LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 02 Oct 2015 19:03

Hope a firm RM and the Rafale deal cost challenges knocks some sense into IAF planners at AHQ that their 45+ squadron dream is ONLY achievable if they get fully onboard the LCA and AMCA programs.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 02 Oct 2015 19:19

So, definitive plan.

First 20 LCAs - IOC2 and later FOC config.
2nd batch of 80 LCAs - Mk1A config.

The Mark 1A will overcome a major drawback in the Mark I, the absence of a “self protection jammer”. Fighter aircraft have these “electronic warfare” (EW) systems to jam or blind enemy radars, preventing them from detecting the aircraft; and to prevent air-to-air and ground-to-air missiles from homing onto the fighter.

The Tejas Mark I was to have an “on-board EW system”, but lacks the space for one. It has, therefore, been decided to develop an EW pod for the Mark 1A, which will be carried externally under the fighter’s wing.

The Mark 1A will also have a mid-air refuelling probe to enhance its endurance and operational range. It will be integrated with long range Derby and Python air-to-air missiles for aerial combat, and its internal systems will be re-arranged for better accessibility, making the fighter easier to maintain.

Derby ER
http://aviationweek.com/paris-air-show- ... formance-0

A major advantage of the I-Derby ER is that it uses the same missile envelope. Unlike the AAIM-120D or Meteor, I-Derby ER will be compatible with aircraft currently cleared to carry Derby. RAFAEL claims it will be able to deliver 80% of the Meteor’s performance at a third of its cost. It is also superior to the AIM-120C7 and more affordable, the company claims. Already cleared on F-16 (Block 52), F-5E, Kfir and Sea Harrier, I-Derby ER integration tests are currently under way on the Indian Tejas LCA.

PAF operates AMRAAM C-5.

Python-5
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWG2PkwKiaQ

Neela · Post by **Neela** » 02 Oct 2015 19:27

Are spare engines ordered per squadron basis?
We have ordered 99 engines so far.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 02 Oct 2015 19:40

another option is to add the kind of hunchback dorsal thing added on the A-4 skyhawk. on the Mig29UPG it looks more natural due to its already angled spine. this will permit carrying the Litening without spending another pylon for EW pod.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... _1972.JPEG

sudhan · Post by **sudhan** » 02 Oct 2015 20:01

^^How can the laser designator / rangefinder be carried on the dorsal side? Move just the cameras and the lasers to the belly? Any existing examples?

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 02 Oct 2015 20:02

Singha wrote:another option is to add the kind of hunchback dorsal thing added on the A-4 skyhawk. on the Mig29UPG it looks more natural due to its already angled spine. this will permit carrying the Litening without spending another pylon for EW pod.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... _1972.JPEG

This is a good suggestion. However it should be checked for feasibility independent of the project roadmap. Meaning, if it happens, well and good, if it ain't happening it won't hold the entire project hostage. Could be given out to some IIT or some small R&D start-up for exploring. That would also mitigate need to redeploy already strained ADA resources.

I can think of two objections though. It will screw up area rule. And also will interfere with airflow over the wing. LCA is an almost-high-wing design while A-4 is low wing one. LCA already has prominent dorsal spine. Anything over it could increase lateral instability particularly in side-slip.

Personal Opinion: The hump over the Mig-29UPG leaves my eyes sore. The original design was such a masterpiece already.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 02 Oct 2015 20:03

Singha wrote:another option is to add the kind of hunchback dorsal thing added on the A-4 skyhawk. on the Mig29UPG it looks more natural due to its already angled spine. this will permit carrying the Litening without spending another pylon for EW pod.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... _1972.JPEG

It will add more weight and mess up the aero of the base airframe. You'd want to avoid that.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 02 Oct 2015 20:05

sudhan wrote:^^How can the laser designator / rangefinder be carried on the dorsal side?

I think he means move EW there so that original pylon remains for Litening.

Thakur_B · Post by **Thakur_B** » 02 Oct 2015 20:19

The only space available for extra pylons is at wingtip and under the cannon. Wingtips are too small to mount F-16 like rails, the place under the gun would be subjected to vibrations from cannon fire.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 02 Oct 2015 20:28

Image below

Judging from this image i would think that the Tejas would need 2 SRAAMS (plyons) 1 and 7
2 drop tanks pylons 3 and 5
2 pylons for attack munitions (pylons 2 and 6) 800 kg each
That would leave a centerline pylon for for an SPJ

Can someone identify what is on pylon 8 in the image?

I do admit that the LCA Mark 1 could do with a few specially designed SDRE SDBs

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 02 Oct 2015 20:50

Karan M wrote:Reports were that first 20 IOC config, 2nd 20 FOC. Then before retiring the prior ADA head said 38 would be FOC config. But we don't know if the earlier orders were changed to this. Current report states that 60 new LCAs in FOC config - jingo khush hua.
IAF was busy stating they would only order 80 new Mk2s. Now Mk2 program is in addition.

Karan, where did you get the 60 numbers for foc std...shukla article suggests 20 at most, if that at foc mk1 std. This is a bit worrisome...if the whole foc std batch has been swallowed into this new mk1.A, the iaf might not have any lca deliveries till 2018-2019...is this another pie in the sky by hal?

But one great thing from all this is iaf s support is now clear..they have, as expected stepped up to the plate....Can bashers please east crow now?

srai · Post by **srai** » 02 Oct 2015 20:57

shiv wrote:Image below

Judging from this image i would think that the Tejas would need 2 SRAAMS (plyons) 1 and 7
2 drop tanks pylons 3 and 5
2 pylons for attack munitions (pylons 2 and 6) 800 kg each
That would leave a centerline pylon for for an SPJ

Can someone identify what is on pylon 8 in the image?

I do admit that the LCA Mark 1 could do with a few specially designed SDRE SDBs

Pylon 8 -> Litening pod

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 02 Oct 2015 21:17

Another thing that is unclear now is this issue about the external jammer...wasn't an internal ew suite (rwj?)being readied with elta and electronnica? In fact there were articles in the press that one trjas had already flown with it? Did the tests not go as planned?

Iirc, originally the plan was to go with an external setup, and then it was changed to internal, now back to square one?

srai · Post by **srai** » 02 Oct 2015 21:18

Karan M wrote:Hope a firm RM and the Rafale deal cost challenges knocks some sense into IAF planners at AHQ that their 45+ squadron dream is ONLY achievable if they get fully onboard the LCA and AMCA programs.

Yes, let's hope that continues.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 02 Oct 2015 21:22

^ I think the iaf knows this..and therefore is willing to order more..but question is order more of what? Ioc 2, foc, or mk1 a?

srai · Post by **srai** » 02 Oct 2015 21:23

Karan M wrote:
chaanakya wrote:May be I am wrong, but my understanding was that 40 LCA MK1 was already ordered by IAF in IOC-2 config.
This 7 sqdrs totaling 140 is for MK-1A . That makes it to total of 180 LCA.

Since there is no official release on these numbers we have to just go by tweets etc. Speculation , it could be.

I feel 16/PA is too low a figure. Namo likes to do it on "Grand Scale" in the Grand Scheme of things. I hope it is 40/year and that HAL is up to it. Else involve private players and ask them to pitch in as primary producer. That would give HAL a run for their money and time.
Reports were that first 20 IOC config, 2nd 20 FOC. Then before retiring the prior ADA head said 38 would be FOC config. But we don't know if the earlier orders were changed to this. Current report states that 60 new LCAs in FOC config - jingo khush hua.
IAF was busy stating they would only order 80 new Mk2s. Now Mk2 program is in addition.

So basically the IAF's original plan of 4 squadrons (80 LCA Mk.2) switched to FOC/Mk.1A. So now how many Mk.2 will be ordered? .. still 80?

srai · Post by **srai** » 02 Oct 2015 21:33

Parrikar cuts Gordian knot to boost Tejas line

...
Parrikar’s decisive move cuts through a Gordian knot that has bedevilled Tejas production. For years Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL), the agency that will mass-produce the Tejas, has resisted increasing production-line capacity, because the IAF has only committed to buying 40 fighters. In a chicken-and-egg situation, the IAF cites HAL’s slow production rate as the reason for not ordering more Tejas.
...

That has been one of the same argument point here on BRF as well

srai · Post by **srai** » 02 Oct 2015 21:39

Cain Marko wrote:^ I think the iaf knows this..and therefore is willing to order more..but question is order more of what? Ioc 2, foc, or mk1 a?

20 x Mk.1 IOC-2 standard -> currently in production 2014-2017
80 x Mk.1 FOC & Mk.1A standard -> production between 2017-2023; the plan is to switch production from Mk.1 FOC to Mk1A whenever it is ready. Delay in Mk.1A would mean more FOC produced; if the Mk.1A gets ready earlier then more of it will be produced out of the 80 total.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 02 Oct 2015 21:55

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 0#p1858300

Hobbes wrote:Latest update on LCA from Saurav Jha:

* The four things Holding up Tejas Mk-1 FOC are : Derby trials. Python trials. IFR and the new radome.

Looks like the gun firing tests are over. I thought the Python was a potential replacement for the R-73, which has already been tested on the Tejas. Do they want to replace the R-73 with the Python?

Adding to that post of Hobbes [5] Cannon trials, [6] EW Suite

I think IFR, Radome and Cannon trials are done and may be acceptable to IAF.

What about EW Suite, Derby and Python??

So it would be LCA MK 1 FOC and MK 1.5 would be only incremental. What changes are proposed in MK 1.5 ??

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 02 Oct 2015 21:57

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 7#p1858337

chaanakya wrote:I propose that GOI order 240 LCA to HAL and direct it to set up production lines with adequate capacity to produce 36 a year, at least.
Each 18 LCA will be a modified Block version , better one from its earlier tranche. Set up Supply chain eco system to feed these production lines.
As and when requirements (ASR) is met the same may be incorporated in existing production lines. Funds may be made available from Defence Procurement budget and it would be released in yearly tranche as per delivery with first 36 released up front for setting up production lines.
Managment of HAL and ADA should be stremlined and strict timelines should be enforced on pain of action under Defence of India Act to bypass unionism of HAL. Let IAF Chief and Vice Chief sit on the Boards of ADA and HAL. IAF should set up Quality Inspectorate foe acceptance of each plane before delivery.

Let LCA be improved upon in Blocks or Tranche , eacch being productionised as being constantly improved upon. Feedback system from actual use Squadrons( not merely test Pilots) to ADA and HAL should be evolved in structured manner.

This is what I was asking on 20th June this year. At least I got 100+ now. I hope they really revamp the whole set up.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 02 Oct 2015 22:03

srai wrote: So basically the IAF's original plan of 4 squadrons (80 LCA Mk.2) switched to FOC/Mk.1A. So now how many Mk.2 will be ordered? .. still 80?

Too early too speculate on mk2 numbers; if your number projections hold true, there is plenty to be happy about except there is no news on foc

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 02 Oct 2015 22:05

My understanding is that initially the plan was:-

20 LCA MK-1 IOC STD

20 LCA MK-1 FOC STD

Which became:-

2 LCA MK-1 IOC STD

38 LCA MK-1 FOC STD

Which is now becoming:-

2 LCA MK-1 IOC STD

18 LCA MK-1 FOC STD

60 LCA MK-1A STD

Hence second batch of aircraft may end up getting pushed back rather than pushed up.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 02 Oct 2015 23:19

Gyan wrote:My understanding is that initially the plan was:-

20 LCA MK-1 IOC STD

20 LCA MK-1 FOC STD

Which became:-

2 LCA MK-1 IOC STD

38 LCA MK-1 FOC STD

Which is now becoming:-

2 LCA MK-1 IOC STD

18 LCA MK-1 FOC STD

60 LCA MK-1A STD

Hence second batch of aircraft may end up getting pushed back rather than pushed up.

Extremely valid point.

IMO, it is important that HAL concentrate on delivering the first lot of 40 a/c to IAF which will form the nucleus of LCA in service. And help to train pilots and technical staff and also establish a proper supply chain.

This will also give IAF the much required two squadrons worth of combat a/c (if 38 balance come at FOC standard)

Whether people want to call it IOC or FOC or what not, LCA Mk-1A will have to go through a proper certification route. The extent of testing will depend on what exactly is being planned. In my limited understanding, any major weight shedding will require more comprehensive testing that what the recent article of AS carrier.

So, if only 2 (IOC-2) +18 (FOC) LCA Mk1 are being planned, then there will most likely be a break in production before LCA Mk-1A becomes a reality. The first lot of 20 would come only by end of 2018 (after FOC is completed by mid-2016).

Unless, the changes envisaged for LCA Mk1A can be completed by end 2018 (3 years - 2016/2017/2018), there will be a break between LCA Mk1 and MK-1A.

Hope and pray that we can really really wrap this up in 3-4 years and balance 60 or even 80 LCA-Mk1A start production from either 2018 or 2019 onward.

At production rate of 16/year, we should be able to get the whole lot inducted in 4-5 years (depending on numbers) i.e. 2022 or 2023.

IMO, LCA Mk-1A would be the best news to happen to Indian Military Aviation...it will give immense breathing space to LCA Mk2 and allow for continuum in fighter induction in IAF. Couldn't have been a better solution to our multifaceted problem.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 02 Oct 2015 23:30

from that broadsword link and karan ji's post, there is however big pointer on HAL that we concurred with

The result: in the last two years, HAL has built just one Tejas. Meanwhile, the IAF responds to its dwindling fighter numbers --- now just 34 squadrons --- with demands for quickly buying large numbers of the Dassault Rafale from France.

This was the chicken-egg::HAL-IAF, while leaving out the ADA pig and its piglet out of the equations. I strongly feel HAL must focus on integration and production rather working on 1A specifications and design. The V&V folks are ADA empowered and not HAL brains and responsibility.

HAL better get its focus and priorities set clear here. ADA has delivered even though late, but a latest enough platform for IAF. And, IAF must ensure to graduate LCA to what they eventually want an upgraded system to be.

They throw a lot of confusion when HAL starts to talk about 1A rather ADA. Am I missing something that HAL and BR et al know? I might be at fault at not following up closely on this. /sorry

enaiel · Post by **enaiel** » 02 Oct 2015 23:37

Happy to hear about 80 @ Tejas Mark 1A. Any firm orders for LCA is good news.

However, I still want to know what happened to SP-1. IAF Chief now says they don't have it!

http://armingindia.com/Defense%20Space% ... 20Raha.htm

Q. In January 2015, the HAL handed over a LSP version of the Tejas to the Indian Air Force. Have you flown the aircraft and checked its performance? Is the Air Force satisfied with its performance? When would the first and the second LCA MkI squadron be raised? With the Air Force having no control over the LCA program’s progress, how do you get the HAL to meet the schedules of the Tejas MkII development? How many squadrons of LCA MkII do you envisage having in the IAF? What are the operational limitations that the MkII of the aircraft may come with?

A. The documents for the first series production LCA Mk-1 were handed over to IAF on 17 January 2015; however, the aircraft is yet to be delivered to IAF. We will be in a position to form the first LCA Squadron after receipt of the first four LCA, which is now expected in 2016. The LCA Mk-2 was envisaged to overcome certain shortfalls related to performance, self-protection suite and maintainability aspects of LCA Mk-1. The LCA Mk-2 is at the D&D stage and delivery timelines cannot be estimated at this stage.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 03 Oct 2015 00:16

The LCA Mk-2 was envisaged to overcome certain shortfalls related to performance, self-protection suite and maintainability aspects of LCA Mk-1.

The Mk1A will hit 2 out of 3 of the above without any weight reduction. With AESA & Nxt Gen weapons, the performance part will also be mitigated.

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 03 Oct 2015 00:25

shiv wrote:This video shows the simulation and software used in YellSeeYay
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=755G4aqQ9mk

shiv: Thanks for the link.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 03 Oct 2015 01:45

rohitvats wrote:Extremely valid point.

IMO, it is important that HAL concentrate on delivering the first lot of 40 a/c to IAF which will form the nucleus of LCA in service. And help to train pilots and technical staff and also establish a proper supply chain.

This will also give IAF the much required two squadrons worth of combat a/c (if 38 balance come at FOC standard)

Whether people want to call it IOC or FOC or what not, LCA Mk-1A will have to go through a proper certification route. The extent of testing will depend on what exactly is being planned. In my limited understanding, any major weight shedding will require more comprehensive testing that what the recent article of AS carrier.

So, if only 2 (IOC-2) +18 (FOC) LCA Mk1 are being planned, then there will most likely be a break in production before LCA Mk-1A becomes a reality. The first lot of 20 would come only by end of 2018 (after FOC is completed by mid-2016).

Unless, the changes envisaged for LCA Mk1A can be completed by end 2018 (3 years - 2016/2017/2018), there will be a break between LCA Mk1 and MK-1A.

Hope and pray that we can really really wrap this up in 3-4 years and balance 60 or even 80 LCA-Mk1A start production from either 2018 or 2019 onward.

At production rate of 16/year, we should be able to get the whole lot inducted in 4-5 years (depending on numbers) i.e. 2022 or 2023.

IMO, LCA Mk-1A would be the best news to happen to Indian Military Aviation...it will give immense breathing space to LCA Mk2 and allow for continuum in fighter induction in IAF. Couldn't have been a better solution to our multifaceted problem.

IMO the weight reduction wagehra will be very limited. The main things will be keeping weight as close to original Cg calculations with new AESA and other items such as LRU repackaging keeping in mind accessibility and weight.
This will simplify FBW and flight testing. Next will be radar and weapons verification. IMO, this will also be relatively straightforward if Elta/IAI are involved with testing the AESA radar with their missiles. However, we really should think about some TOT like getting those radars TRMs assembled at Astra or TATA ASL.
The production engineering part at HAL is entirely another story. On the plus side, hopefully with the MKI program HAL has experience with 4G aircraft.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 03 Oct 2015 04:17

Only if you build in quantity you will find the nitty gritty issues. By throttling the initial production the system is ensuring LCA bugs will not be discovered.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 03 Oct 2015 04:18

Forbes magazine had an article few years ago summarizing OSSETIA manual on how to sabotage any program. Will post Sunday.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 03 Oct 2015 04:28

srai wrote:
shiv wrote:Image below

Judging from this image i would think that the Tejas would need 2 SRAAMS (plyons) 1 and 7
2 drop tanks pylons 3 and 5
2 pylons for attack munitions (pylons 2 and 6) 800 kg each
That would leave a centerline pylon for for an SPJ

Can someone identify what is on pylon 8

Pylon 8 -> Litening pod

Why does it look like a Siva pod with a bulge underneath?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 03 Oct 2015 05:01

Even without an SPJ the loadout of the Tejas includes 2 AAMs, 2 bums, 2 tanks and a Litening

But I think a Litening need not be carried on every aircraft in a flight provided there is good datalinking. That way every aircraft can carry an external SPJ, and one aircraft carries a Litening and an SPJ instead of one bomb.

IFR might allow a single centerline tank - releasing one wing pylon for something else.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 03 Oct 2015 06:00

>>But I think a Litening need not be carried on every aircraft in a flight provided there is good datalinking. That way every aircraft can carry an external SPJ, and one aircraft carries a Litening and an SPJ instead of one bomb.

One Litening can definitely lase for other aircraft. Buddy Lasing.
https://books.google.co.in/books?id=0kY ... er&f=false

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 03 Oct 2015 06:15

shiv ji, on the fuselage <-> spar stress, we have this engine as dead weight that is given (not changeable). now, does that come in way of reducing the fuselage weights because it has to have the minimum strength to take a 1T load dead weight on ground?
[plus the forward thrust stress]

Kakkaji · Post by **Kakkaji** » 03 Oct 2015 06:20

The NDTV report and Ajai Shukla reports are not totally in sync. Combining information from the two, I could gather that the following are missing from the SP-1 that is currently the production model:

1. BVR missile
2. IFR probe
3. Self Protection Jammer
4. AESA Radar
5. Easily maintainable layout
6. Optimized weight

The above can be added to the current airframe and engine between now and 2025 when the Mk2 with the new engine and rdesigned fuselage becomes available.

If Mk1A has to include all 6 of the above, it will need extensive redesign and testing, and will not be ready before 2020 IMHO.

I think they should include 2-3 of the above at a time, and call them Mk1A, 1B, 1C etc. That way, the next iteration can be ready for production in 2018.

JMHO

srai · Post by **srai** » 03 Oct 2015 06:55

rohitvats wrote:
Gyan wrote:My understanding is that initially the plan was:-

20 LCA MK-1 IOC STD

20 LCA MK-1 FOC STD

Which became:-

2 LCA MK-1 IOC STD

38 LCA MK-1 FOC STD

Which is now becoming:-

2 LCA MK-1 IOC STD

18 LCA MK-1 FOC STD

60 LCA MK-1A STD

Hence second batch of aircraft may end up getting pushed back rather than pushed up.
Extremely valid point.

IMO, it is important that HAL concentrate on delivering the first lot of 40 a/c to IAF which will form the nucleus of LCA in service. And help to train pilots and technical staff and also establish a proper supply chain.

This will also give IAF the much required two squadrons worth of combat a/c (if 38 balance come at FOC standard)

Whether people want to call it IOC or FOC or what not, LCA Mk-1A will have to go through a proper certification route. The extent of testing will depend on what exactly is being planned. In my limited understanding, any major weight shedding will require more comprehensive testing that what the recent article of AS carrier.

So, if only 2 (IOC-2) +18 (FOC) LCA Mk1 are being planned, then there will most likely be a break in production before LCA Mk-1A becomes a reality. The first lot of 20 would come only by end of 2018 (after FOC is completed by mid-2016).

Unless, the changes envisaged for LCA Mk1A can be completed by end 2018 (3 years - <a href="tel:2016/2017/2018">2016/2017/2018</a>), there will be a break between LCA Mk1 and MK-1A.

Hope and pray that we can really really wrap this up in 3-4 years and balance 60 or even 80 LCA-Mk1A start production from either 2018 or 2019 onward.

At production rate of 16/year, we should be able to get the whole lot inducted in 4-5 years (depending on numbers) i.e. 2022 or 2023.

IMO, LCA Mk-1A would be the best news to happen to Indian Military Aviation...it will give immense breathing space to LCA Mk2 and allow for continuum in fighter induction in IAF. Couldn't have been a better solution to our multifaceted problem.

IMO, the production should be more fluid for the 100 units. As new specs IOC-2, FOC and 1A become available the production should switch to that one without interrupting the line. So for example, if FOC is delayed more IOC-2 should be built; if 1A is delayed more FOC should be built. If, however, 1A gets ready for production earlier then more of it should be produced. That way there is no production gaps waiting for future iterations to complete R&D.

Once those 100 units of IOC-2/FOC/1A finish production, a separate effort should follow to bring all to 1A standards (as much as possible).

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 03 Oct 2015 06:56

Kakkaji,

>>.The NDTV report and Ajai Shukla reports are not totally in sync. Combining information from the two, I could gather that the following are missing from the SP-1 that is currently the production model:

1. BVR missile
2. IFR probe
3. Self Protection Jammer
4. AESA Radar
5. Easily maintainable layout
6. Optimized weight

--

To be clear.

FOC LCA Mk1 will have 1 and 2 as a given.
3,4,5 will come with LCA Mk1A. Once 3 happens it should be retrofit-able to even Mk1 w/effort.
6 will truly happen with Mk2, until and unless HAL pulls a rabit out of its hat.

Kakkaji · Post by **Kakkaji** » 03 Oct 2015 07:00

Karan M:

The BVR and IFR part is confusing. It was supposed to be there on Mk1 at FOC, but Shukla's report says "Derby/ Python Integration, and refueling capability" are features of Mk1A. So have they taken these out of the FOC?

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 03 Oct 2015 07:16

He is just touting them as a plus for the Mk1A, but in reality they will be there for Mk1 itself. You'd have seen the brouhaha over the IFR and radome from Cobham. Also Derby integration for the Mk1 is already ongoing.
http://aviationweek.com/paris-air-show- ... formance-0
I-Derby ER integration tests are currently under way on the Indian Tejas LCA.

One thing that may happen is that the tests need to be redone for the LCA, including IFR. Derby tests because of a new AESA radar. And IFR if weight changes mean FCS changes.

Shukla doesn't mention AESA though in his latest article. It well might be that we don't get an AESA and only remove the ballast to give us a performance boost in aero.
Several possibilities..however Saurav Jha says AESA in Mk1A.

shaun · Post by **shaun** » 03 Oct 2015 07:24

I could not make out anything from his article , like he mentioned about podded SPJ for Mk1A , my question is a podded SPJ can be carried by present Mk1 too , same for IFR.

About internal SPJ , it have been tested on PV1 , what happened to that unified EW suite which comprises MAWS , LWS , RWR and SPJ all in sync with flare and chaff counter measure .

And karan saab , maybe 2052 for Mk1A and Uttam for Mk2.