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.
Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1232
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

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

Postby Gyan » 22 Aug 2019 09:35

But IAF does have a ability to delay sanction of production. So cost issues of MKIA are being raised by FM or IAF or MoD?

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18270
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 22 Aug 2019 09:42

deejay wrote:
Vivek K wrote:If IAF wants HAL to work like a efficient company, it should make timely payments. Only if payments are delayed due to some contractual issues then it would be HAL’s fault.

Timely payments allow for circulation of money and materials and so IAF should try to be more responsive ( if HAL is telling the truth).


IAF does not control the time of payment. MoD does. Chief does not have financial authority beyond few crores.


From reports (internets) it seems D&D money for LCA Mk1A is sanctioned, and the LCA Mk1A production order will be given when it reaches a certain level of maturity (prototype?). It seems MOD just doesn't get the fact the suppliers need payments in advance and delays in testing & certification can delay production, and hence mess them up.

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3887
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby deejay » 22 Aug 2019 10:41

Karan M wrote:
deejay wrote:
IAF does not control the time of payment. MoD does. Chief does not have financial authority beyond few crores.


From reports (internets) it seems D&D money for LCA Mk1A is sanctioned, and the LCA Mk1A production order will be given when it reaches a certain level of maturity (prototype?). It seems MOD just doesn't get the fact the suppliers need payments in advance and delays in testing & certification can delay production, and hence mess them up.


Vidur ji, is better placed to answer why delay payment in such cases but I guess, they are following procedure.

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3887
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby deejay » 22 Aug 2019 10:44

Gyan wrote:But IAF does have a ability to delay sanction of production. So cost issues of MKIA are being raised by FM or IAF or MoD?


Gyan, if you have decided it is IAF, then lets just say you have your prejudices and you stick to it.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11048
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

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

Postby Aditya_V » 22 Aug 2019 10:50

Karan M wrote:
deejay wrote:
IAF does not control the time of payment. MoD does. Chief does not have financial authority beyond few crores.


From reports (internets) it seems D&D money for LCA Mk1A is sanctioned, and the LCA Mk1A production order will be given when it reaches a certain level of maturity (prototype?). It seems MOD just doesn't get the fact the suppliers need payments in advance and delays in testing & certification can delay production, and hence mess them up.


Everybody understands facts,they were not born yesterday, they are having thier reasons which could be

1. They want to kill Tejas and are not very keen
2. HAL, MOD dont want to put all their cards in the open and give import lobbies and foreign companies to sabotage their plans.

I hope its not 1 but 2.

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3887
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby deejay » 22 Aug 2019 11:29

Aditya_V wrote:
Karan M wrote:
From reports (internets) it seems D&D money for LCA Mk1A is sanctioned, and the LCA Mk1A production order will be given when it reaches a certain level of maturity (prototype?). It seems MOD just doesn't get the fact the suppliers need payments in advance and delays in testing & certification can delay production, and hence mess them up.


Everybody understands facts,they were not born yesterday, they are having thier reasons which could be

1. They want to kill Tejas and are not very keen
2. HAL, MOD dont want to put all their cards in the open and give import lobbies and foreign companies to sabotage their plans.

I hope its not 1 but 2.


There is no attempt to kill Tejas anymore. Everyone is onboard. This line of thought is leading to a lot of unnecessary heartburn and posts which hold no water.

The Tejas future plan and induction is also ready. GOIs problem in communication and they are not outlining for public consumption the 5/10/15 year induction plan for Tejas.

Also, I believe in time to come, some Tejas order for export will also come. I think the export variant specs and features are being discussed right now.

V_Raman
BRFite
Posts: 508
Joined: 04 Sep 2008 22:25

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

Postby V_Raman » 22 Aug 2019 11:36

Well said deejay!

srin
BRFite
Posts: 1779
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

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

Postby srin » 22 Aug 2019 12:28

Aditya_V wrote:
Karan M wrote:
From reports (internets) it seems D&D money for LCA Mk1A is sanctioned, and the LCA Mk1A production order will be given when it reaches a certain level of maturity (prototype?). It seems MOD just doesn't get the fact the suppliers need payments in advance and delays in testing & certification can delay production, and hence mess them up.


Everybody understands facts,they were not born yesterday, they are having thier reasons which could be

1. They want to kill Tejas and are not very keen
2. HAL, MOD dont want to put all their cards in the open and give import lobbies and foreign companies to sabotage their plans.

I hope its not 1 but 2.


I think there is an item #3 that IMO is far more likely: Bean-counteritis.

Look at it from a MoD babu view point. You are releasing funds for production even without prototype being accepted by the user. What if it doesn't work out - what would the CAG say ? Is this acceptable as per DPP ? Will CBI file a case ? Why should he put his career (and life long pension) at risk by accepting it ?

Of course, as long as someone else is prepared to take the fall (ex: political class), then the file will move. That's how the Rafale knot was cut - and you have seen the political sh!t storm that has happened. Which Babu is going to stick his neck out ?

This happens all the time in very large private organizations too - I'm not surprised that it'd be prevalent in GoI.

Vidur
BRFite
Posts: 160
Joined: 20 Aug 2017 18:57

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

Postby Vidur » 22 Aug 2019 15:15

deejay wrote:
Karan M wrote:
From reports (internets) it seems D&D money for LCA Mk1A is sanctioned, and the LCA Mk1A production order will be given when it reaches a certain level of maturity (prototype?). It seems MOD just doesn't get the fact the suppliers need payments in advance and delays in testing & certification can delay production, and hence mess them up.


Vidur ji, is better placed to answer why delay payment in such cases but I guess, they are following procedure.


No attempt to delay Tejas. Malicious to blame IAF. Re process I suggest a group of 3 posters study DPP in detail and using it do a bit of Sherlock Holmes work to see what is happening. This will help learning, critical thinking and improve quality of this forum. A post below made some useful points.

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1232
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

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

Postby Gyan » 22 Aug 2019 16:38

Ok. Let's talk +ive

If LCA MKIA agreement is signed between HAL & MOD by September 2019 and Radar, Engines ordered by say Dec 2019;

How much time/years it will take for first 16 LCA MKIA to roll out? Which year? 2023 or earlier?

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3887
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby deejay » 22 Aug 2019 16:49

Vidur wrote:
deejay wrote:
Vidur ji, is better placed to answer why delay payment in such cases but I guess, they are following procedure.


No attempt to delay Tejas. Malicious to blame IAF. Re process I suggest a group of 3 posters study DPP in detail and using it do a bit of Sherlock Holmes work to see what is happening. This will help learning, critical thinking and improve quality of this forum. A post below made some useful points.


Can a case be made to expedite this obvious National project to be expedited bypassing some steps of the DPP? I mean, we all do know that it is a finality.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18270
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 22 Aug 2019 22:40

Vidur wrote:
deejay wrote:
Vidur ji, is better placed to answer why delay payment in such cases but I guess, they are following procedure.


No attempt to delay Tejas. Malicious to blame IAF. Re process I suggest a group of 3 posters study DPP in detail and using it do a bit of Sherlock Holmes work to see what is happening. This will help learning, critical thinking and improve quality of this forum. A post below made some useful points.


I am familiar with the DPP (its warts included - which I'll get to in a minute) but see no clarity/transparency in any reports from the MOD about where the LCA Mk1A is in the process!

In fact media reports suggested, it never went beyond the EOI stage and whether the project was sanctioned to begin with. Here is what was reported in the media. HAL's proposal (as the DA) was rejected by the IAF (cost & non-adherence to the requirements by HAL i.e. DA) and it went back to HAL and HAL was sitting on it. Then reports emerged MOD was looking into exactly why HAL was asking so much for the project.

The next is that after the project gets sanctioned, has CFA etc all sign off on it, prototype production takes place (has it been cleared though? all we have are reports from folks "connected" to the establishment, but not the establishment itself), the entire prototype/s go through a gamut of trials and the production orders are released as per the Buy Indian (IDDM) process. All well and good, except it doesn't address the specific point I addressed.

What happens to the LCA vendors if Mk1A development is delayed (and unfortunately, judging by media reports and lack of MOD transparency in this matter, I can't be certain that the Mk1A funds have been cleared, and hence I had to go around scouting elsewhere for validation!)

This only mentions AoN approval by DAC (latest):
https://pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=1579097

Earlier also notes only a quotation was submitted by HAL:
https://pib.gov.in/PressReleaseIframePa ... ID=1540629

For instance, checking the MOD Annual Report, 2018 which should include data upto March 31st 2019, and was released only recently in late July 2019:
https://mod.gov.in/sites/default/files/MoDAR2018.pdf

No mention of LCA Mk1A in IAF section, HAL section, or even the DRDO section. As it is a HAL led project ideally, it should be in the HAL section (DPSU) with a mention in the IAF & DRDO sections as well. The IAFs Make section in the MOD report doesn't mention it at all.

So, where exactly is the Mk1A in terms of even having the prototype funded and released?

Now at least, because I dug around (Sherlock Holmes as it were) I can state (to some degree of confidence, but not surety) that HAL is continuing to work on the LCA Mk1A prototype.

However, this does not address the other issue of the DPP-2016 or generally the fact that the LCA is so critical to the entire aerospace ecosystem in India that it & projects like the Arjun require exceptional treatment, as beyond what a process says - DPP or whatever. The vendors who supply to the LCA Mk1A cannot afford to wait for the LCA Mk1A to go through protracted trials, that's the crux of the issue. I see no "extraordinary approvals process" in play or a back-up plan from the industrial side of things to protect our industrial base for the LCA. That's the crux of the issue. And this process, approval stuff.

Let me share some data from the commercial side of the fence, hardly as complex as an aircraft program but still relevant. The process was equally conovoluted, methodical etc - involving multiple layers of approval, financial input, proposal after proposal. It resulted in following things. Severe inability to meet time to market, cost increases as the customers added scope creep, and third competitors stole a march. Ultimately process was downsized and the number of approvals and sign off meetings - 3, with different teams involved were reduced to just 1, where everyone had already talked amongst themselves, got things in place, and the approval was then held with a partly antagonistic review board (to ensure probity & accuracy of assumptions, business planning) and a follow up to judge project progress.

Here is what I see with such a vital project like the Tejas Mk1A. No indication on the MOD website about project progress - where it is, who is stalling it, what are the timelines involved (actuals vs DPP) to clear off significant portions of the planning process (as versus the development process) and no indications that a back-up plan exists to even ensure a delay in Mk1A does not impact the AF, and if it does, we meet it via indigenous options (as versus MMRCA).

It is this lack of information available which leads to speculation from even people who support the current GOI and may have voted for it. They end up speculating there is corruption, this, that - vested interests which were unfortunately common in years past, perhaps not now, but the lack of info leads to this sort of stuff.

Now, lets head back to the commercial side, if a certain ambitious project which is out to break the competitor seems to be taking longer than necessary, the project & product teams get together & work to extend the previous generation product in production. Keeps the production line going, staves off competitors (in our case, even a license assembled MMRCA is a competitor to the LCA project from the national perspective) and also requires orders be placed in advance with the suppliers, Indian & abroad. The problem will be 10x more problematic with a fighter which has 100s of LRUs and thousands of subcomponents. Again, is the MOD placed for this, do we have any indications of this, as versus just leaving it to the Service HQ and DPSU/ADA complex? Clearly, not judging by other reports in recent days. This information is actually shared with vendors on the commercial side (because if they don't know in advance, how will they provision for us).

The lack this big-picture details from the MOD and the lack of timely information (for instance the MOD Annual Report was released in July vs April itself) is deeply puzzling. How is one to know that things are on track without regular information being released? Second, from the perspective of industrial development, the DPP does not give me hope that its sufficient to actually develop a comprehensive industrial base beyond taking care of the nitty gritties of the specific project.

Then there is the clear lack of a firm hand at the wheel regarding the LCA Mk1 itself at the MOD. The aircraft works, at FOC level itself its quite lethal and compares well to its adversary, the JF-17, yet the IAF is ordering only 40 of the type and moving to 83 of the Mk1A version. Ok, but is this by itself sufficient for the type? What of the Opex vs Capex requirement as is being discussed in the other thread.

Even getting into the details of the LCA Mk1 itself is bizarre. For instance, the AF has of yet, not even specified an add on SPJ for the LCA Mk1. Why? This is a standard fit which was specifically mentioned by the IAF as a failing for the LCA and is being added to the Mk1A. In reality, this is a relatively straightforward integration with a pylon, which despite the challenges can be done. We have added third party El/8222s to the Bison, with a Russian radar & Indian RWR. Now, what happens tomorrow if the IAF is forced to deploy these LCAs to the border & in a shooting war we lose LCAs because of the lack of a SPJ, or even if they were at a disadvantage? Why is there no one at the MOD sitting down with HAL & the IAF & ADA and asking these basic queries? I see no indication of these questions being asked at all. The IAF's VCAS with due respect mentions that its not a pressing need (yet, it was considered as a defect for the C&AG to flag & for us to procure for most of our fighter fleet, which per records never really occurred for the Bison, only half of the requirement was ordered). This kind of dysfunction, even to someone who is an outsider is just baffling and bizarre. We have existing airframes which are not being upgraded in time, we are chasing expensive imports claiming they bring capabilities which could be retrofitted to existing airframes. In the commercial world, any audit of this kind of stuff would call it "artificial scarcity" creating an artificial demand for a system or platform which was not really necessary, or point it out as an artifact of bad planning.

The concerns are hence beyond DPP and clearly relate to some severe dysfunction in the services MOD setup. Based on purely released information, many such issues exist and nor are they clarified either by the MOD, unless its information guys like me dig for and present as "hey, things aren't as bad as the media alleges". The point though, we should not be doing this. Ideally, all the information should be available from the MOD, even if reasonably sanitized.

There is literally none on the MOD website apart from a once in a year bit from the MOD, and the Annual Reports from the specific DPSUs. Only a rare few have the enthusiasm or patience to sit and parse through all these details, post it & even so, the general perception towards India and Indian projects remains very cynical and negative even if something positive is being done, because of the general apathy in decision making and release of information. For instance, the Astra missile. Bunch of trials in 2018, no information from MOD on long term roadmap beyond an initial 50 order LSP. Looking through the conference calls of its suppliers is disheartening. One would have hoped they knew the reality as versus us common folk, MOD had shared the roadmap with them etc. But.. even they note "we expect orders, unsure, may happen tomorrow". This stymies their own planning, investments, locks them up, has a chilling effect on their own growth & ability to raise capital (their stock price remains subdued).

User trials of the Arudhra radar, 8 units, were conducted and completed in July 2017. We are in August 2019. MOD Annual Report 2018 states it is in RFP stage. This sort of stuff is beyond the pale, two years to order a Make in India breakthrough product displayed on Republic Day? After it clears user trials? How can the MOD take two years to merely negotiate on cost. If the issue is of scope creep, the data should be openly documented and shared. Akash MK1 for the AF, seven squadrons - its been almost 2 years now where I have been tracking BEL reports (those guys say "we hope"). Then the regiments for the Army. Then the orders for Pinaka Mk2. The transfer of round production to pvt industry.. where is the progress, where are the orders?

All this just shows there is a huge level of dysfunction in moving between the cup & the lip to say, and hence why industry responds with stoic skepticism to any remarks around DAC approval of AON etc. In this case we have functional products, which are stuck in haggling. And may I point out, forget our debate for a second and the points I raised. Conversations with even folks working for the MOD (PSU guys etc) invariably brings up corruption, this, that - same as on the forum when questions are raised about why an Indian product is delayed, whereas imports always seem to be on the fast track. In short, they too are frustrated with the lack of information and relying on a media which selectively releases information does not help.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53048
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby ramana » 22 Aug 2019 23:45

Its not dysfunction but totally broken process without accountability. Every file pusher can delay and that drives up costs.
A study of USAF procurement process shows that best programs during cold war from idea to first product were 4 to 8 years. After Cold War ended, the typical product development was 12 to 20 years. And this leads to obsolescence by first deployment.
And this is with active participation and oversight.
In India its wilful negligence.

Hopefully RNS is going to start the reform process now that the CDS reform decision has been taken with in 100 days.

So please keep track of programs an point out in constructive manner.
We are blessed to have Vidur with us.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53048
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby ramana » 23 Aug 2019 00:42

The report title is:
Pr-Milestone A and Early Phase System Engineering.
You can google for the pdf.

Milestone A id Concept Development.

Milestone B is Technology Development

Milestone C is System Development and Demonstration

These are followed by

Production and Deployment

Operations & Support

After studying a number of programs the committee found there are "six seeds for failure"

1. Inexperienced leadership
2. External Interface Compatibility
3. System Complexity
4. Incomplete or Unstable Requirements at Milestone B.
5. Reliance on Immature Technology
6. Reliance on large Amounts of New Software.

Now look at Tejas from its inception had suffered from all these six seeds.
The cancellation of HF-24 follow on deprived aeronautics of design and program leadership.
And it was gradually built up under dr. K. Harinarayana.
Fine lets look at it after the first TDS was flown.
By then the leadership had gained experience.
Yet the LSP all suffered from the rest of the five seeds of failure.

Even as the IOC aircraft is being built there are changes that need FOC version to be different.

Ok what about MoD and IAF?
I submit the short postings in MoD and IAF to follow the Tejas are short term assignments say about three years especially when the development program is stretched to 12 years.

The 1975 to 1977 Emergence devastated the civil bureaucracy just as it did everywhere else and people started watching their backs. The frequent change in governments led to lack of political leadership oversight.

You can read and think about it from these six frames of reference.


Then why does ISRO succeed?

It starts with Milestone A.

ISRO always concepts programs based on fully proven technology.
No concept based on blue sky non available technology.
The technology development is not part of the program.
It is separate effort.
No nonsense grand challenge bokwas that Arunachalam peddled.

Tejas had unstable configuration, digital fly by wire, composite structures, new turbo fan engine, ring laser gyro, and digital flight control software etc.

None of these were in India at that time.

between Milestone A and B ISRO is will ing to try and fail and be open about it.
Example the many failures of cryogenic engine are well documented.
Yet PSLV is a reliable workhorse.
The GSLV has sent our Chandrayaan to the Moon.

Look at the Chandrayaan-2 orbit maneuvers and how they were planned with proven available technology.

No imported turbofans etc.
Bollywood made movies of the scientists!

The slew of IRS satellites, the INSAT, IRNSS, and RIASATS all function and provide the country with benefits.
So much so, France wants to collaborate to launch a string of Indian Ocean monitoring satellite constellation.

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2409
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

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

Postby nam » 23 Aug 2019 01:55

The delay with MK1A must be due to the usual "parenting" attitude of MoD.

It wants to appear neutral b/w IAF & HAL.

IAF wants all bells & whistle at the cheapest cost possible. HAL wants maximum money to give dividend.. to MoD and ofcourse overtime!

Meanwhile MoD watches it's two kids play the ping pong..shouting from far "play nice kids.", thereby washing it's hands off.

The nation can wait.

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2409
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

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

Postby nam » 23 Aug 2019 02:03

The DPP question is interesting.

Did we follow DPP for inducting Ins Arihant? or Chakra? or develop nukes?

How did S400 get in with no offset.. no DPP there?

Looks to me if there is a will... there is a way.

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1591
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

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

Postby Khalsa » 23 Aug 2019 02:19

This is so off topic and I am so loving it. This page should be bookmarked and starred.

fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2998
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

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

Postby fanne » 23 Aug 2019 02:28

How can we muck up developed project, the ones that are desperately needed by forces. The buck stops at MOD and by extension at Shri RS and Shri NM. They should appoint (IAS or not, forces people or not, politician or not) ONE person per product and make him responsible/accountable with all powers to powers to make these things happen. If that person needs a technologist/economics/production etc., let him choose these people (hey recruit from BR, NO KIDDING) and make it happen.

fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2998
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

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

Postby fanne » 23 Aug 2019 02:31

Khalsa sir it is not off topic. That is how this game has been played, for IAF, production, cost etc. is off topic, for HAL tech edge, IAF preparedness is off topic, for MOD - technology, privatization, budget, finance is off topic, for treasury whole of forces need is off topic. Well there has to be one person/agency for which nothing is off topic. Account for everything and make it happen.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4203
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

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

Postby srai » 23 Aug 2019 03:45

+1 KaranM

The much touted “Make In India” should have meant a fast-track process for indigenous weapon purchases. More orders to fill gaps and sustain production. It hasn’t happened unfortunately.

"artificial scarcity" definitely occurring!
Last edited by srai on 23 Aug 2019 04:12, edited 1 time in total.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3667
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

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

Postby Cain Marko » 23 Aug 2019 03:51

deejay wrote:
Aditya_V wrote:
Everybody understands facts,they were not born yesterday, they are having thier reasons which could be

1. They want to kill Tejas and are not very keen
2. HAL, MOD dont want to put all their cards in the open and give import lobbies and foreign companies to sabotage their plans.

I hope its not 1 but 2.


There is no attempt to kill Tejas anymore. Everyone is onboard. This line of thought is leading to a lot of unnecessary heartburn and posts which hold no water.

The Tejas future plan and induction is also ready. GOIs problem in communication and they are not outlining for public consumption the 5/10/15 year induction plan for Tejas.

Also, I believe in time to come, some Tejas order for export will also come. I think the export variant specs and features are being discussed right now.


Is the iaf comfortable with US engine? Are there ways to mitigate this issue?

Dileep
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5648
Joined: 04 Apr 2005 08:17
Location: Dera Mahab Ali धरा महाबलिस्याः درا مهاب الي

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

Postby Dileep » 23 Aug 2019 06:48

Opening an old issue we discussed. I saw the 'gunfire vibration' spec of 'another single engine fighter' and the requirement is remarkably lower. I know the spec heavily depend upon the location of installation, and I am sure the locations are different.

Still....

srin
BRFite
Posts: 1779
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

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

Postby srin » 23 Aug 2019 08:43

nam wrote:The DPP question is interesting.

Did we follow DPP for inducting Ins Arihant? or Chakra? or develop nukes?

How did S400 get in with no offset.. no DPP there?

Looks to me if there is a will... there is a way.


Political will needs to be there. Put another way, there is a need to have a mantri as a fall guy if things go wrong.
Tejas is happening because MP pushed it.
S400 had stamp of NaMo on it (during summit with Putin).
Arihant had stamp of all PMs behind it.

But the "system" that exists now, needs its price.

Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2246
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

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

Postby Prem Kumar » 23 Aug 2019 09:31

deejay wrote:There is no attempt to kill Tejas anymore. Everyone is onboard. This line of thought is leading to a lot of unnecessary heartburn and posts which hold no water.


To me, the litmus test is this: is the IAF willing to kill the 110 Single Engine Fighter RFP?

If yes, then I will believe that they are going all-in on Tejas. If not, then they are not.

Going forward, IAF should not induct anything other than Tejas variants, SU-30 MKIs, Rafales & AMCA. Nothing else.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7636
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Postby Rakesh » 23 Aug 2019 09:39

Prem Saar, Tejas and 110 (or 114 or whatever number you like) MRFA/MMRCA fighters are not in the same league.

But I agree on the fact that the IAF should standardize on the Tejas, Rafale, Su-30MKI and AMCA.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4231
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby JayS » 23 Aug 2019 10:42

ramana wrote:The report title is:
Pr-Milestone A and Early Phase System Engineering.
You can google for the pdf.
.
.
The slew of IRS satellites, the INSAT, IRNSS, and RIASATS all function and provide the country with benefits.
So much so, France wants to collaborate to launch a string of Indian Ocean monitoring satellite constellation.


Just want to make a point of distinction. ISRO has a close system and full autonomy, where they are the initiators of tech dev, they are the developers, they own the funding, they own the full ownership, they control production, and they are the end customer (until recently no external customers as such, now ISRO takes complete programs for COMM SATs from Navy and all, but still majority of the aspects are controlled by ISRO on technology and production side). Their products are used by highly trained workforce in extremely controlled peocesses.

Of coarse this is not to take the credit from ISRO scientists for creating a world class organizational structure prioritizing excellence. Direct comparison of DRDO and ISRO is Apples vs Oranges on many levels. DRDO can never work in silo. DRDO has to deal a lot of internal and external subotage efforts and whimsical nature of many levels of power centers within GOI and Armed Forces.

There has been quite a bit of merrit in the demand for a Department of Aeronautics on the lines of Space and Atomic Energy. Perhaps within DRDO there is a need to decouple Tech Dev and Product Dev. The TD part can be easily run as black programs where money can be sunk without unnecessary public scrutiny, while PD funding can be more tightly controlled thru MoD admin structure. The program level ownership (prog mgmt and funding) of PD part can be given to the respective Armed Force. DRDO can retain full ownership of TD programs, working directly only under PMO. The TD and PD part could be synced using AF's Long term Tech Perspective plans

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18270
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 23 Aug 2019 11:08

JayS, great post!

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4203
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

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

Postby srai » 23 Aug 2019 18:17

...
Milestone A id Concept Development.

Milestone B is Technology Development

Milestone C is System Development and Demonstration
...

1. Inexperienced leadership
2. External Interface Compatibility
3. System Complexity
4. Incomplete or Unstable Requirements at Milestone B.
5. Reliance on Immature Technology
6. Reliance on large Amounts of New Software.
...

IMO, #4 is still a major issue. In fact, I would put it as occurring at Milestone C.

pandyan
BRFite
Posts: 388
Joined: 31 Jul 2006 05:12

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

Postby pandyan » 23 Aug 2019 19:46

JayS wrote:Just want to make a point of distinction. ISRO has a close system and full autonomy, where they are the initiators of tech dev, they are the developers, they own the funding, they own the full ownership, they control production, and they are the end customer (until recently no external customers as such, now ISRO takes complete programs for COMM SATs from Navy and all, but still majority of the aspects are controlled by ISRO on technology and production side). Their products are used by highly trained workforce in extremely controlled peocesses.

Great post saar

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1232
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

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

Postby Gyan » 23 Aug 2019 23:07

I have a feeling that IAF is dragging its feet on MKIA to delay it long enough to cancel it in favour of MK2. Thereafter, mess with MK2 by rinse and repeat in favor of AMCA.

Demand for stuff like Air to Air refueling for FOC seems very odd, unless the only reason was to delay FoC as much as possible.

khan
BRFite
Posts: 551
Joined: 12 Feb 2003 12:31
Location: Tx

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

Postby khan » 24 Aug 2019 00:30

Pardon my ignorance, but isn’t FOC supposed to be the final configuration & shouldn’t it gave A2A refueling?

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4203
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

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

Postby srai » 24 Aug 2019 02:51

khan wrote:Pardon my ignorance, but isn’t FOC supposed to be the final configuration & shouldn’t it gave A2A refueling?

FOC has been a moving target. AAR was a late addition.

Besides, once inducted aircrafts continually go through upgrades to improve capability. Unlike imported aircraft where asking for upgrades from OEM is a major pain, LCA is an indigenous product where major changes have been accommodated even for small orders. However, it would seem the old mindsets still prevail.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7636
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Postby Rakesh » 24 Aug 2019 04:37

They can have all the moving targets they want - AAR, thicker windscreen, etc, etc, etc. Just do not stop the production for that. One can add that capability or upgraded part on earlier build aircraft once that capability or upgraded part has been certified.

khan
BRFite
Posts: 551
Joined: 12 Feb 2003 12:31
Location: Tx

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

Postby khan » 24 Aug 2019 07:52

How long will the delay be for AAR to get certified? I saw something to indirectly indicate that it was around 4 months (12 planes/year instead of 16).

To me 4 month delay to make sure 80+ LCA’s have AAR is worth it.

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1232
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

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

Postby Gyan » 24 Aug 2019 11:18

My guess on production schedule

2019-2020 Nil

2020-2021 LCA MKI FOC =8


2021-2022 LCA MKI FOC =8

2022-2023 NIL

2023-2024 LCA MKI Two Seaters FOC =8

2024-2025 Nil

2025-2026 MKIA =8 Unless cancelled in favor of MK2 or RV2

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1232
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

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

Postby Gyan » 24 Aug 2019 11:22

MKIA is not a sanctioned project. It seems that HAL might spend its own money to develop it.

MK2=MWF is a sanctioned project but it seems that present designs may remain on paper while focus may shift to stealth version of MK2

Hence the Gap will be filled only by imports. Present series of LCA will end at 40 just like Arjun MKI.

New series of AMCA, AURA/GHATAK, RV2, HALE will start a new 30 year cycle of development as stealth platforms

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4231
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby JayS » 24 Aug 2019 12:38

Gyan wrote:MKIA is not a sanctioned project. It seems that HAL might spend its own money to develop it.

MK2=MWF is a sanctioned project but it seems that present designs may remain on paper while focus may shift to stealth version of MK2

Hence the Gap will be filled only by imports. Present series of LCA will end at 40 just like Arjun MKI.

New series of AMCA, AURA/GHATAK, RV2, HALE will start a new 30 year cycle of development as stealth platforms


Consider it a soft warning - STOP TROLLING. You are not adding any real value to the thread with these kind of posts.

Kakarat
BRFite
Posts: 1830
Joined: 26 Jan 2005 13:59

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

Postby Kakarat » 24 Aug 2019 12:52

Gyan wrote:My guess on production schedule
2019-2020 Nil
2020-2021 LCA MKI FOC =8
2021-2022 LCA MKI FOC =8
2022-2023 NIL
2023-2024 LCA MKI Two Seaters FOC =8
2024-2025 Nil
2025-2026 MKIA =8 Unless cancelled in favor of MK2 or RV2


my belief

19-20 3
20-21 8
21-22 8 (including trainers)
22-23 trainers

After trainers MkIA as reports indicate development has started and i dont expect too much testing since no structural difference from MkI but lot depends on actual contract signing. MkIA it seems wont have a separate PV but modified FOC LSP, so testing could start ASAP

ashishvikas
BRFite
Posts: 429
Joined: 17 Oct 2016 14:18

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

Postby ashishvikas » 24 Aug 2019 15:27

Kakarat wrote:
Gyan wrote:My guess on production schedule
2019-2020 Nil
2020-2021 LCA MKI FOC =8
2021-2022 LCA MKI FOC =8
2022-2023 NIL
2023-2024 LCA MKI Two Seaters FOC =8
2024-2025 Nil
2025-2026 MKIA =8 Unless cancelled in favor of MK2 or RV2


my belief

19-20 3
20-21 8
21-22 8 (including trainers)
22-23 trainers

After trainers MkIA as reports indicate development has started and i dont expect too much testing since no structural difference from MkI but lot depends on actual contract signing. MkIA it seems wont have a separate PV but modified FOC LSP, so testing could start ASAP


I had been informed by Facebook LCA Tejas Admin one my 2 questions this month:
When do you expect SP21 making its first flight ? and how many would be ready by Mar-20.
Answer:
"As per hal promise, the full Sqn. We doubt that. After couple of months,the exact number will be known. Hopefully it will be the least double digit."

LakshmanPST
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 93
Joined: 05 Apr 2019 18:23

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

Postby LakshmanPST » 24 Aug 2019 16:35

https://twitter.com/TGunasagaran/status ... 3659833344
@TGunasagaran: There seems to be an information blackout regarding the production status of #FOC #Tejas jets. By now a few FOC Tejas Mk1 should have entered squadron service ? Why no news ?


https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/1165147421266993158
@hvtiaf: Deliveries will start by end of the year.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: jpremnath, Kakarat, Lekhraj, souravB, Vamsee and 63 guests