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

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 19 Mar 2021 12:13

Good points everyone.

Even the incumbent Chief Bhadauria, though a big proponent of the Tejas, bats for the MRFA.

So, what does he think/know that we don't? Is it posturing, is it negotiation (asking for X, so that you get at least Y), is it his belief that they can have their way eventually (like the equivalent of a 36 Rafale order & once the MRFA foot is in the door, they can always place incremental orders), or is it just plain refusal to see the writing on the wall?

vera_k · Post by **vera_k** » 19 Mar 2021 13:00

Think it is just inertia due to the way things have been. India has not built its own aircraft so far. Therefore the existing framework is to go through the import route. If there were any local suppliers capable of meeting the MRFA RFP, they would have responded to the RFP.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 19 Mar 2021 14:51

AkshaySG wrote:
Karan M wrote:
At a fraction of that cost, IAF could order another 4 squadrons of Mk1A, ask for doubling of the rate by HAL. Add another 2 squadrons of Rafale, drop the MRFA. That's $18Bn assuming all costs stay the same as the original Rafale and Mk1A deal. But actually costs would drop (Rafale base, maint costs dont need to be repeated, ditto for a lot of the Mk1A D&D costs).

Karan M wrote:
The only answers are more Tejas Mk1A as a bridge to the MWF and to bulk up the numbers, add 2 more squadron Rafale, the 1 sq of MiG-29s, a few more Flankers, and progress the latters upgrade. Use the massive savings in funds to add more Astra Mk1/2 across the fleet plus enhanced EW, and sensors.
Most of this money will directly go to Indian industry, strengthen our economy as well and return cash to GOI to fund more R&D. Its virtuous spend.
You're right in saying that the MRFA is unreasonable, bloated and expensive but incorrect in assuming that we can "divert" its money elsewhere because it simply doesn't exist

You can't "save money" and use it elsewhere when you don't have it in the first place ... Its not like the IAF/GOI has set aside 30 Billion (or whatever) for MRFA and is waiting to spend it which we can divert to more value for money options

Its like me saying i'll rather buy a Honda than a Lamborghini and spend the leftover money on a house when the fact of the matter is I need bank loans and EMIs to even afford the Honda .

So even scrounging up 18 Bil for more more Mk1As and Rafales , R&D , EW suites is gonna be a very very difficult task especially considering deals like C295,AWACS,tankers,drones and whatnot also waiting in the wings all of which are probably higher in priority .

You have misunderstood how procurement is done. These are not one time upfront payments but staggered over many years. Its much easier for the GOI to pay for multiple deals sequentially over the next decade, with some in parallel rather than just paying upfront for one deal and then adding to the initial amount over time, year on year.

The GOI one way or the other has to find the money. Its easier to do so for desi programs because a lot of the payment can be done in Rupees, with a high level of indigenization. In contrast payment for an imported MMRCA has to be in dollars or euro, because a huge proportion will be imported outright and you have to pay much more upfront to get the TOT and setup the capex per the OEM's specifications.

So if the IAF has to be brought up to a fighting fit level, we have to spend. And that spend has to be rationalized across multiple programs not just one fighter program.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 19 Mar 2021 14:53

Prem Kumar wrote:Good points everyone. They key question is: "who is going to pour cold water into the face of the IAF chief to wake him up?"

Even the incumbent Chief Bhadauria, though a big proponent of the Tejas, has wet-dreams about MRFA. Appaling - you'd think someone as senior as him would be able to do basic math and come to the same conclusions as us, in about 5 minutes!

So, what does he think/know that we don't? Is it posturing, is it negotiation (asking for X, so that you get at least Y), is it his belief that they can have their way eventually (like the equivalent of a 36 Rafale order & once the MRFA foot is in the door, they can always place incremental orders), or is it just plain truancy & refusal to see the writing on the wall?

Please dont use such terms for the Office of the Chief. Disagree with their points if you must, but decorum for someone as senior and accomplished must be maintained. Thanks.

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 19 Mar 2021 16:21

^^ Edited my original post

LakshmanPST · Post by **LakshmanPST** » 19 Mar 2021 17:16

I think there are three separate issues here--->
1) Replacement for Bisons
2) Not buying more Tejas Mk1A
3) Going ahead with MRFA
I feel it is not correct to mix up these issues, but we should instead look at them separately...
----
1) Tejas Mk1 is seen as replacement for Bison's role... But a Bison squadron can be replaced by any jet, even a MIG29 or Rafale... We're not seeing the entire picture...
-
Starting from 2019 end until the end of this decade we see retirement of
2 MIG27 squadrons,
6 Bison squadrons and
3 Jaguar squadrons...

In their place, we are getting
6 Tejas Mk1/1A squadrons,
1 MIG29 squadron,
1 (maybe 2?) Su30 squadron and
2 Rafale squadrons...
So, situation isn't that bad... There is a clear plan for replacements...
-
Even if all 6 squadrons of Bisons are retired by 2025, we will be getting 1 Su30, 1 MIG 29, 2 Rafale and 3 Tejas (2 Mk1 and 1 Mk1A) squadrons ready by 2025... So, we need not really worry on this front...

IMO, the only problem I see here is that Tejas Mk1 and Mk1A contracts were signed 3-4 years late...
Yes, there has been a delay, but whatever happened has happened...

----

2) The 2nd issue is IAF not buying more Tejas Mk1A...
Many people here will probably disagree with me, but one thing I have concluded after seeing few interviews of Chiefs is that IAF clearly does not want more Mk1/1A due to lower payload and range... What they really want is Tejas Mk2...
Operational philosophy of IAF changed sometime in early 2000s and my guess is, they want a mix of lower single engine Mirage 2000/F16 class jets and higher Twin Engine jets...

I feel the decision to buy Mk1 and Mk1A was taken due to a lot of pushing from GOI... IAF probably supported this keeping in mind the importance of having local fighter ecosystem... So, they only ordered 6 squadrons enough to replace the Bisons...

Tejas Mk2 will be ready for production by 2026, so IAF is preferring to wait for it rather than buying relatively less capable Mk1A... Immediate squadron shortage is taken care anyway...

----

3) The 3rd issue is MRFA
Once Tejas Mk2 is ready, MRFA will turn into another NUH Tender, where we have foreign companies offering a product with local assembly, for which we have an equivalent local product... I still believe that this Tender will bite the dust...

I personally would prefer IAF cancelling MRFA and going ahead with more Tejas Mk2 jets instead of Mk1A jets... Alongwith 2 more squadrons of Rafales ofcourse...

If building a private assembly line is the sole reason for MRFA tender, then it will be better to open a separate line for Tejas Mk2 with a private firm instead of going ahead with MRFA...

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 19 Mar 2021 18:01

Thank you for editing your post. I have removed the references to cold water and basic math as well.

Prem Kumar wrote:Even the incumbent Chief Bhadauria, though a big proponent of the Tejas, bats for the MRFA.

So, what does he think/know that we don't? Is it posturing, is it negotiation (asking for X, so that you get at least Y), is it his belief that they can have their way eventually (like the equivalent of a 36 Rafale order & once the MRFA foot is in the door, they can always place incremental orders), or is it just plain refusal to see the writing on the wall?

Air HQ, including the Chief himself, is quite aware that 114 MRFA will not materialize. They are keeping this issue alive, because they want more Rafales. Even they know 114 Rafales will not come. But ask for 114 and you will likely get 36 - 54. The latter number (54) is being quite optimistic on my part, but 36 seems more likely. Air HQ has invested their precious CAPEX (base infrastructure, weapons, spares, etc) into the Rafale purchase and they are looking to capitalize on it.

See these two articles - exactly a year apart, right down to the day!

Air Force chief outlines plan to solve shortage of fighter squadrons
https://www.business-standard.com/artic ... 549_1.html
05 Oct 2019

Dismissing rumours that India is buying 36 more Rafales from France, Bhadauria stated: “Our plan is for building 114 MRFA in the SP model. There is no separate plan for this (36 more Rafales).

IAF chief Bhadauria does not rule out procurement of more Rafale fighter jets
https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-ne ... CT0lI.html
05 Oct 2020

“Whether we go in for more Rafale or MRFA, it will be an open competition... The current status is that we have received all the RFIs (for the MRFA programme). All these issues are on the table now in terms of taking a final call....There are various issues that need to be considered,” he said.

Going through the hoops and hurdles of Indian procurement will take forever and Air HQ knows it. And guess what what 2021 represents? 20 years, since the IAF first mooted the idea of acquiring 126 Mirage 2000s in 2001. That morphed into the circus known as MMRCA 1.0 which fizzled out. It was reborn as the SEF contest which also soon died. It now shape shifted into MRFA, which will also die a slow death. But twenty years later, the IAF is nowhere close to that number.

What is frustrating here is the low number of Mk1A orders. A larger order (so instead of 83, perhaps 123?) would have resulted in a quicker delivery schedule. A larger order would have also resulted in a lower unit cost, vis-a-viv the 83 order. The irony is, additional Mk1As will likely come. But, fresh negotiations will commence and the GOI will pay a higher cost at that point in time. Why we procure in this manner is the frustration.

Great posts from KaranM by the way. Also LakshmanPST as well.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 19 Mar 2021 18:09

Indranil wrote:History was made yesterday. An SP took to the year for the first time and nobody cared or reported.

Sp 25 and 26 should be ready within this month

That usually shows up in my twitter feed via Anantha Krishnan M @writetake. But I did not see it or perhaps I missed it.

I will update page 1. Is is correct to assume that it was SP-20 that flew yesterday, i.e. March 18th?

You have jumped straight to SP-25 and SP-26. What happened to SP-21, SP-22, SP-23 and SP-24? Or did I miss all that?

basant · Post by **basant** » 19 Mar 2021 18:14

^^^
Admiral, the usual tail re-numbering of IAF over HAL's.

YashG · Post by **YashG** » 19 Mar 2021 18:45

Is 114 MRFA process a way to coax dassault into giving India a good deal on Rafales ?

Like saying look folks we need more planes but you guys are just too costly. How about giving us a good deal ?

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 19 Mar 2021 18:53

YashG wrote:Is 114 MRFA process a way to coax dassault into giving India a good deal on Rafales ?

Like saying look folks we need more planes but you guys are just too costly. How about giving us a good deal ?

They have much more leverage than what they had prior to the initial deal. Dassault knows that ICE are fully funded and neither of their competitors can claim the same (basically, the same arguments all of us here make in favor of second tranche of Rafales). They also know that the infrastructure cost is in their favor as well as are the other support and weapons programs. Moreover, between when the original Rafale deal was finalized, and when the next deal might, Rafale would have also gotten more capable so Dassault would probably want some sort of premium for those enhancements as well. It wasn't very smart to not retain at least a dozen or 2 dozen options as part of the original contract. Those could have come very handy given the MRFA was probably always expected to drag on and then die a slow death.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 19 Mar 2021 19:17

basant wrote:^^^
Admiral, the usual tail re-numbering of IAF over HAL's.

Oops!

Page 1 updated. If someone can find out who the test pilot was, I can update Page 1.

YashG · Post by **YashG** » 19 Mar 2021 19:37

brar_w wrote:
YashG wrote:Is 114 MRFA process a way to coax dassault into giving India a good deal on Rafales ?

Like saying look folks we need more planes but you guys are just too costly. How about giving us a good deal ?
They have much more leverage than what they had prior to the initial deal. Dassault knows that ICE are fully funded and neither of their competitors can claim the same (basically, the same arguments all of us here make in favor of second tranche of Rafales). They also know that the infrastructure cost is in their favor as well as are the other support and weapons programs. Moreover, between when the original Rafale deal was finalized, and when the next deal might, Rafale would have also gotten more capable so Dassault would probably want some sort of premium for those enhancements as well. It wasn't very smart to not retain at least a dozen or 2 dozen options as part of the original contract. Those could have come very handy given the MRFA was probably always expected to drag on and then die a slow death.

Thanks Brar. I would Agree. I feel sad. Why no additional options!!! Its additional mirage fiasco again.
Since this is not Rafale thread. I would just stop here.

basant · Post by **basant** » 19 Mar 2021 20:05

From twitter --->

LCA Tejas SP-24. LA-5020. 4th Tejas in FOC Configuration.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 19 Mar 2021 20:37

Beautiful photo. Thanks basant.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 19 Mar 2021 20:49

Rakesh wrote: Air HQ, including the Chief himself, is quite aware that 114 MRFA will not materialize. They are keeping this issue alive, because they want more Rafales. Even they know 114 Rafales will not come. But ask for 114 and you will likely get 36 - 54. The latter number (54) is being quite optimistic on my part, but 36 seems more likely. Air HQ has invested their precious CAPEX (base infrastructure, weapons, spares, etc) into the Rafale purchase and they are looking to capitalize on it.

See these two articles - exactly a year apart, right down to the day!

“Whether we go in for more Rafale or MRFA, it will be an open competition... The current status is that we have received all the RFIs (for the MRFA programme). All these issues are on the table now in terms of taking a final call....There are various issues that need to be considered,” he said.

It is statements like these about "open competition" that make me believe the issue lies outside the IAF and in the corridors of the MoD. This is exactly how the IAF was duped into the MMRCA boondoggle back in 2000-01. The MoD insisted a direct order for more M2k's won't do and a multi-vendor competition was necessary. I doubt very much that the IAF would willingly walk into that trap again unless they were given no choice.

Our problem is that the entire setup is built to carry out long drawn out deals with foreign vendors (which may or may not bear fruit). And that is how we seem to treat domestic ones as well across the board. Look at the amount of time it took for us to negotiate the price for the Mk1A order with HAL. This is long after IAF had already asked for the 83 aircraft. Or the time it is taking for buying the LCH. Nobody seems to understand how fundamentally different buying from a local vendor (their own products, not screwdrivergiri) can and should be for our MIC and economy and the need to execute these deals faster and in a different manner than the way we are used to.

bharathp · Post by **bharathp** » 19 Mar 2021 22:39

I believe the MRFA deal is to get a second fighter line into the country with a private player

watch from 6:54

-different capability of tejas 1A (rafael equivalent)
-to be produced by India and private sector (not DPSU)

this seems to be a backchannel way to get
a) out of DPSU monopoly on fighter aircraft (and/or)
b) get manufatcuring set up (which has been a problem) in private sector and leave research with the DPSUs

YashG · Post by **YashG** » 19 Mar 2021 23:49

bharathp wrote:I believe the MRFA deal is to get a second fighter line into the country with a private player

watch from 6:54

-different capability of tejas 1A (rafael equivalent)
-to be produced by India and private sector (not DPSU)

this seems to be a backchannel way to get
a) out of DPSU monopoly on fighter aircraft (and/or)
b) get manufatcuring set up (which has been a problem) in private sector and leave research with the DPSUs

Hainji!!!!!
Whether HAL or a private payer does screwdrivergiri - how does it matter ?
Better, you need MK1A numbers - So give one line to an Indian pvt company. It will also multiply the numbers we need.

basant · Post by **basant** » 20 Mar 2021 00:38

We can give it to either Kalyani or HAL Helicopter division for speedy deliveries.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 25 Mar 2021 18:02

Another great shot of the Tejas Mk1 undergoing testing with 2 X Derby BVRAAMs and 2 X R-73Es and 2 drop tanks

Image credit - Gaur.Aviation Instagram page

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 25 Mar 2021 18:04

Another shot that looks like SP-24, the latest FOC fighter to fly.

Close up of the front fuselage with the IFR probe and Elbit DASH HMDS clearly visible.

Image credit - Gaur.Aviation Instagram page

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 25 Mar 2021 18:11

What a beauty! Not sure which one, but this image appears to be dated earlier than SP-24's first flight, so it could be SP-23

Image Credit - Gaur.Aviation Instagram page

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 25 Mar 2021 18:49

Tejas Mk1 with Derby BVRAAMs, R-73Es and 2 drop tanks. This image is dated Sept 2020, so it's been a while..yet to see a No.45 Squadron Tejas flying with the Derby.

Image Credit - Gaur.Aviation page

hemant_sai · Post by **hemant_sai** » 25 Mar 2021 21:05

Can someone please throw some light on iconography? Yellow rescue arrow, white-red double triangle and 3 legged arrow on intakes.

What are the parameters that decides size and color of those symbols?

On western jets we mostly see those grey shades - almost blended into shade of the jet. So why they are not concerned about prominent visibility of those symbols?

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 25 Mar 2021 21:46

Keeping fingers crossed that India does not repeat history....

https://twitter.com/alpha_defense/statu ... 54660?s=20 --->

In search of Gold....

....We lost Diamonds (HF-24 Marut)

Neilz · Post by **Neilz** » 25 Mar 2021 22:12

hemant_sai wrote:
On western jets we mostly see those grey shades - almost blended into shade of the jet. So why they are not concerned about prominent visibility of those symbols?

As an adversary if you come that close to fighter to read those sign, you are already a toast. Those are meant for service personnel or those who work in proximity of the jet.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 26 Mar 2021 11:13

hemant_sai wrote:Can someone please throw some light on iconography? Yellow rescue arrow, white-red double triangle and 3 legged arrow on intakes.

What are the parameters that decides size and color of those symbols?

On western jets we mostly see those grey shades - almost blended into shade of the jet. So why they are not concerned about prominent visibility of those symbols?

Have you seen a Mirage-2000 in French Air Force service? It has all these markings in bright colors that are supposed to warn someone or attract attention in case a pilot needs to be extricated.

The low visibility markings are a new thing, started by the USAF with the F-22 and F-35 and now more common among other Air Forces too.

dinesha · Post by **dinesha** » 27 Mar 2021 20:37

Source: https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/13757 ... 52417?s=20

ashishvikas · Post by **ashishvikas** » 27 Mar 2021 23:08

Indranil: SP25 & SP26 both flew today.

https://twitter.com/Indrani1_Roy/status ... 39362?s=19

basant · Post by **basant** » 28 Mar 2021 00:06

That makes it 5 FOCs this financial year. I am happy

Kakkaji · Post by **Kakkaji** » 28 Mar 2021 02:11

Don't want to be a party pooper, but it looks like it will be a while before SP-25 and SP-26 will actually join IAF service, even though they flew today. On the accounting books, they will probably be transferred to the IAF before March 31st.

This happens every year. I hope HAL can even out the deliveries through the year.

Anyway, I am happy that two more SPs are flying now.

IR-ji, are the FOCs are now standardized enough where the remaining SPs for the squadron will be delivered evenly through the next year?

Khalsa · Post by **Khalsa** » 28 Mar 2021 02:36

ashishvikas wrote:Indranil: SP25 & SP26 both flew today.

https://twitter.com/Indrani1_Roy/status ... 39362?s=19

So just to be clear
SP-21 ... LA-5021
SP-22 ... LA-5022

flew ?

Khalsa · Post by **Khalsa** » 28 Mar 2021 10:09

@Rakesh you have the best handle on confusing patterns of naming. Can you clarify please
I am getting old Admiral

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 28 Mar 2021 11:49

https://twitter.com/Indrani1_Roy/status ... 24194?s=20 SP-26

srai · Post by **srai** » 28 Mar 2021 12:16

^^^
What is the difference between the darker yellow and the yellow composite parts?

chetonzz · Post by **chetonzz** » 28 Mar 2021 12:38

Khalsa wrote:@Rakesh you have the best handle on confusing patterns of naming. Can you clarify please
I am getting old Admiral

(SP/LA-50XX) 01 to 16= 1st Squadron of LCA tejas all single seater(IOC II standard)
(SP/LA-50XX) 17, 18 onwards till 32= 2nd Squadron of LCA tejas all single seater (FOC standard)

SP-17 was referred as SP-21 earlier (i dont know why, may be they were hoping SP-17 to 20 to be 1st Squadron trainers but that was cancelled)

so SP-21,22,23,24,25,26... are now (SP/LA-50XX) 17,18,19,20,21,22...

total 8 MK1 tejas trainers are planned namely LA-5201 to LA-5208

dont know about 83 MK1A sr. numbers
MK1A tejas trainers will be LA-5209 onwards(probably)

[please correct me friends if i am wrong]

Kakarat · Post by **Kakarat** » 28 Mar 2021 13:27

I dont understand the concept of removing the serial no by the photographers
IAF removed some of the serial nos to maintain secrecy of deployment status of some aircrafts, but i dont understand the logic behind removing the serial no of prototypes and undelivered production modals and then captioning its SP numbers

For me a Aircraft looks incomplete without its serial number

nam · Post by **nam** » 28 Mar 2021 16:47

srai wrote:^^^
What is the difference between the darker yellow and the yellow composite parts?

Let me give a shot. The yellow parts are actually aluminum sheets, riveted on top on the composites. Take the wings. It is entirely made of composites. Without the aluminum sheet, it looks like grey plastic. However the aluminium sheet makes it look yellow.

I believe the AL sheet is to provide conductivity for lighting strikes. Composites don't conduct.

Riveting these AL sheets on composite wings is a hard job. As composites are tough, it is not easy to rivet. The answer I got for riveting is that it would help in inspecting for cracks and damages.

We are using such high level of composites for the first time, so everyone is being cautious. May be in future, we will get confidence to do away with the riveting.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 28 Mar 2021 17:20

chetonzz wrote:
Khalsa wrote:@Rakesh you have the best handle on confusing patterns of naming. Can you clarify please
I am getting old Admiral

(SP/LA-50XX) 01 to 16= 1st Squadron of LCA tejas all single seater(IOC II standard)
(SP/LA-50XX) 17, 18 onwards till 32= 2nd Squadron of LCA tejas all single seater (FOC standard)

SP-17 was referred as SP-21 earlier (i dont know why, may be they were hoping SP-17 to 20 to be 1st Squadron trainers but that was cancelled)

so SP-21,22,23,24,25,26... are now (SP/LA-50XX) 17,18,19,20,21,22...

total 8 MK1 tejas trainers are planned namely LA-5201 to LA-5208

dont know about 83 MK1A sr. numbers
MK1A tejas trainers will be LA-5209 onwards(probably)

[please correct me friends if i am wrong]

Only thing to be cleared up here is that twin seaters don't share the same registration letters as the single seaters. Case in point - Mirage-2000 single seaters are numbered KFXXX and trainers are numbered KTXXX. Similarly for earlier types that had single and twin seaters as well as Rafale where BS is single seater and RB is twin seater.

Someone must have pointed this out to the IAF that there was no point in keeping LA-5017 to LA-5020 registration numbers pending for twin seaters since they won't share the LA series. So, the IAF went ahead and numbered all single seaters in an unbroken sequence from LA-5001 to LA-5016 for No.18 Squadron IOC Tejas fighters and LA-5017 to LA-5032 for No.45 Squadron FOC Tejas fighters.

HAL continued with the earlier series. So SP-1 to SP-16 are No.45 Squadron IOC Tejas single seat fighters, SP-21 to SP-36 are No.18 Squadron's FOC Tejas single seat fighters.

Hence,

LA-5001 to LA-5016 same as SP-01 to SP-16
LA-5017 to LA-5032 same as SP-21 to SP-36

LA-5017 - SP-21
LA-5018 - SP-22
LA-5019 - SP-23
LA-5020 - SP-24
LA-5021 - SP-25
LA-5022 - SP-26

I'm expecting the Tejas trainers to get LT-XXXX as the registration number.

The good news is that with 6 FOC fighters, the No.18 Squadron will see a big jump in it's flight hours and at least half a dozen to more pilots should've joined the squadron's ranks recently as well.

srai · Post by **srai** » 28 Mar 2021 18:23

srai wrote:^^^
What is the difference between the darker yellow and the yellow composite parts?

Take a look at the left wing (lighter yellow) and the right wing (darker yellow). What is that difference? Maybe one of those parts from outsource Tier-1 vendor (L&T) and the other one from HAL?