Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020

Shameek · Post by **Shameek** » 12 Jan 2020 21:55

Wonderful news and pictures! A very proud day for India. What a start to the year!

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 12 Jan 2020 22:02

What a proud moment it will be when Tejas takes off from INS Vikrant. Indian plane from an Indian aircraft carrier. Can't wait!

Page 1 updated with the Tejas take off from INS Vikramaditya. Waiting for the video to add in page 1.

kit · Post by **kit** » 12 Jan 2020 22:17

Rakesh wrote:What a proud moment it will be when Tejas takes off from INS Vikrant. Indian plane from an Indian aircraft carrier. Can't wait!

And that will mark the beginning of a new era for the IN !! Proud of IN for standing by LCA and the indigenisation efforts !!

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 12 Jan 2020 22:18

Indeed Kit!

Page 1 updated AGAIN with a couple of youtube videos.

As soon as the youtube video of the Tejas take off comes out, I will add that in as well.

hnair · Post by **hnair** » 12 Jan 2020 22:27

indranilroy. Eh? Please don’t make up stuff - I have never disparaged IAF, but the specific personalities who make decisions and their more illogical ideas. And Mig29K sucks, despite its role as a derelict pawn in a grand plan that did work in the matter of getting India a second strike. But that doesn’t make it a holy relic and immune to trolling.

Asking everyone to celebrate per your spec is kind of a stretch.

Kakarat · Post by **Kakarat** » 12 Jan 2020 22:30

Rakesh wrote:Indeed Kit!

Page 1 updated AGAIN with a couple of youtube videos.

As soon as the youtube video of the Tejas take off comes out, I will add that in as well.

Please add tweets from the Navy also
https://twitter.com/indiannavy/status/1 ... 4911544320

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 12 Jan 2020 22:41

I would bet (and hopefully do not get banned for this) - TEDBF will come sooner than MWF. You can bet on it, IN will push for it, own it and make it happen, while MWF will endlessly wait for 114 MMCRA to conclude.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 12 Jan 2020 22:42

hnair wrote:indranilroy. Eh? Please don’t make up stuff - I have never disparaged IAF, but the specific personalities who make decisions and their more illogical ideas. And Mig29K sucks, despite its role as a derelict pawn in a grand plan that did work in the matter of getting India a second strike. But that doesn’t make it a holy relic and immune to trolling.

Asking everyone to celebrate per your spec is kind of a stretch.

Hnair sahab,

I was not even thinking of you when I wrote it. I think I said "I request you all". And it is a request. If you feel the need to put down Mig29k to extol NLCA, or IAF gents to extol Navy, it is certainly your prerogative.

My request is simple, Mig29ks guard our skies and waters. Disparaging it publicly does us no good. Indian Navy knows the details of the failures of Mig29k. Can you find a single piece of information where it has disparaged the 29k. If not, why not?

Shouldn't the same reasoning apply to us. I can only speak for myself. I can tell you horror stories of the 29k which nobody has spoken of here or on any forum. I won't. I agree with you that this my way. Everyone should chose theirs.

Suresh S · Post by **Suresh S** » 12 Jan 2020 22:50

The picture of that little puppy, that beauty taking off from INS Vikramaditya filled my chest with so much pride and my eyes with so much water.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 12 Jan 2020 22:56

fanne wrote:I would bet (and hopefully do not get banned for this) - TEDBF will come sooner than MWF. You can bet on it, IN will push for it, own it and make it happen, while MWF will endlessly wait for 114 MMCRA to conclude.

MWF's detail design is complete. It's first prototype is to fly in 2-3 years. TEDBF has no chance of catching up. 6 years for first flight is a steep task. But achievable with the right support and funding. I am going to speak my mind here. Make Mao sir the head of TEDBF project and watch the results. Don't let him retire now. He is not even close to done.

nam · Post by **nam** » 12 Jan 2020 23:14

Both MWF & AMCA design is available. How difficult or easy will be to use this existing knowledge to come up with a TEDBF design?

I mean, it is not the first time ADA is designing a twin engine jet. It has already done it with AMCA. And in MWF it has a known aero design.

MWF is now going in to prototype build phase. So ADA is not going to busy tweaking MWF design, until it flies.

Fundamentally ADA requires the go ahead and funding for TEDBF.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 13 Jan 2020 00:22

I agree in moment of triumph no need to disparage the old warhorses. They said what they said based on their perception at that time
Who knows their bad remarks spurred the team to excel.

Indranil I think fielding NLCA even if it costs $700M is a good risk reduction for IN.

Atmavik · Post by **Atmavik** » 13 Jan 2020 01:20

LCA (Navy) – Happy to be Arrested!

https://kaypius.com/2020/01/12/lca-navy ... -arrested/

plz do read this well-written article by KP Sanjeev Kumar. A former naval test pilot/

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 13 Jan 2020 01:34

His other posts are excellent as well.

F.e https://kaypius.com/2020/01/10/so-you-w ... %9f%98%89/

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 13 Jan 2020 01:39

and this is his tweet too

Overheard in the crew room:

"Aaj mere paas Mirage hai, Sukhoi hai, Rafale hai, Brahmos bhi hai...tere paas kya hai?"

"Mere paas 'Mao' hai"

SidSoma · Post by **SidSoma** » 13 Jan 2020 02:34

Kakarat wrote:

Great Great....

What is observed..

1. Longer takeoff path,
2. Clean Configuration

So much joy.

Dileep · Post by **Dileep** » 13 Jan 2020 07:41

That is the SHORTER takeoff path.
Later: Sorry about that.. My bad. It is the longer path.

pandyan · Post by **pandyan** » 13 Jan 2020 07:53

What an achievement! Incredible feeling!
In general, for launch wouldn't carrier line up in the direction of the wind? The wind cone is blowing the other way. Infact, launch is more difficult in this scenario (with my pea brain sized understanding)

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 13 Jan 2020 08:32

fanne wrote:I would bet (and hopefully do not get banned for this) - TEDBF will come sooner than MWF. You can bet on it, IN will push for it, own it and make it happen, while MWF will endlessly wait for 114 MMCRA to conclude.

With the current IAF ACM RKS Bhadauria, I would bet the opposite. His tenure will see indigenous platforms supported and procured. MWF is being developed with active IAF support and has funding and some sort of a timeline. Nothing of that sort with the TEDBF as yet.

It is the Navy which is hankering for 57 MRCBF when they have 44 MiG-29Ks that cover their needs for both of their carriers. If they were so unhappy with the MiG-29K, why did they go for the 29 options that the contract included?

the IAF actually has a shortfall, the Navy does not. the IAF may actually see action again if another terror strike occurs, whereas the Navy's jets will primarily be tasked with protecting the fleet if they get deployed, for which the 44 MiG-29K/KUBs are sufficient. IMO, the IAF's needs are far greater than the IN's. In fact, the very fact that the IN is even entertaining the Sea Gripen paper concept with a single engine, while rejecting the single engine LCA Navy Mk2 says a lot.

Raveen · Post by **Raveen** » 13 Jan 2020 08:44

pandyan wrote:What an achievement! Incredible feeling!
In general, for launch wouldn't carrier line up in the direction of the wind? The wind cone is blowing the other way. Infact, launch is more difficult in this scenario (with my pea brain sized understanding)

You want to be against the wind to increase the relative velocity over the wings for take-off - this helps shorten the distance to take-off.
The ship is pointed in the correct direction vis-à-vis the wind, for shortest possible take-off distance.

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 13 Jan 2020 09:02

From RT.com if not posted b4

Sanju · Post by **Sanju** » 13 Jan 2020 09:39

What an incredible feeling watching the plane land and seeing the pictures of its takeoff!

Congrats to all of us and Pranaams to those known and unknown folks, in Uniform & civvies, serving & retired, whose blood, sweat & tears made this day possible.

SidSoma · Post by **SidSoma** » 13 Jan 2020 10:34

Dileep wrote:That is the SHORTER takeoff path.

It seems to be taking off from the left most line, which seems longer on the ship than the straight line. How do we ascertain this

sajaym · Post by **sajaym** » 13 Jan 2020 10:47

nam wrote:Both MWF & AMCA design is available. How difficult or easy will be to use this existing knowledge to come up with a TEDBF design?

The LCA-MWF-TEDBF program should best be executed similar to the ALH program. In the ALH program, once the base ALH design was proven it spawned a whole host of offshoots like LCH, LUH and IMRH in relatively less time than the initial program. And if you see, the LCH, LUH and IMRH still have a heavy ALH design influence.

Now similarly, the LCA should be the baseline design which should lead into the MWF & TEDBF programs. As long as the baseline design (Delta wing) is kept constant in the MWF & TEDBF program, we can be assured of quick development cycle & successful induction. Infact, I would assume the TEDBF is just an enlarged version of the MWF with two engines and if so, that is good news. The LCA, MWF & TEDBF are the natural evolution of the same basic design. The only frankensteins in the fighter program are the IJT and the AMCA, where the designers gave up the baseline LCA delta wing design for some new wing design -- they ended up f***ing the IJT and it remains to be seen what they'll make of the AMCA.

People who are doing rona-dhona seeing the success of the NLCA aboard the INSV and wondering why the IN is not inducting the NLCA in it's current form should realise that the current NLCA is just a 'Wooden Marut' to the TEDBF. A successful NLCA Mk1 program = a successful TEDBF program... provided the wing design is NOT changed.

(Those who're unaware, please google up the story of the Marut fighter to understand what is a 'Wooden Marut').

Dileep · Post by **Dileep** » 13 Jan 2020 10:47

SidSoma wrote:
Dileep wrote:That is the SHORTER takeoff path.
It seems to be taking off from the left most line, which seems longer on the ship than the straight line. How do we ascertain this

I stand corrected. It is indeed the left line, which is longer.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 13 Jan 2020 10:51

Longer TO roll. That must be the one with 200m roll available. It makes sense to err on the safer side.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/INS_Vik ... trials.jpg

PS - just saw saw Dileep saar's post above.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 13 Jan 2020 11:02

sajaym wrote:The only frankensteins in the fighter program are the IJT and the AMCA, where the designers gave up the baseline LCA delta wing design for some new wing design -- they ended up f***ing the IJT and it remains to be seen what they'll make of the AMCA.

(Those who're unaware, please google up the story of the Marut fighter to understand what is a 'Wooden Marut').

Err.. You want delta wing IJT based on LCA..?? That would be a bad decision on many fronts.

May be figuratively, but NLCA Mk1 is no wooden Marut literally. I hope Navy doesn't back track from the order of 8 they had inteded to place. Operationalising MK1, will greately help TEDBF. Clearly even the Navy can use the experience, not just the designers.

Kakarat · Post by **Kakarat** » 13 Jan 2020 13:07

https://twitter.com/SandeepUnnithan/sta ... 7904882688

Bala Vignesh · Post by **Bala Vignesh** » 13 Jan 2020 15:47

Glad to see someone pitch the case for a NLCA based LIFT!! It's a low hanging fruit ripe for picking, giving IN a huge boost in its Air warfare capabilities and increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of the MiG29K platform, which are clearly not living upto the expectations.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 13 Jan 2020 16:20

nam wrote:AMCA design is available...It has already done it with AMCA.

No. Its still WIP. TEDBF will be a good milestone before AMCA.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 13 Jan 2020 16:29

Kartik wrote:In fact, the very fact that the IN is even entertaining the Sea Gripen paper concept with a single engine, while rejecting the single engine LCA Navy Mk2 says a lot.

You keep on bringing this up. In the now locked thread, we had discussed that IN had issued an RFI and anyone and everyone including Gripen & F-16 responded. Both didnt make it to the shortlist (F/A-18E/F and Rafale M) given that they were paper tigers. So they were never "entertained" beyond the sarkari chai biscuit that even Delhi Police offers to chaps protesting against hostel fees hike. You and I too were free to submit an RFI response to every RFI published on the ADA/IN website.

Secondly, as per studies, F-414 (97.9 kN) powered single engine fighter seems insufficient for the naval role. Hence a twin engined offering. Had the higher powered F-110 (144 kN) or F-135 (191 kN) engine been on offer, maybe a redesigned single engine fighter "could" have done the job. Redesigned to accommodate the changed dimensions and weight of the other two engines.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 13 Jan 2020 16:50

JayS wrote:It probably is also the max that NLCA MK1 can TO with. But we need to see about that. We will only know when ADA flight tests from AC for MTOW. They should have a fair bit of idea now as well from the simulations, but so far there is no talk about MTOW of NLCA Mk1 from Ski jump that I could locate.

Kakarat wrote:https://twitter.com/VishnuNDTV/status/1 ... 9244834817
11. The learning curve has proven to be massive - someone associated with the project told me ``How little we knew in September.''

JayS, I didnt respond to your earlier post then, but during my discussions with the folks, they emphasized this exact point. Every test and every flight is a new learning.

For some reason, a myth perpetrating on Bharat Rakshak forums - and all other internet forums - is that simulations solve aerodynamic problems and all a test flight does is to validate the solution arrived at through the simulation. Nothing is further from the truth. There were multiple test flights required to explore and expand the flight envelope and solve problems as they emerged.

Simulations are heavily dependent on input parameters and flight control response to those input parameters. More often than not, parameters were not known or rather, not well known. Similarly the platform would not respond the way simulations predicted. All this require multiple levels of flight testing.

Similarly during the LCA Mk1 development from 2001 till 2017, I came across repeated statements on BR Forums that simulations have been done. The reason flight testing took long is because IAF is throwing tantrums or adding requirements. The real reason development took time from 2001 till 2017 was flight testing to establish performance by thorough flight testing much beyond simulations.

The simulation myth was started during JSF development wherein Lockheed Martin gave goli that F-35 will have much less development time because all test cases would be simulated. There too, the actual case proved very different.

Simulation helps, but isnt a magic wand. The development and flight testing time, effort & pain still exists.

The magical promise of "simulation" is the biggest over-promise and under-delivery in the aviation industry.

The Boeing 737 MAX MCAS and P&W GTF shaft bending are also classic cases of total failure of "simulations".

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 13 Jan 2020 17:01

Also, those thinking MWF will come tomorrow, TEDBF day after tomorrow and AMCA by weekend kindly heed the following

Kakarat wrote:https://twitter.com/VishnuNDTV/status/1 ... 9244834817
11. The learning curve has proven to be massive - someone associated with the project told me ``How little we knew in September.''

The ideal development path in my opinion would be MWF -> TEDBF -> AMCA

Also, those perturbed by the Chinese rapid deployment pls note that even the Soviet Navy expanded rapidly 50-90's but suffered terribly through the Komsomolets, K-8, K-219 and other disasters due to lack of thoroughness of testing and maturity of designs. The US too suffered Thresher and Scorpion disasters due to aggressive development cycles.

The Chinese may release shiny photos but their deployments are far less than their numbers while IN, IAF deploy more despite lesser numbers.

And the Tejas Mk1 and Mk1 Navy are far more proven than any Chinese design.

mody · Post by **mody** » 13 Jan 2020 17:07

The 20 odd take off and landing planned over the next few days, will also show the amount of maintenance required by the fighter after each sortee and the turn around time between sortees for the plane. Will also give valuable insight to the developers for the TEDBF with regards to maintenance requirements and design choices to be made. Over tests over the next few months will reveal the optimum configuration (payload and fuel) that the NLCA can reliably be used with, for carrier based operations.

If everything goes well over the next few months, sincerely hope the navy orders minimum 8-12 NLCA. Maybe the MK1A version, without the air-to-air refuelling probe, as the navy does not have any refuellers.

Alas, 200-300 Kgs of reduction in empty weight and F414 engine, would have made the NLCA a viable stop gap carrier based fighter.
In the current form, it will remain a TD and trainer for new pilots.

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 13 Jan 2020 17:16

All mig 29 of in are Refullers. In iaf we have 260 Su 30 moo refullers. Refilling wise we are covered, awacs we need more.

Where is the video?

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 13 Jan 2020 17:35

tsarkar wrote:
JayS wrote:It probably is also the max that NLCA MK1 can TO with. But we need to see about that. We will only know when ADA flight tests from AC for MTOW. They should have a fair bit of idea now as well from the simulations, but so far there is no talk about MTOW of NLCA Mk1 from Ski jump that I could locate.

Kakarat wrote:https://twitter.com/VishnuNDTV/status/1 ... 9244834817
JayS, I didnt respond to your earlier post then, but during my discussions with the folks, they emphasized this exact point. Every test and every flight is a new learning.

<snip>

I surely did not use the words "accurate idea". And that statement preceded by a statement saying we will know for sure only after flight testing. Please do not take that statement "how little did we know" too literally. It does not mean they literally knew too little. Just a polite way of expression. In the same tweet series it also says that the flight was anti-climatic. A bunch of "know too little" do not run an extremely successful flight program without any major incidence and achieve Deck landing/TO within merely 200 test flights starting from an Air Force Fighter which was heavily modified. They went straight for the deck landing after finishing a short test campeign on STFB when they achieved very first arrested landing. There was hardly any time available in between to make any modifications to the FCS. That itself indicates their FCS was right on the money even before they actually achieved the very first AR. That doesn't happen without a decent simulation capabilities (and decent doesn't mean 100% accurate). When it comes to simulations, I know a thing or two about their limitations and strengths, and I know what I am talking about. You can browse through various publications from ADA to evaluate their simulation capabilities on your own. We have quite a lot of publications available in public domain.

This is OT here, but BTW, 737MAX was not a simulations failure. It was not an engineering failure at all. It was a management failure. I don't know enough about the bowed rotor in PW1000G GTF case to make a comment on it.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 13 Jan 2020 19:26

Jay, the SBTF landings happened in September, and that too was preceded by intensive sorties. Same before the actual landings. A lot of work was done, both by the development teams as well as the flight testing teams in a mission critical mode. So yes, while 4 months are a very short duration in aviation development, the effort put in was massive. The software is updated almost after flight ingesting the test data.

My comments were not directed at you, but were generally highlighting the complexities in aviation development. And this landing is just a start with rest of the carrier flying envelope having to be established. Winter is when engine gives a higher power rating. In summer, engine efficiency reduces with high ambient heat and at lower power outputs, the performance envelope will need to be assessed. During monsoon with squalls and random wind gusting conditions, another round of testing needs to be done.

It will require a lot of time and hard work before we get a "fully ops qualified" Carrier Bourne Fighter.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 14 Jan 2020 00:58

tasrkar is right about need for extensive testing. The Thresher failure was due to a inexpensive fitting that failed.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 14 Jan 2020 02:08

JayS wrote:
tsarkar wrote:

JayS, I didnt respond to your earlier post then, but during my discussions with the folks, they emphasized this exact point. Every test and every flight is a new learning.

<snip>

I surely did not use the words "accurate idea". And that statement preceded by a statement saying we will know for sure only after flight testing. Please do not take that statement "how little did we know" too literally. It does not mean they literally knew too little. Just a polite way of expression. In the same tweet series it also says that the flight was anti-climatic. A bunch of "know too little" do not run an extremely successful flight program without any major incidence and achieve Deck landing/TO within merely 200 test flights starting from an Air Force Fighter which was heavily modified. They went straight for the deck landing after finishing a short test campeign on STFB when they achieved very first arrested landing. There was hardly any time available in between to make any modifications to the FCS. That itself indicates their FCS was right on the money even before they actually achieved the very first AR. That doesn't happen without a decent simulation capabilities (and decent doesn't mean 100% accurate). When it comes to simulations, I know a thing or two about their limitations and strengths, and I know what I am talking about. You can browse through various publications from ADA to evaluate their simulation capabilities on your own. We have quite a lot of publications available in public domain.

This is OT here, but BTW, 737MAX was not a simulations failure. It was not an engineering failure at all. It was a management failure. I don't know enough about the bowed rotor in PW1000G GTF case to make a comment on it.

Agree 100%.

The fact is that simulation capabilities are incredibly important because of the hundreds and sometimes thousands of test cases that need to be run for testing various scenarios for aero data, structural stress data, etc. it would increase the flight test program duration and cost exponentially if simulation capability was not available. Or it may very significantly increase the likelihood of accidents as issues or risks that simulations would have revealed would be found out during flight testing.

What is best done nowadays is to simulate and then validate the models using flight tests. Once you know the model is quite accurate, you can further simulate more test cases, easing the costs significantly and also the time taken.

Where the flight tests reveal discrepancies that the simulation did not reveal, the sim model is tweaked and then re-tested to validate that flight data closely matches sim predictions. This is how the LCA Navy went about it.

Clearly, within a short number of test flights, they demonstrated arrested landing and take off at SBTF.

But we must remember that the primary goal of the LCA Navy project remained demonstrating carrier compatibility. The Tejas program took on the much larger scope of testing and developing the whole gamut of capabilities required to make it an operational fighter.

On another note 2026 for first flight gives us 3 years within which the TEDBF design needs to be frozen and designs released to production of the prototypes. So 2023 for detail design completion. By then the MWF prototype would have flown.

TEDBF will have a shorter cycle towards development, having the advantage of known deck fighter pitfalls such as optimal landing gear design so that the weight is under control. After all it builds on the LCA Navy Mk2 design. It also will build on the FCS algorithms already built for LCA Navy Mk1. It will take avionics and systems from MWF and scale them up for twin engine use as required. How the LCA Navy prototypes deal with marine environment should be studied, although the Navy would generally know what to look out for and what anti corrosion treatments to provide.

In short, this is evolution at its best. The foundation now exists in the LCA Navy and Tejas Mk1 and we know what their drawbacks are and what to avoid. The next level is going ahead with MWF and then we will get the TEDBF and perhaps ORCA.

Whether TEDBF will be a close coupled canard delta wing design or a delta wing with stabilators like the last LCA Navy Mk2 design will have to be seen. In that context, the ORCA design Rendering for IAF too is somewhat premature.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 14 Jan 2020 02:11

fanne wrote:All mig 29 of in are Refullers. In iaf we have 260 Su 30 moo refullers. Refilling wise we are covered, awacs we need more.

Where is the video?

Can’t be. How many of those UPAZ pods did Navy and IAF acquire? And remember those pods use the fighters internal and drop tank fuel only. So very limited amount of fuel can be offloaded. It is an emergency solution and definitely not an option to dedicated tankers.