Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020

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.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54175
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020

Postby ramana » 25 Mar 2020 02:28

Thanks. For the info.
You don't know what you just conveyed.

fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3299
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020

Postby fanne » 25 Mar 2020 08:30

this could be the best use of downtime at HAL - build NLCA - risk mitigation vis a vis Mig 29 (I believe at least in AA role, NLCA has adequate range and time on station with enough aa missile). A mixture, where NLCA provides AA coverage (and if A to S or A to G if feasible) while M29 goes out for A to S and A2G roles).
Also we advance our TEDBF with a practical NLCA, many tech can keep on maturing on NLCA. A 16/32 plane run for NLCA may not be bad. When TEDBF comes over they get handed to IAF (and if needed, some parts rebuilt - e.g. landing gear).

basant
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 17
Joined: 20 Mar 2020 20:58

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020

Postby basant » 25 Mar 2020 23:08

fanne wrote:this could be the best use of downtime at HAL - build NLCA - risk mitigation vis a vis Mig 29 (I believe at least in AA role, NLCA has adequate range and time on station with enough aa missile). A mixture, where NLCA provides AA coverage (and if A to S or A to G if feasible) while M29 goes out for A to S and A2G roles).
Also we advance our TEDBF with a practical NLCA, many tech can keep on maturing on NLCA. A 16/32 plane run for NLCA may not be bad. When TEDBF comes over they get handed to IAF (and if needed, some parts rebuilt - e.g. landing gear).

I am just wondering what if the downtime is used to make LCA Navy trainer? As needed, it can be used as Navy trainer, air force trainer and in combat for IN and IAF. It may not excel in the last 2 roles and not perhaps required for the first but practically it can be used for any role in dire straits.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20512
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020

Postby Philip » 26 Mar 2020 02:58

An article on how the CV is affecting the IA's ability to respond to both fronts,because of budget blues, basic small arms,ammo,etc. unavailable, will have a cascading effect and the IN,whose slice of cake has gotten even smaller will have nothing in the pocket for the NLCA. It is more likely to buy more limited numbers of 29Ks,to fill any gaps,being cheaper and a more cost-effective solution.Just a sqd. of NLCAs, will find it v.difficult to set up a future domestic logistic supply chain. What money we have ,let's for now plug the ASW helo gap.

agupta
BRFite
Posts: 283
Joined: 13 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020

Postby agupta » 26 Mar 2020 03:35

I am sorry, folks, but what khayali dosas are y'all slinging speculating about "downtimes"...

Reproducing Kartik's careful & thoughtful forecast below. As he says, one needs a grounded "how" HAL will ramp up production rates WITHOUT dropping something else to even begin this kite-flying...

Kartik wrote:
With the first Mk1A supposed to be rolled off the assembly line in 2022-23, there is no point in ordering any more Mk1s. There is no assembly line that is idle as of now. All the focus must be on delivering the Mk1A in the defined schedule and finishing all 73 single seat Mk1A deliveries BEFORE 2029.

As you can see below, there is no gap in the schedule to accommodate more Mk1 orders. All it will do it slide the Mk1A deliveries to the right

2019-2020 -- 2 FOC single seaters (SP-21 and SP-22)
2020-2021 -- 14 FOC Single seaters (SP-23 onwards to SP-36)
2021-2022 -- 8 FOC trainers + 8 FOC trainers from the Mk1A batch
2023-2024 -- 14 Mk1A + 2 FOC trainers
2024-2025 -- 16 Mk1A
2025-2026 -- 16 Mk1A
2026-2027 -- 16 Mk1A
2027-2028 -- 11 Mk1A + 5 MWF (hopefully)

The only way the schedule can be contracted further is by increasing production to 20 Tejas Mk1As per year.


Note that wonderful achievement that HAL was recently crowing about re. automation of drilling seems to have come-in AFTER the entire IOC batch of production ended, instead of at the beginning like one would have expected... multiple years late, and its then celebration time ! Talk about expectation management and conditioning the customers/public !!!

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8061
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020

Postby Indranil » 26 Mar 2020 04:12

I don't want to go to NLCA production. There are no orders and IN is not keen on it. It is on TEDBF, and work is going fast on that. I can tell you a few number of internal reviews with IN has been completed. IN considering the NLCA Mk1 as LIFT. It is mighty pleased with NLCA Mk1 tests. The test results are better than anticipated, kind of anticlimactic in a way. The team demonstrated 3 hot refuels resulting in 4 traps and 3 takeoffs for 3 hours of continuous flying on a single aircraft. Nobody expected that from a prototype on its second day ever onboard ANY ship. The design team also learned a lot about what works best onboard a floating hangar and flight deck.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8061
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020

Postby Indranil » 26 Mar 2020 04:18

Gupta sahab, it is easy to blame HAL and say if only it was for another company (preferably private) things would be rosier.

I guarantee you, paisa phenko tamasha dekho. Double the orders, and one more line will come up magically. On the contrary, if you don't pay the dues to a company, to the the point that it has to take loans then NO company will invest in capital intensive automatic drilling machines which are required for large scale production!

It is quite simple only, the use and abuse is bidirectional. One has to be deliberately biased to find malice on one side only.

agupta
BRFite
Posts: 283
Joined: 13 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020

Postby agupta » 26 Mar 2020 04:40

Hmm... there are incompetent Private companies too - they get run out quickly, so don't see my note as a push to hand this over to a private agency. And my grey hair have been witness to many accounts of Services playing fast-n-loose as well. That's not the issue.

My point is simply this: Taking on debt to finance operations is a VERY COMMON thing to do in big industrials. Is HAL really doing a rona-dhona about it or is this angst an internet forum construct ? If its the former, then geez - that's disappointingly far from even a best-of-India class professionally run industrial management

I am not arguing for an extra line or production expectations. I think the current evolution of Mk1A--> MWF / NLCA TD --> TEDBF is a wise and mature thing to do. I don't believe even if HAL got more cash or orders for Mk1, its efficient enough to manage it - it WILL screw over and mess up MWF and TEDBF EIS timelines... and THAT transition for playing defense to offense with the foundation the Tejas program has given us is what I would love to see ASAP.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8061
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020

Postby Indranil » 26 Mar 2020 04:52

agupta wrote:Hmm... there are incompetent Private companies too - they get run out quickly, so don't see my note as a push to hand this over to a private agency. And my grey hair have been witness to many accounts of Services playing fast-n-loose as well. That's not the issue.

My point is simply this: Taking on debt to finance operations is a VERY COMMON thing to do in big industrials. Is HAL really doing a rona-dhona about it or is this angst an internet forum construct ? If its the former, then geez - that's disappointingly far from even a best-of-India class professionally run industrial management

Sirjee, how many C295Ws has Tata built based on confirmed orders? If they have not built one, then which quality of industrial management are they missing?
agupta wrote:I am not arguing for an extra line or production expectations. I think the current evolution of Mk1A--> MWF / NLCA TD --> TEDBF is a wise and mature thing to do. I don't believe even if HAL got more cash or orders for Mk1, its efficient enough to manage it - it WILL screw over and mess up MWF and TEDBF EIS timelines... and THAT transition for playing defense to offense with the foundation the Tejas program has given us is what I would love to see ASAP.

That's your opinion. I am not going to try to change it. But MWF, NLCA, TEDBF etc. are currently not HAL run projects.

agupta
BRFite
Posts: 283
Joined: 13 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020

Postby agupta » 26 Mar 2020 05:01

My point above was simply that

1. It seems to me there is no downtime to fit anything into currently given HAL effectiveness on the manufacturing side. Either Mk1s, or NLCAs etc. So lets stop speculating

2. A posting error has mistakenly linked this to LCH orders etc. NOT advocating it.

3. True MWF/TEDBF are not HAL run projects. But having the Manufacturing/System Integration chops to "productize" them from ADA quickly, on time and on schedule (whatever HAL commits to) is enough of a challenge given efforts so far that HAL should reserve its energies for executing on them as those move from Development to Product Realization phase

HAL Aircraft Div run projects: Sitara(limping back after multiple development snafus), HTT-40 (running - good initiative). Lets leave it that. Let them take one to full success and then ask for ownership of others

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7410
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020

Postby nachiket » 26 Mar 2020 05:12

If MoD hadn't paid dues to the tune of thousands of crores to a private company (foreign or domestic) there would be arbitration proceedings going on right now and MoD would end up paying through their (taxpayer's) noses eventually. They know that very well. So they don't default on payments to private (especially foreign) vendors. With HAL, it looks like there is a "sab kuch chalta hai" attitude since it is a government agency and is not going to sue the MoD.

And yes if they had defaulted on payments to a private vendor that vendor would not be drilling a single hole (in a manual or automated manner) to fulfill more orders.

agupta
BRFite
Posts: 283
Joined: 13 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020

Postby agupta » 26 Mar 2020 05:13

You've raised an interesting possibility of the NLCA --> LiFT role ! Interesting. I do recall you advocating for a clean sheet AJT/HAwk-scale LIFT design as well, right ? Are you thinking we may end up having 2 different LIFT candidates - separate one for IAF and IN ?

agupta
BRFite
Posts: 283
Joined: 13 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020

Postby agupta » 26 Mar 2020 05:20

nachiket wrote:If MoD hadn't paid dues to the tune of thousands of crores to a private company (foreign or domestic) there would be arbitration proceedings going on right now and MoD would end up paying through their (taxpayer's) noses eventually. They know that very well. So they don't default on payments to private (especially foreign) vendors. With HAL, it looks like there is a "sab kuch chalta hai" attitude since it is a government agency and is not going to sue the MoD.

And yes if they had defaulted on payments to a private vendor that vendor would not be drilling a single hole (in a manual or automated manner) to fulfill more orders.



I dunno, Nachiket-ji. I believe if MoD was just sitting on dues without any real or contractually enforce-able reasons, HAL would've made a big stink by now. I can only speculate that they are in a vise because the contractual language screws them over and perhaps in the past, "9X% performance" was sufficient and now if someone wants to hold them hostage (even if unfairly) they can. You know, If you want to charge pass-through fees for managing component integration because you're allowed to, maybe some else starts to use the the old "work-to-rules" play... all parties can play that game. All speculation only, not even chaiwala info

The hole drilling was I believe connected to IOC contract; all paid for. So lets not get off tangents on future contracts. What would be instructive would be - Original timeline for that improvement, promised production cycle time vs. realized on say the last batch of the IOC tranches.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8061
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020

Postby Indranil » 26 Mar 2020 05:55

agupta wrote:You've raised an interesting possibility of the NLCA --> LiFT role ! Interesting. I do recall you advocating for a clean sheet AJT/HAwk-scale LIFT design as well, right ? Are you thinking we may end up having 2 different LIFT candidates - separate one for IAF and IN ?

1. IN doesn't have a trainer that can land on deck. NLCA Mk1 trainer will be that LIFT. ADA trying to sell that concept to IN. IN sees the merit. Short on money.
2. HAL has put forward LCA AF trainer -- as LIFT for IAF and other AFs. There is virtue in it. But, I don't see the differentiator from the Boeing/Saab T-7, Lockheed Martin/KAI T-50, the Yak/Hongdu L-15 and the Chengu/PAC J-17B. If I were a foreign buyer, I would go the T-7 which has ~500 orders on day 1, and is designed from the ground up as a standalone LIFT. It's maintenance is going to be the least by virtue of the design choices it has made.
3. Therefore I have khayali pulao design in my mind of next generation AJT/LIFT which is based on single-AB engine. A modern day Mig21/F-5E. It will be cheaper to acquire and maintain than all the above (except the T-7). Performance wise it will lie in between a Hawk and an LCA Mk1. It can chose a slightly more performant AJT because it is on a three airplane syllabus and the IJT is a pretty decent jet trainer.

shaun
BRFite
Posts: 1072
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020

Postby shaun » 29 Mar 2020 15:19

"Carrier Integration has been proven with successful operations from the flight deck of INS Vikramaditya, a total of 18 arrested landings and 18 ski-ramp take off carried out from INS Vikramaditya in 5 days. "

Good number of sorties

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2226
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020

Postby Vivek K » 29 Mar 2020 23:19

Great accomplishment. The sortie rate is for two aircraft, right? How does it compare with say the Migs or the Harriers?

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2931
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020

Postby tsarkar » 30 Mar 2020 18:30

Vivek K wrote:Great accomplishment. The sortie rate is for two aircraft, right? How does it compare with say the Migs or the Harriers?

The Harrier sea trials were held onboard INS Vikrant in June/July 1972. Speaking from memory the pilot made 20+ sorties in 1/2 days using a single two seater.

A more comprehensive document is here but dont have access to open it.

https://www.scribd.com/document/2650121 ... r-in-India

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8471
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020

Postby brar_w » 30 Mar 2020 19:37

That's good though a little unfair given that the Naval Tejas team was integrating the platform on a carrier for the very first time ever as opposed to taking a more mature naval aircraft and running sea trials with it.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2226
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020

Postby Vivek K » 30 Mar 2020 21:46

tsarkar wrote:
Vivek K wrote:Great accomplishment. The sortie rate is for two aircraft, right? How does it compare with say the Migs or the Harriers?

The Harrier sea trials were held onboard INS Vikrant in June/July 1972. Speaking from memory the pilot made 20+ sorties in 1/2 days using a single two seater.

A more comprehensive document is here but dont have access to open it.

https://www.scribd.com/document/2650121 ... r-in-India

Ok. Well - that is the difference between a "first ever" carrier flight and buying an off the shelf carrier accepted aircraft. Some time was perhaps spent in checking telemetry and being risk averse. I bet the sortie rate for future missions to the carrier would be higher.

shaun
BRFite
Posts: 1072
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020

Postby shaun » 30 Mar 2020 22:11

tsarkar wrote:The Harrier sea trials were held onboard INS Vikrant in June/July 1972. Speaking from memory the pilot made 20+ sorties in 1/2 days using a single two seater.

A more comprehensive document is here but dont have access to open it.

https://www.scribd.com/document/2650121 ... r-in-India


sir scribd is free for 1 month Scribd is giving away 1 month of unlimited access for free. Reading subscription service Scribd is offering free access to its library of over one million ebooks, audiobooks, magazines and more for the next 30 days (no commitment or credit card information required)

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2596
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020

Postby Cybaru » 30 Mar 2020 23:14

Good points Brar and Vivek. The cost of operating Harrier Gr9 was in excess of £15,000 an hour by the way for those who are comparing.

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1347
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020

Postby Gyan » 31 Mar 2020 00:57

Apart from NP1 & NP2, are we going to manufacture additional Naval LCA MK1? There used to talk of 1-2 more prototypes and 6 LSP aircraft to provide experience & knowledge to develop and manufacture next series of Naval aircraft.

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2931
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020

Postby tsarkar » 31 Mar 2020 16:55

Vivek K wrote:
tsarkar wrote:The Harrier sea trials were held onboard INS Vikrant in June/July 1972. Speaking from memory the pilot made 20+ sorties in 1/2 days using a single two seater.

A more comprehensive document is here but dont have access to open it.

https://www.scribd.com/document/2650121 ... r-in-India

Ok. Well - that is the difference between a "first ever" carrier flight and buying an off the shelf carrier accepted aircraft. Some time was perhaps spent in checking telemetry and being risk averse. I bet the sortie rate for future missions to the carrier would be higher.


It was a Harrier prototype in 1972 and not "off the shelf carrier accepted aircraft". Sea Harrier entered RN service in 1980.

We wanted a close look and wanted to check carrier compatibility in hot and humid conditions, hence the 1972 trials in June and July. The Harrier prototype in those trials was far from production standards.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2226
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020

Postby Vivek K » 31 Mar 2020 17:40

Great to know. It was still an aircraft that had the benefit of years of data. This is India’s first effort ever to attempt carrier integration. They probably had set objectives that were qualified during the trials.
For example - NLCA future prototypes will benefit from the first set of landings and could expand the envelope as needed.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 50 guests