Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 04 January 2021

Locked
YashG
BRFite
Posts: 936
Joined: 22 Apr 2017 00:10

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 04 January 2021

Post by YashG »

What will be the number of LCAs MK1A inducted for us to retire migs? 50 or 83 ?
By 2024 we will have 40 IOC/FOCs + 2Mk1A.
I see us continuing migs beyond 2024 or 25 - unless we figure a some way to produce more LCAs.
Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10388
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 04 January 2021

Post by Yagnasri »

40 IOC and FOC LCAs will be converted into LCA1A in due course. So total LCA m1A will be 123 in the end as things stand today.
mody
BRFite
Posts: 1362
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Mumbai, India

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 04 January 2021

Post by mody »

The chief was visiting ASTE. Maybe ASTE has a Tejas with them, which the chief flew?
YashG
BRFite
Posts: 936
Joined: 22 Apr 2017 00:10

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 04 January 2021

Post by YashG »

Yagnasri wrote:40 IOC and FOC LCAs will be converted into LCA1A in due course. So total LCA m1A will be 123 in the end as things stand today.
We will reach 123 mk1a only by 2029 if the best scenario today stands true. So what will be the number we need to phase migs out. Infact we need to work backwards from that number. If that number is X, then we need to reach that number by 2024-25 (if thats the date we want to keep fr migs phase out)
fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4282
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 04 January 2021

Post by fanne »

the speed of induction is slow...slow is always relative, but if you keep two parameters in mind
1) Retirement of Mig 21
2) Falling Squadron strength

LCA by 2029 is slow. If the falling sq leads to more imports than LCA is a failure on that count. We should make it come faster, all 123 by perhaps by 2026 to 2027. It will require 4 things -
1) Desire to get it done sooner from all involved parties, but specially the political leadership - It helps with Mig 21 retirement, shifts the focus from LCAMK1A to Mk2 (and sooner to AMCA) - moves Indian Aero ecosystem faster
2) Money - 60% of LCA is indigenous (money remains in home and does not involve FX). Also the money has to be spent by 2029, doing by 2026 or 2029 moves the money spent sooner (and perhaps need some more investment to increase capacity). But it saves money by not forcing us to import and also keeps our preparedness high. It is easy to lose sight of preparedness, no money can be associated to it, but it is a money saver. It deters our neighbors from doing something stupid. We have spent enormous amount to counter china in (in very high billions) in infra. It was needed regardless but a misadventure made us spend it sooner than later. A very strong IAF (even more strong than what we need) deters all around.
3)Foreign partners willing to provide with parts sooner. If GE can only provide all engines by only 2029 then we have no choice - but if they can sooner, we should grab that offer (it goes to money available)
4)Active management towards getting all numbers sooner - That is balance between what capability is needed, keeping HAL and IAF honest, removing sabotage..
YashG
BRFite
Posts: 936
Joined: 22 Apr 2017 00:10

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 04 January 2021

Post by YashG »

fanne I would so much agree that we should get 123 by 26-27. Infact it doesnt seem unachievable. HAL is ready to do 24/Yr.

GE will provide engines faster, if reqd. - for them its money incoming - sooner the merrier.

You're correct it needs political leadership/ All money plunged into defence industry is like fiscal stimulus to hi-technology industry. It should anyways lead to more high end job creation.

Also if we indeed achieve 123 LCAs by 2026 - We might as well find export customers - This program will partly payup for itself. LCA is a very apt plane for many countries/but they wont order till India also shows bullishness over it.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 04 January 2021

Post by brar_w »

GE and HAL would have planned and agreed to delivery rates and likely also cost to speed or slow those down, including penalties for delays on GE's side. So anything is possible but will have a cost component. GE is supporting F/A-18E/F production, supporting the T-7A program, LCA, and the Korean T-50 and KFX programs all with the same engine family, so there are likely limits to how much they can accelerate over the agreed upon schedule.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 04 January 2021

Post by Rakesh »

It is a little late to increase the production numbers of the Mk1A. Payment schedules are set out in the contract signed in January 2021 and those payment schedules are based on aircraft delivery to the customer. Those payment schedules have been decided and agreed to by the IAF, based on planned CAPEX investments in the Mk1A fleet for 'X' number of years. Therefore if 2029 is the year, in which the last of the 83 Mk1As are planned to be delivered to the IAF...then 2029 it is.

Asking the MoD to renegotiate the contract with HAL, to increase Mk1A deliveries, opens a pandora box that needs to remain closed forever. It is vital that this order goes through without any major issues. Successful progression of the 83 Mk1A order - as stipulated in the contract - is crucial to the slow death of the 114 MRFA contest. This order is also vital to future variants of the Tejas i.e. Mk2, TEDBF, ORCA and even AMCA. The import lobby is waiting with bated breath for something, anything to go wrong.

Let HAL do her job. The onus is on HAL and HAL must deliver, as per contract. We do not need to add a spoke in the wheel.

Even the MRFA deal requires a delivery rate of 13 - 14 aircraft per year. So let HAL complete her task.
bharathp
BRFite
Posts: 453
Joined: 24 Jul 2017 03:44

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 04 January 2021

Post by bharathp »

Rakesh ji and YashG ji, I would rather have the Mk1 go through the slow rate but increase the rate for Mk2 given the Mk1A lines will be idle + experienced by the time Mk2 has matured
VKumar
BRFite
Posts: 724
Joined: 15 Sep 1999 11:31
Location: Mumbai,India

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 04 January 2021

Post by VKumar »

We might see additional 3 or 4 squadrons of Rafale during this time.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 04 January 2021

Post by Rakesh »

bharathp wrote:Rakesh ji and YashG ji, I would rather have the Mk1 go through the slow rate but increase the rate for Mk2 given the Mk1A lines will be idle + experienced by the time Mk2 has matured
The Mk2 contract - at whatever point in the future - is indeed open to a larger delivery schedule, but directly tied into the IAF's annual CAPEX budget. I would love to see a 20 - 24 aircraft/per year delivery schedule...but it is the IAF that has to make that call.
Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7793
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 04 January 2021

Post by Prasad »

The Mk1A contract was fine. Except it took the MoD, IAF and HAL multiple years to come to a consensus. That is the real issue here. If we do the same circus for the Mk2, nobody can help us.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 04 January 2021

Post by Rakesh »

If it took multiple years to achieve consensus, just imagine how many years it will take to renegotiate. Please no!
Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2931
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 04 January 2021

Post by Vivek K »

VKumar wrote:We might see additional 3 or 4 squadrons of Rafale during this time.
[sigh]Groan[/sigh] Will you finance it? 4 more? I would probably puke for 52 weeks if that were to happen.

No more imports after the current orders are complete. Focus on Kaveri, MK2, AMCA and a private competitor to HAL.
ashishvikas
BRFite
Posts: 850
Joined: 17 Oct 2016 14:18

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 04 January 2021

Post by ashishvikas »

YashG wrote:What will be the number of LCAs MK1A inducted for us to retire migs? 50 or 83 ?
By 2024 we will have 40 IOC/FOCs + 2Mk1A.
I see us continuing migs beyond 2024 or 25 - unless we figure a some way to produce more LCAs.
Will phase out MiG-21s in 3 years, induct Rafales by 2022: IAF chief
Jun 20, 2021
Bhadauria said that mere ageing of aircraft doesn't make them accident-prone. "Discontinuation of flying the MiG-21 immediately is not the answer. In another 2-3 years they will be phased out as soon as they get to their life's end. Our plan to induct 36 Rafales is on target. Once the Rafales are inducted, the focus will be on the induction of the LCA over the next three-and-a-half years," Bhaduaria said.
https://m.timesofindia.com/india/will-p ... 680332.cms
LakshmanPST
BRFite
Posts: 673
Joined: 05 Apr 2019 18:23

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 04 January 2021

Post by LakshmanPST »

YashG wrote:What will be the number of LCAs MK1A inducted for us to retire migs? 50 or 83 ?
By 2024 we will have 40 IOC/FOCs + 2Mk1A.
I see us continuing migs beyond 2024 or 25 - unless we figure a some way to produce more LCAs.
To answer the question all we have to do is look at the squadron numbers...
Current fully active squadron numbers are 30 (12 Su30, 3 MIG29, 3 Mirage 2000, 6 Jaguar and 6 MIG21)...
Apart from the 30, 2 Rafale squadrons will be fully active by next year and 2 Tejas Mk1 squadrons will also be fully active in a couple of years...
Apart from these, we will see 1 MIG29 and 1 Su30 squadron inducted by around 2025-26...

So, if IAF wants to maintain the current strength of 30 active squadrons in the year 2025-26, they can comfortably retire the Bisons by 2025...
If they want more active squadrons, they should either extend the date of retirement of Bisons or order 2 more Rafale squadrons now...
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 04 January 2021

Post by Rakesh »

YashG
BRFite
Posts: 936
Joined: 22 Apr 2017 00:10

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 04 January 2021

Post by YashG »

https://www.raksha-anirveda.com/how-iaf ... -strength/

A nice article about IAF's fighter numbers.

Key Points:
- 42 Squadron number is not without basis, nor an exaggeration. It is the required number.
- We may be at best maintaining a 30Sq number through this decade as LCA replace Migs
- there will be phased retirement of mig21s - (my extrapolation: All migs will not go out at once - we will have some in service beyond 2025)
- We will probably reach our stated 42 squadron strength only by 2035.

The article has no particular policy prescriptions - except suggesting going desi with 36 rafale sqd as a way to maintain 30ish sqd strength and eventually reaching 42+
-----
Sorry China but you are not allowed to attack us before 2035. & If you dont play by the rules, we will do 'kadi ninda'.
mody
BRFite
Posts: 1362
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Mumbai, India

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 04 January 2021

Post by mody »

Rakesh wrote:If it took multiple years to achieve consensus, just imagine how many years it will take to renegotiate. Please no!
A new follow on contract can be signed for an additional quantity of 16-32 aircrafts, with the mandate to increase the production, such that all the aircrafts are delivered within the original timeline itself. This would avoid any negotiation to change the existing order and would also add additional aircrafts. Plus by 2026-27, the required number of Tejas MK1A would be available as desired. Total quantity for both contracts would get delivered by 2029.
Also, the total Tejas MK1/M1A are going to be 105 single seat + 18 2-seat FoC standard trainers. This is not the same as 123 Mk1A aircrafts.

Sign a G-G contract for additional 36 Rafael to go along with this, with deliveries to be completed by 2027 and the MRFA circus can be laid to rest. Dassault would start the deliveries within 3 years of signing the contract, so roughly by 2024-25 and complete the deliveries by 2027 end as per their current delivery timelines. Plus this time no additional training would be required for IAF personnel.
nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4712
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 04 January 2021

Post by nam »

We should stop this discussion about IAF requiring 42 sqd. What it doesn't tell us is that IAF wants 42 sqd filled with Rafale type planes.

The irony is not lost when there is expectation to fund more Rafale, however there is no funds to increase MK1A order to say 150 or 200 jets. HAL will gladly increasing production rate to 24 to 32 per year, if there are orders.

Previously in IAF the only twin engine fighter was Mig29 & Jag. Everything else was Single engine. Now the only single engine fighter will be M2K & LCA!
Even USAF is not so one sided.

So we are not having 42 sqd, because IAF wants a gold platted 42 sqd or nothing.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 04 January 2021

Post by brar_w »

In operational terms, the number "42" has to / must be a derived number and not merely a talking point. So instead of focusing on just the topline number of squadrons, probably better to focus on what that mix is that when combined gets them that 42 requirement. As with a bottom up requirement scrub, you adjust the mix/ratio of types and you could end up with a number higher or lower than 42. Same with support assets like tankers, AEW etc. Their numbers/requirements are in tune with the combat force mix and O plans and will likely fluctuate depending on the make up of the force mix.
Last edited by brar_w on 27 Aug 2021 20:20, edited 2 times in total.
LakshmanPST
BRFite
Posts: 673
Joined: 05 Apr 2019 18:23

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 04 January 2021

Post by LakshmanPST »

YashG wrote:https://www.raksha-anirveda.com/how-iaf ... -strength/

A nice article about IAF's fighter numbers.
...
-----
Sorry China but you are not allowed to attack us before 2035. & If you dont play by the rules, we will do 'kadi ninda'.
The article quotes Dhanoa ji statement in an interview... Actually, it was not an interview but from a Q&A session of a presentation he gave at VIF...

As he said, the number 42 is for full spectrum of operations on 2 fronts...
In the same Q&A session he clearly says that with the current strength, in case of a 2 front war, we can carry out full spectrum of operations on one front while giving a bloody nose on the 2nd front...

So, it is not like we are hopelessly outnumbered by PLAAF...
IAF can handle China in a one on one war...
YashG
BRFite
Posts: 936
Joined: 22 Apr 2017 00:10

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 04 January 2021

Post by YashG »

As a service chief or for that matter any senior armed forces official will never say otherwise. If we say otherwise it would be to enter the war with a loser mindset. Our forces will do their best with whatever they hv got.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 04 January 2021

Post by Rakesh »

An older article, but found this interesting bit...

Brahmos has no parallel in the world: Air Cmde Bhasin
https://www.thebridgechronicle.com/pune ... 2%A0-27633
20 Dec 2019
Lt Colonel Nesterov Andrey, the Russian officer who piloted Tejas, said, “I have had experience in flying Mig-29, Sukhoi-30 and Sukhoi-35 but flying Tejas was a great experience. It was very controlled and smooth. All the systems in the cockpit are great, I could very easily understand them and ejection seat is very comfortable. In Russia, we say a beautiful plane cannot fly well. But your jet proves otherwise. It is very beautiful and very manoeuvrable. I had pleasure flying and frankly I would like to fly more, may be a dog fight with Sukhoi-30.”
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 04 January 2021

Post by Rakesh »

https://twitter.com/Sandeep_Mave/status ... 15553?s=20 ---> POV: You are HAL Test Pilot Flying Homegrown LCA Tejas over Ladakh for high altitude trials.

Image
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 04 January 2021

Post by Rakesh »

ArjunPandit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4053
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 04 January 2021

Post by ArjunPandit »

Rakesh wrote:An older article, but found this interesting bit...

Brahmos has no parallel in the world: Air Cmde Bhasin
https://www.thebridgechronicle.com/pune ... 2%A0-27633
20 Dec 2019
Lt Colonel Nesterov Andrey, the Russian officer who piloted Tejas, said, “I have had experience in flying Mig-29, Sukhoi-30 and Sukhoi-35 but flying Tejas was a great experience. It was very controlled and smooth. All the systems in the cockpit are great, I could very easily understand them and ejection seat is very comfortable. In Russia, we say a beautiful plane cannot fly well. But your jet proves otherwise. It is very beautiful and very manoeuvrable. I had pleasure flying and frankly I would like to fly more, may be a dog fight with Sukhoi-30.”
that is in line with abhibhushan ji's experience on older threads..on an unrelated note..how can one not find mig29/su 30 not beautiful...
kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6278
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 04 January 2021

Post by kit »

beauty is in the eye of the beholder as some might say, but to a mother her child is more beautiful than anyone else
Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2931
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 04 January 2021

Post by Vivek K »

^^^^+108! and the Tejas is better than even the MKI for us.
RishiChatterjee
BRFite
Posts: 125
Joined: 19 Jun 2021 09:15

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 04 January 2021

Post by RishiChatterjee »

https://twitter.com/Defencematrix1/stat ... 0195663872

Slow speed, high alpha, tight turn...
Barath
BRFite
Posts: 474
Joined: 11 Feb 2019 19:06

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 04 January 2021

Post by Barath »

Rakesh wrote:An older article, but found this interesting bit...

Brahmos has no parallel in the world: Air Cmde Bhasin
https://www.thebridgechronicle.com/pune ... 2%A0-27633
20 Dec 2019
In Russia, we say a beautiful plane cannot fly well.
In the US, the corresponding hoary old saying is "if it looks right, it will fly right"
kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6278
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 04 January 2021

Post by kit »

brar_w wrote:In operational terms, the number "42" has to / must be a derived number and not merely a talking point. So instead of focusing on just the topline number of squadrons, probably better to focus on what that mix is that when combined gets them that 42 requirement. As with a bottom up requirement scrub, you adjust the mix/ratio of types and you could end up with a number higher or lower than 42. Same with support assets like tankers, AEW etc. Their numbers/requirements are in tune with the combat force mix and O plans and will likely fluctuate depending on the make up of the force mix.
I think the 42 is the actual number required even when looking at different mix of high and lower end capable fighters., one cannot escape the fact that one fighter cannot be in two places at the same time.
Having said that force multipliers like S400 system/AWACS/drone swarms etc might mitigate the requirement for a full strength in one front
A recent development in Paki land with activating forward bases seems interesting, one needs to have a good look at what exactly they would be basing there.
basant
BRFite
Posts: 889
Joined: 20 Mar 2020 20:58

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 04 January 2021

Post by basant »

Rakesh wrote:An older article, but found this interesting bit...

Brahmos has no parallel in the world: Air Cmde Bhasin
https://www.thebridgechronicle.com/pune ... 2%A0-27633
20 Dec 2019
In Russia, we say a beautiful plane cannot fly well.
MiG-29 (the 'A', not the ugly UPG) and Su-27/30 are two of the most beautiful jets ever made! The saying must have been pre 80s. :)
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 04 January 2021

Post by brar_w »

kit wrote:
brar_w wrote:In operational terms, the number "42" has to / must be a derived number and not merely a talking point. So instead of focusing on just the topline number of squadrons, probably better to focus on what that mix is that when combined gets them that 42 requirement. As with a bottom up requirement scrub, you adjust the mix/ratio of types and you could end up with a number higher or lower than 42. Same with support assets like tankers, AEW etc. Their numbers/requirements are in tune with the combat force mix and O plans and will likely fluctuate depending on the make up of the force mix.
I think the 42 is the actual number required even when looking at different mix of high and lower end capable fighters., one cannot escape the fact that one fighter cannot be in two places at the same time.
Having said that force multipliers like S400 system/AWACS/drone swarms etc might mitigate the requirement for a full strength in one front
A recent development in Paki land with activating forward bases seems interesting, one needs to have a good look at what exactly they would be basing there.
That's only a partial consideration. Yes one plan cannot be at two different places, but also you won't flood an entire sector with just one type. So when you do a bottom up review of requirements you have a mix of capability across all relevant metrics (range, payload, support, single/twin seater, etc etc). You are right, geographical considerations do put a limit to this as in you need a minimum number of aircraft at each air base to cover all the sectors and needs there. However, the overall force structure is also capability based so it doesn't mean that buying 42 squadrons of a single type of aircraft would meet requirements when the number has been derived based on various (and not just one) considerations. The number would have to be adjusted based on what types they are inducting and within a range (with the floor defined by other considerations like the one you highlight) the number could fluctuate up or down.
Haridas
BRFite
Posts: 878
Joined: 26 Dec 2017 07:53

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 04 January 2021

Post by Haridas »

fanne wrote:
Barath wrote:An old question that came up.

https://thediplomat.com/2017/11/indian- ... ian-skies/

IAF talked of 59 minutes of combat endurance for Tejas vs 3 hrs for Gripen and ~4 for F-16. and payload of ~3 t for Tejas vs 6+ for Gripen and 7 for F-16
Seriously, how is it possible that both Gripen and LCA flying on the same engine (in fact Indian F404 in20 has marginally more thrust than the Swedish one), similar weight class can have so much difference in range, flight time and weapon load.....Unless ADA completely sucked in the aeroframe design, we just designed a flying brick. I doubt IAF would have made such a statement, and if they did, they must have assumed everyone else is a grade A duffer.

Also serious questions to some AE guys here, LCA had issues and inefficiencies due to area ruling etc. (rectified in mk2), is the design that bad? Is there some hidden info about LCA that is not public? The above statement does not past muster even a smell test
NSA took CAS to mat using this argument (found on BRF) and beat him to pulp. Rest is history.
basant
BRFite
Posts: 889
Joined: 20 Mar 2020 20:58

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 04 January 2021

Post by basant »

If tge NSA has to find critical parameters like range, endurance of country's flagship programme like Tejas from BRF or if some CAS can muster gumption to say and get away in presence of other experts rubbish as reported, we are already doomed.
basant
BRFite
Posts: 889
Joined: 20 Mar 2020 20:58

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 04 January 2021

Post by basant »

If the NSA has to find critical parameters like range, endurance of country's flagship programme like Tejas from BRF or if some CAS can muster gumption to say and get away in presence of other experts rubbish as reported, we are already doomed.
jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5727
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 04 January 2021

Post by jamwal »

https://twitter.com/SJha1618/status/1434862630334730251
@SJha1618
@HALHQBLR Annual Report:
'MoU signed with with Ms MMTC as channelizing partner for import of palm oil, for likely countertrade for sale of LCA-Tejas to Royal Malaysian Air force.'
Muwahahaha. As, I was saying.

Malaysia for some reason is using the same nomenclature for their light fighter acquisition program that is used by the S. Koreans to describe variants of the FA-50/T-50 platform. However, Malaysia does sell a lot of palm oil to us & we are looking to substitute that so...
disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 8235
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 04 January 2021

Post by disha »

^Amazing safety record of Tejas LCA, swing role capabilities and multiple squadrons in pipeline. Success of NLCA. Evolution into Mk2/TEDBF/AMCA and available to fly, including in airshows. Couple that with failure of JF-17 Bandar. It does not even show up in the air shows.

Given that, Malaysia has no other option but to buy LCA. Given that S. Korea currently has T-50 developed which is more a trainer than a combat aircraft. With Indonesia jointly developing KF-21 with S. Korea, Malaysia is left with no option. Hemmed between Thailand and Indonesia, Malaysia has not much option but to either go with LCA or with KF-21 which has just rolled a prototype out and the flight is couple of years away.

And not to mention cost. The KF-21 itself is a USD 5 Billion dollar effort with accusations that it might bloat to 7.5 Billion USD. Hence even if it is ready and inducted in S. Korean and Indonesian airforce by the end of the decade, it will be prohibitively expensive both in time and money for Malaysia to get its hands on. The downside is that by then India will have LCA Mk2 and TEDBF as well and AMCA very much in pipeline.

Hence Malaysia has no option but to pick up LCA. Its other option is to become second fiddle to Indonesia. It's co-opetitor (co-operative and competitive rival).

And instead of seeing one of the major importers of Palm oil go away, it is better for Malaysia to barter its oil for arms. Given that Singapore is the "protectorate" of India, it also gives space for India to balance Malaysia-Singapore relations and stop any negative Chinese influence.
la.khan
BRFite
Posts: 466
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 05:02

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 04 January 2021

Post by la.khan »

disha wrote:^Amazing safety record of Tejas LCA, swing role capabilities and multiple squadrons in pipeline. Success of NLCA. Evolution into Mk2/TEDBF/AMCA and available to fly, including in airshows. Couple that with failure of JF-17 Bandar. It does not even show up in the air shows.
...
And instead of seeing one of the major importers of Palm oil go away, it is better for Malaysia to barter its oil for arms. Given that Singapore is the "protectorate" of India, it also gives space for India to balance Malaysia-Singapore relations and stop any negative Chinese influence.
If true, I am happy that LCA/Tejas has generated interest in the neighbourhood's airforces. However, a couple of points 1. currently, HAL is having difficulty in producing 15-16 jets/year to meet the requirement of IAF. Do we want to saddle HAL with export orders? 2. how many air forces will put up with HAL/PSU attitudes like the IAF does? Not adhering to time, budget, quality etc.

Should HAL/GoI not focus on IAF needs than to chase a pipe dream of exporting LCA/Tejas?
Locked