India have sweatened the deal with financing plus barter .


What's the story on the engine and any of the imported avionics/EW? Can we re-export?


i would say ., it will be very interesting to see the American reaction when it comes to that :twisted:

they are quite mercantile just like cheen , despite the professed "strategic partner" bonhomie

VKumar
BRFite
Posts: 517
Joined: 15 Sep 1999 11:31
Location: Mumbai,India

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

Postby VKumar » 05 Jun 2019 00:03

Americans are very transactional. For profit, they forget past. Work with them without expecting loyalty

Bharadwaj
BRFite
Posts: 283
Joined: 09 Oct 2006 11:09

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

Postby Bharadwaj » 12 Jun 2019 13:09

The latest imagery from google of Sulur brought joy to this jingo. Long have I waited to see the dart like shape showing up on satellite imagery.

ashishvikas
BRFite
Posts: 434
Joined: 17 Oct 2016 14:18

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

Postby ashishvikas » 02 Jul 2019 11:22

External fuel tank of #Tejas falls down in Irugur village near Coimbatore. No 45 Sqn #FlyingDaggers are based out of AFS Sulur, There have been many minor incidents involving #Tejas in the past 18 years since first flight, but nothing major. (Image via @path2shah)
@akananth

https://t.co/s3DGPhR8FX


In the second pic, is that pylon ?

https://www.theweek.in/news/india/2019/ ... ssion=true

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11248
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

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

Postby Aditya_V » 02 Jul 2019 11:27

Yes it a 1200 liter drop tank which was previously restricted underbody, now the IAF is experimenting with it under wing and probably examining the dropping the Pylon along with fuel tank, the F-22 drops the Pylon along with drop tanks

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4302
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

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

Postby srai » 02 Jul 2019 14:23

Aditya_V wrote:Yes it a 1200 liter drop tank which was previously restricted underbody, now the IAF is experimenting with it under wing ...

Not a true statement. The inner-most wing pylon has been qualified for both 800-liter & 1200-liter tanks. The mid-wing has been for 800-liter tank. The under belly pylon has been qualified for 725-liter tank.

Plenty of photos out there in the above configurations.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11248
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

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

Postby Aditya_V » 03 Jul 2019 15:39

If the max payload is 3500 KG, but the Tejas is able to carry a 1200lit ( Fuel+ Tank= 1175Kg?) on its pylons. If it carries 2 of them under wings, then all it can possibly carry are a Few AAM's before MTOW is reached?

JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2653
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

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

Postby JTull » 03 Jul 2019 16:34

Aditya_V wrote:If the max payload is 3500 KG, but the Tejas is able to carry a 1200lit ( Fuel+ Tank= 1175Kg?) on its pylons. If it carries 2 of them under wings, then all it can possibly carry are a Few AAM's before MTOW is reached?


There's a difference between use for combat and use for ferrying the aircraft.

There's also a difference between what you take-off with and what you can replenish in air.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4302
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

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

Postby srai » 04 Jul 2019 03:09

Aditya_V wrote:If the max payload is 3500 KG, but the Tejas is able to carry a 1200lit ( Fuel+ Tank= 1175Kg?) on its pylons. If it carries 2 of them under wings, then all it can possibly carry are a Few AAM's before MTOW is reached?

This load is with two 1200ltr tanks:
Image

This is how you can differentiate the tanks:
Image

ashishvikas
BRFite
Posts: 434
Joined: 17 Oct 2016 14:18

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

Postby ashishvikas » 07 Jul 2019 19:39

Tejas Mk-1A work has started. Will be delivered as per IAF's schedule. There are many projects running concurrently on LCA. Some are undergoing R&D, some are in a mature stage of productionization.

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/11477 ... 94176?s=19

fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3084
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

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

Postby fanne » 07 Jul 2019 20:44

please visit sir Sameer Joshi's twitter. There are more update on 27th Feb dog fight. Apparently, 1 SU30MKI was targeted by multiple F-16s (fired 5 BVR?), some of them turned cold (I guess the nearest one), to lure the SU30MKI in thinking F-16 is turning away and stay on the station. The Sukhoi pilot rightly assessed the whole situation (I hope it was technology led, meaning all Sukhoi's have it and is not dependent on the pilot's interpretation), and evaded all 5. The TSPAF is shocked and in denial, and this one, in there feverent hope they keep claiming as shot down. In their calculation su30mki cannot evade 5 AIM-120, fired from multiple F-16, the whole ambush was pre-planned by them and assuring them of almost 100% success. That did not come to pass. Then it became a favorable story to cover their loss of F-16 (for their awam, world, and whoever else is listening).
I guess this also caused the confusion. One formation of PAF was bleating that a SU30MKI have been shot (as the engagement went per plan for TSPAF) - The terbala dam one. The other F-16 formation engaged by Abhinanadan, shot F-16 double seater. The other group must have taken time to shout on radio that they may have their plane down till they 100% confirmed. If the shot plane had the leader, it would have taken some time for the TSPAF to assess and inform TSPA to search for the downed plane. In the meantime, second plane down, 2 seater, 2 pilots, fits neatly with the SU down (TSP has an old habit crying victory even before war is over, perhaps a gazi syndrome, where they want to take credit of killing a kuffar, which in their book is a s big as overall victory itself). They kept on bleating about the second plane, three pilots in custody etc., locals beating them, perhaps with active indulgence from TSPA (as far as they knew, it was the enemy plane and enemy pilot). If the above sequence is right, the bravado of the few TSPAF personnel, led to the killing of their own pilots.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4556
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Kartik » 07 Jul 2019 20:50

ashishvikas wrote:Tejas Mk-1A work has started. Will be delivered as per IAF's schedule. There are many projects running concurrently on LCA. Some are undergoing R&D, some are in a mature stage of productionization.

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/11477 ... 94176?s=19


From the above thread, when asked about the first flight of Mk1A

1st flight is not important for IAF. 16xIOC fighters are inducted. 16xFOC fighters are in the production line. Once that finishes, Mk-1A will occupy production line. Delivery will start after FOC delivery completes. About 3 years from now. Trainers are over & above.

ashishvikas
BRFite
Posts: 434
Joined: 17 Oct 2016 14:18

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

Postby ashishvikas » 07 Jul 2019 22:49

LRDE's AESA radar has started flight testing on LCA. Let's hope it shapes up well. Good signs so far.

https://t.co/v9PHOt7kyN

During Mk-1A production, we can switch to Indian radar at our will.

Mort Walker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7893
Joined: 31 May 2004 11:31
Location: The rings around Uranus.

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

Postby Mort Walker » 07 Jul 2019 23:10

This is good news. Now time to ramp up production of the MK.1A to 400+ units. No more foreign acquisitions of fighter aircraft.

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2582
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

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

Postby nam » 07 Jul 2019 23:53

If IAF sees good progress in Uttam flight testing, there is very good chance Su30 are getting a bigger version of Uttam.

LCA is now flight testing domestic kit which is not yet in service in to IAF.. We are now matching/ahead of the curve.

LCA with AESA radar will become the blue eye jet.

Su 30 pilots like, mere paas PESA hai.. tumere paas kya hai? Mere paas AESA hai :rotfl:

fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3084
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

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

Postby fanne » 08 Jul 2019 01:11

83 MKIAs are locked with AESA 2052 from Israel. these have been ordered, the radars are ready, they come with there own integrated EW system nd BVR missiles. 83 MK1As I suspect will at least take 5 years to execute (realistically 6-8 years). We have time until then to qualify Uttam, have Astra and SFDR integrated with it and an indigenous EW system to round it off. We will have the opportunity in the interim (i.e. till 2027) to have these radars fly in IOC and FOC standard LCA (40 of them + trainers). Enough specimens to experiment and in case of early success to fit in. The path forward for both 2052 and Uttam is very clear and is mutually exclusive, both can be had, without effecting the other. 2052 gives us LCA now, rather than in 2025, by when Uttam will be qualified.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2138
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

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

Postby Vivek K » 08 Jul 2019 06:49

Great news about MK1As! Agree with Mort! Crank out 500 of these beauties! Scr$$ imports! Fanneji, if all lines are producing at capacity, 83 should be finished in 3-4 years!

suryag
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3412
Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14

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

Postby suryag » 08 Jul 2019 07:08

But for all of this HAL’s proposal needs to be accepted first, hope Vikas Purush approves it at the earliest

Mort Walker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7893
Joined: 31 May 2004 11:31
Location: The rings around Uranus.

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

Postby Mort Walker » 08 Jul 2019 07:09

^^^Absolutely. Get as many lines going so that in 3-4 years over 300+ units of MK.1A are inducted. Phase out the Jags.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11248
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

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

Postby Aditya_V » 08 Jul 2019 09:57

Kartik wrote:
ashishvikas wrote:Tejas Mk-1A work has started. Will be delivered as per IAF's schedule. There are many projects running concurrently on LCA. Some are undergoing R&D, some are in a mature stage of productionization.

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/11477 ... 94176?s=19


From the above thread, when asked about the first flight of Mk1A

1st flight is not important for IAF. 16xIOC fighters are inducted. 16xFOC fighters are in the production line. Once that finishes, Mk-1A will occupy production line. Delivery will start after FOC delivery completes. About 3 years from now. Trainers are over & above.


Has been any official source that the contract for 10 more Trainers and 73 single seat MK1A has been signed?

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4302
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

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

Postby srai » 09 Jul 2019 03:50

^^^

It looks like the Mk1 Trainers will fill in the gap in production between Mk1 and Mk1A. Fills in couple of years.

  • 16 Mk1 IOC-2 (completed)
  • 16 Mk1 FOC (underway)
  • 16-18 Mk1 Trainer (awaiting FOC & awaiting contract 8-10 units as part of Mk1A order)
  • 73-75 Mk1A (awaiting contract & R&D)

Since the exterior of Mk1A remains unchanged from baseline Mk1 FOC, it would be possible to continue production of major components (wings, front-mid-rear fuselage, and tail) uninterrupted. The timeline of integration of internal changes at HAL and their qualification for service remains unclear at this point.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11248
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

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

Postby Aditya_V » 09 Jul 2019 13:11

I hope there is production of Naval LCA MK1 also int he mix

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4327
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby JayS » 10 Jul 2019 10:35

Good to have sort of official confirmation from HAL TP HV Thakur for starting of flight testing of Uttam. We can see from the flight test numbers on ADA sight that there have been 7 flights of LSP 2 in last couple of months. The flight testing would pick up.

I doubt we will see UTTAM on MK1A. I think we will see it on Mk1 as an upgrade and on MWF.

As I have been pointing out for MWF, looks like MK1A deliveries will also start as soon as they can build them, without waiting for flight testing, which is the right approach. The certification can happen in parallel.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

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

Postby Singha » 10 Jul 2019 11:00

tik tok tik tok i spy no funding tik on the 80 mk1a work

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2582
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

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

Postby nam » 10 Jul 2019 12:09

The MK1A spec wants FOC+ AESA+ Jammer + LRU re-arrangement.

It is already flying with AESA, so technically MK1A version is already flying! Will become easier to mount 2052, as avonics would have been modified for handle Uttam's multi beam capability. I wonder if they plan to introduce LCA SPORT type single panel.

Jammer and LRU re-arrangement. Nothing is stopping them doing the re-arrangement. So jammer is the only "unknown"...

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4556
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Kartik » 10 Jul 2019 12:12

What’s unknown about the jammer? It’s the Elta E-8222 Wide Band jammer. Once the AESA decision was made the jammer had to follow for ease of integration.

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2582
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

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

Postby nam » 10 Jul 2019 12:15

When I say unknown, i am referring to the comp-ability of the jammer with the platform. The effect on radar and RWR. We are going with 2052, so that should be fine.

Needless to say the Elta jammer will be applied to MK1 version as well. So they would want to understand it better.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53456
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby ramana » 10 Jul 2019 22:05

Mort the IAF hard requirement for Tejas is 40 Mk1+83 Mk1A+ 200(?) Mk2 MWF.

As HAL production stabilizes there could be more orders.

Basically it will replace the entire MiG fleet in all its forms.

The unknowns are engines.
Keep importing GE engines is not good as a fickle US govt can turn off the tap.
So have to see the SAFRAN engine JV fructify.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2138
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

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

Postby Vivek K » 11 Jul 2019 00:35

Ramana - buy the required number of engines up front.

What stops us from reverse engineering a couple of these that can be declared as lost or something? The Me-262 flew with engines that needed new blades every 10 hours. So why can HAL/ADA/GTRE not reverse engineer and come up with a real jugaad?

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7168
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

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

Postby nachiket » 11 Jul 2019 00:49

How do you reverse engineer a turbine blade?

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53456
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby ramana » 11 Jul 2019 04:03

with calipers!

LakshmanPST
BRFite
Posts: 112
Joined: 05 Apr 2019 18:23

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

Postby LakshmanPST » 11 Jul 2019 04:12

AFAIK, the main issue faced by GTRE is the manufacturing knowhow of Turbine blades... I doubt the blades can be reverse engineered...
If we can master this manufacturing process, we can actually use Kaveri instead of any Jugaad...

fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3084
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

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

Postby fanne » 11 Jul 2019 06:36

We have a engine of higher performance (and slightly lower tech) - ALF31. We are producing 1000 of it through TOT and have serviced it. We can buy a more comprehensive license (and higher performance -higher tech stuff from SU-57) for this to eventually replace them in SU30MKI (higher power will be needed for AESA equipped birds). Mother Russia may be willing as this can potentially stop F404/414 family of engine. MKI the engine completely - Use that for MWF, Naval LCA (maybe VSTOL using the TVC - invest in 90% movement of nozzle) and same can work on the MCA. Yes tech wise it will be below F414 but from there, improve that over every 100 engine.

mody
BRFite
Posts: 533
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Mumbai, India

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

Postby mody » 11 Jul 2019 15:14

fanne wrote:We have a engine of higher performance (and slightly lower tech) - ALF31. We are producing 1000 of it through TOT and have serviced it. We can buy a more comprehensive license (and higher performance -higher tech stuff from SU-57) for this to eventually replace them in SU30MKI (higher power will be needed for AESA equipped birds). Mother Russia may be willing as this can potentially stop F404/414 family of engine. MKI the engine completely - Use that for MWF, Naval LCA (maybe VSTOL using the TVC - invest in 90% movement of nozzle) and same can work on the MCA. Yes tech wise it will be below F414 but from there, improve that over every 100 engine.


The size of the engines is very different. The AL31 cannot be used in the proposed MWF sized bird. Besides I doubt we are producing the blades for the AL31 either. Becuase if we are, then we have the technology to manufacture high performance turbine blades, that can withstand very high temperatures. Most likely the blades will be coming directly from Russia along with a whole lot of other engine parts. We simply assemble the engine together and have know how for overhaul.

The only offset that we should have asked for, as part of the Rafael purchase, should have been a joint development and manufacture of 100-110KN engine, that matches the dimensions of GE-F414 engine. We could have formed a joint venture company with Safran holding 33%, along with GTRE and a private company holding matching percentage. All investement and plant and machinery, would be from Indian companies. Safran only brings their knowhow to the table. This knowhow would be worth the 30% offset clause, plus we give Safran the 33% stake.
Given that we will probably need close to a 1,000 engines, it would be a good option for Safran as well. The mandate would be to have a working engine ready within 4 years at the most.
With a locally produced engine all problems would have been solved. Heck, we could even use the engine to replace the RD-33 engines on the Mig-29K. Would give it higher thrust engine, with lower fuel consumption and higher reliability (assuming we get same relaibility as GE or Safran engines).
We could use the tech and knowhow gained to even upgrade the existing AL-31 engines of Su-30's maybe.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7877
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby brar_w » 11 Jul 2019 19:12

fanne wrote:We have a engine of higher performance (and slightly lower tech) - ALF31. We are producing 1000 of it through TOT and have serviced it. We can buy a more comprehensive license (and higher performance -higher tech stuff from SU-57) for this to eventually replace them in SU30MKI (higher power will be needed for AESA equipped birds). Mother Russia may be willing as this can potentially stop F404/414 family of engine. MKI the engine completely - Use that for MWF, Naval LCA (maybe VSTOL using the TVC - invest in 90% movement of nozzle) and same can work on the MCA. Yes tech wise it will be below F414 but from there, improve that over every 100 engine.


It is absolutely amazing how this keeps coming up over and over again almost like clockwork. That sized engine on the MWF/MK2 is not a great idea unless there is a corresponding increase in size, weight and other performance of the aircraft. You can't upsize the engine like that without severe penalties elsewhere that need to be compensate for and the only real way is to make the aircraft substantially bigger - In other words, start with the design from scratch. The GE-414 was selected via a competitive process, and it appears it may also be heading to early tranches of the AMCA. If a new engine is required best then to look at the other competitors in that class, not a larger, more powerful, heavier engine that requires completely re-designing the aircraft and moving program milestones to the right by several years.

fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3084
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

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

Postby fanne » 11 Jul 2019 20:06

This approach is not to replace the need for 414, but the day when it gets sanctioned!!

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7861
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Postby Rakesh » 11 Jul 2019 20:12

Fanne, please re-read what brar has said above and see if it is technically feasible to put a AL-31 turbofan into the engine bay of a Tejas.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7877
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby brar_w » 11 Jul 2019 20:13

You can't fundamentally/radically change the design of an aircraft to make it sanction resistant. It's like saying " we wanted a Gripen, but are buying an F-16 to make it more sanction proof". If you want to make it less sanction prone there are at least 4 other engine options in the same class (including an indigenous engine) that will require significantly fewer changes compared to up-sizing the entire aircraft and adding years to the program, hundreds of millions if not significantly higher $$, more complexity and providing the services a larger, more heavier aircraft than what they initially demanded. The GE-414/404 family has seen incredible success in integrating with a whole host of western and non-western aircraft from combat aircraft to test aircraft to even demonstrators. The team there seems to have built up a reputation of delivering when it comes to a whole host of diverse program needs stemming from air frame designers and developers. But I am sure if funds are allocated an alternate engine program can be re-started to qualify a second engine but I suspect that at least a few hundred Tejas's would need to be in service with a significant MWK's on contract before the MOD/IAF looks into that and I hope that that second engine is home-grown rather than European or Russian.

fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3084
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

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

Postby fanne » 11 Jul 2019 22:30

For now it is a moot point. Hopefully CASTA does not get evoked and 404/414 get denied (if 404/414 keep coming, there is absolutely no reason to switch to any engine - even AL-31). If it comes to that, it does not matter whether we have to change the design or not, LCA/MWF is dead. At this point and perhaps next 5-10 years Kaveri is not an option (because it is not ready). That may leave SOME European engines of almost same capacity (that would require some changes, if not much) - if they are willing to sell and give some TOT and are affordable.
AF-31- I have no doubt that the plane will need to grow in size (in fact bigger than MWF, which may not be a bad thing, we get a multi-role entry level fighter that is no longer a poor man choice in the line of GNAT, Mig 21 and LCA, forever restricted on range) - and thus be costlier etc. (and some bases e.g. Srinagar and Awantipur infra have to be expanded to accommodate these). At that point, while we continue with overall engine development, a la Kaveri, we should own AL-31 and produce 100% of it inhouse (with RU help if possible, without there help or in spite of their help). We are at x% already there (50% to 80% depending on what media report you want to believe).
I am not advocating (like Philips may) moving LCA with AL-31. The current path with 404/414 is the best. But should sanction come in play, there is a way out.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2138
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

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

Postby Vivek K » 11 Jul 2019 23:43

nachiket wrote:How do you reverse engineer a turbine blade?

SC blades were developed at the lab level. (Pics from - BRF Project - The Kaveri Saga, credit to Hakim ji)

Image
Perhaps the tech is more advance since AI13. If not, instead of buying 100s of engines, buy SCBs only.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: chola, dhyana, JayS, souravB, Yagnasri and 34 guests