Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 01 Feb 2019 05:55

If the IAF has its way, the ASRAAM could have a longer flight path in Indian service. As Livefist reported in 2017, the ASRAAM is under consideration as a weapon system on the Light Combat Aircraft Tejas, while the IAF has officially opened discussions on arming its Hawk trainers with the ASRAAM and Brimstone weapon system. If the IAF is looking beyond the R-73 on the Su-30 MKI, then it stands to reason that it could do the same on its recently upgraded Russian MiG-29 fighter fleet. But IAF sources confirm that the Su-30 MKI fleet is a priority program for the ASRAAM integration.

The IAF chose the ASRAAM in 2013 after a contest that involved the Israeli Python, the German Diehl IRIS-T and American Raytheon AIM-9X Sidewinder. While India is well into testing its indigenous beyond visual range air-to-air Astra missile, its weapons program doesn’t include a close combat air-to-air missile, compelling it to depend on imported systems through its history. Comparable past systems include the Matra Magic II, replaced on the Mirage 2000 with the MICA IR.

The move to attempt a standardisation of the ASRAAM across its combat aircraft fleet could be helped along by a proposal from the missile’s maker, MBDA, which has proposed to shift final assembly of the weapon system from Bolton in the United Kingdom to the facilities of India’s state-owned missile house Bharat Dynamics Ltd in Hyderabad as part of offsets obligations across contracts.

The ASRAAM is one among a slew of new armaments that have lately armed IAF Jaguar variants. The others include Boeing Harpoon Block IIIs anti-ship missiles and Textron CBU-105 sensor fuzed cluster munitions.

https://www.livefistdefence.com/2019/01 ... fleet.html

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 01 Feb 2019 06:02

Astra per wiki says can engage at less than 20 km ranged target. I can't understand this "lie fist"

ashishvikas · Post by **ashishvikas** » 01 Feb 2019 09:26

No changes in Tejas jet design: IAF Chief

The IAF Chief said: “Our policy envisages a progressive improvement in scale of indigenisation. Forty LCA Mark-I have been ordered and Request for Proposal has been issued for 83 LCA Mark-IA and will be procuring 12 Squadrons of LCA Mark-2 and then finally the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft.”

https://www.tribuneindia.com/mobi/news/ ... 21917.html

IAF chief flags delays in manufacture of equipment

The IAF has contracted for 40 LCA Mk-I jets, issued a Request For Proposal (RFP) for 83 LCA Mk-IA variants and committed to procure 12 squadrons of LCA Mk-II and eventually the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA).

https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/ ... 142246.ece

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 01 Feb 2019 09:44

So eventually we will see 360 + Tejas in Mk1 , Mk-1A and Mk2 standard , this a huge number and great boost to the program

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 01 Feb 2019 09:53

This "IAF didnt change jet specs or ASQR" is hiding behind technicality. They didnt change the ASQR which describes only the basic aircraft and its performance. But they made several changes in Weapons system. Avionics packages like Radar, EW suite also come under this along with usual weapons like missiles and bombs. IAF can technicaly demand BrahMos to be put on LCA which may lead to full redesign of LCA to make it as large as Su30MKI and still claim that they didnt change Jet specs.

Obviously only HAL would crib because they have to produce the aircraft, not ADA.

Changing even a single alphabet or number on an Aircraft drawing is so painful work and can take months for even subassy. Those who work with drawings or config mgmt would know. Its not about changing one paper with another. One has to consider very carefully full implication on system performance and reliability, trade off with ease of maintenance, cost, and impact on supply chain logistics.

Also one doesnt simply push changes to production line. If HAL does that IAF will come later complaining LCA is too complicated to maintain and parts from one aircraft are not interchangeable with another. Change management is a big thing in Configuration management and overall program management. World over Aircraft programs are produced in batches, they are not idiots runing the show there. I think IAF has taken the buzz word "Concurrent Engineering" too literally.

FWIW I think HAL has been rather flexible in producing LCA. No two aircrafts produced were same until SP3. That includes TD, PV, LSP and 3 SP.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 01 Feb 2019 09:58

SaiK wrote:Astra per wiki says can engage at less than 20 km ranged target. I can't understand this "lie fist"

"Can" is a single word. It hides a lot of information or misinformation.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 01 Feb 2019 10:22

JayS wrote:If HAL does that IAF will come later complaining LCA is too complicated to maintain and parts from one aircraft are not interchangeable with another.

the HAL kanpur assembled AN32 from CKD kits iirc due to OEM Ukraine loose stds are i believe known for parts that do not exactly the same and have to hand fitted to adjust a little ?

A Deshmukh · Post by **A Deshmukh** » 01 Feb 2019 10:54

ashishvikas wrote:
The IAF Chief said: “Our policy envisages a progressive improvement in scale of indigenisation. Forty LCA Mark-I have been ordered and Request for Proposal has been issued for 83 LCA Mark-IA and will be procuring 12 Squadrons of LCA Mark-2 and then finally the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft.”

https://www.tribuneindia.com/mobi/news/ ... 21917.html

https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/ ... 142246.ece

40 + 83 + 12*18 = 40 (Mk1) + 83 (Mk1A) + 216 (Mk2) = 339 !

ashishvikas · Post by **ashishvikas** » 01 Feb 2019 11:27

A Deshmukh wrote:40 + 83 + 12*18 = 40 (Mk1) + 83 (Mk1A) + 216 (Mk2) = 339 !

Tejas Sqn is of 20 planes.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 01 Feb 2019 12:18

Austin wrote:So eventually we will see 360 + Tejas in Mk1 , Mk-1A and Mk2 standard , this a huge number and great boost to the program

On no Saar iaf is bad bad wonlee. Always wants imports. Don't you know it is trying to do an Arjun reboot with tejas?

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 01 Feb 2019 13:38

Rakesh wrote:https://twitter.com/delhidefence/status ... 6886302725 ---> Presenting the cockpit view of the Tejas, with the Martin Baker Zero-Zero ejection seat.

Looks pretty basic.

But that isn't a bad thing as they are fewer things to go wrong - having seen the many things that can go wrong.

Fancier does not necessarily translate into better and is often the inverse of reliable.

But they need to produce it and stop wasting time or its all going to land in the garbage can.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 01 Feb 2019 14:12

Singha wrote:
JayS wrote:If HAL does that IAF will come later complaining LCA is too complicated to maintain and parts from one aircraft are not interchangeable with another.
the HAL kanpur assembled AN32 from CKD kits iirc due to OEM Ukraine loose stds are i believe known for parts that do not exactly the same and have to hand fitted to adjust a little ?

Its not just about some panels. For every part that is not conforming to a particular standard for the given batch you have to maintain significant documentation starting from separate drawing issue, separate manuals, maintenance advisories and even separate inventories. Any fighter has close to 0.3-0.5M components in entirety. Just image the nightmare is one decides to push constant changes in the production line. You will need more resources just to maintain the documentation than would need to produce the damn thing. The logistics on IAF's side would be even worse, probability of human error would be orders of magnitude higher. The people who maintain the aircrafts typically do not have enough competency and time to understand why the changes are done and what would happen if proper care is not taken for non-standard items. The manuals are highly filtered versions for shop floor techinicians. Concurrent engineering is a double edged sword which can very quickly send the entire program in disarray if the program management is not done very carefully. The margin of error is thin as compared to good old practice of serial engineering development.

IAF and ADA needs to work out a mechanism thru which the HW changes are only pushed in batches which correspond to the production batches of significant sizes, say 40 or so. Only critical changes which might affect flightworthiness or safety should be pushed in ASAP. Rest all should be withheld for next batch with previous batches getting it as retrofit if need be. Also the changes should be such that they do not require too much change in HW configuration. Any significant HW change should be pushed out to MLU or next design iteration.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 01 Feb 2019 14:20

Neshant wrote:
Rakesh wrote:https://twitter.com/delhidefence/status ... 6886302725 ---> Presenting the cockpit view of the Tejas, with the Martin Baker Zero-Zero ejection seat.
Looks pretty basic.

But that isn't a bad thing as they are fewer things to go wrong - having seen the many things that can go wrong.

Fancier does not necessarily translate into better and is often the inverse of reliable.

But they need to produce it and stop wasting time or its all going to land in the garbage can.

ADA has done extensive work on MMI and took inputs from Pilot while designing Tejas cockpit , I had to have this ADA journal with details

And as you rightly said Fancier does not translate into better. I like the cockpit look its business like with small back up LCD on top ....Some thing I recollect they called it Take You Home back then

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 01 Feb 2019 14:37

Guess one would appreciate the basic and functional nature of human interface only when one needs to remember every single one of those controllers and be able to reach any one of them even blindfolded and even under great G loads.

I think LCA cockpit is roomier and better than that of Rafale which looks absolutely crammed. But of coarse Pilots would have personal preferences. Centre stick vs side stick also matters.

nam · Post by **nam** » 01 Feb 2019 15:23

SaiK wrote:Astra per wiki says can engage at less than 20 km ranged target. I can't understand this "lie fist"

I am expecting the line between WVR & BVR to blur. Even AMRAAM can hit WVR target. The recent USAF shot down of Syrian plane was done by Aim-120 after the TFTA Aim-9X followed the flared...!

So fundamentally going forward it will be either dual sensor BVR or similar range two types of BVR(heat & radar), which can hit WVR & BVR. With the usual two way datalinks

The Aim-132 is almost a BV Ranged weapon.

chola · Post by **chola** » 01 Feb 2019 16:29

Austin wrote:So eventually we will see 360 + Tejas in Mk1 , Mk-1A and Mk2 standard , this a huge number and great boost to the program

I would say that that is more just a “boost”!

Is this it? The commitment we were looking for!

Can I sleep at night from now on knowing the Tejas and the nation’s commitment to our indigenous aircraft is secure!!!

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 01 Feb 2019 16:42

the rafale cockpit is also fairly minimal barring the complex arrays of buttons on those gamer grade joysticks.
the fit of metal along the rim of the tub where canopy meets metal is better, with no exposed line of bolts.
and the MFDs are larger - someone always has a larger phone and tv.
overall I say our tejas is decent.

where the rafale scores is its highly internal and integrated array of self defence and penetration aids without expending external pylons or mix n match of cobbled together kit....its pretty much all thales and sagem inhouse.

very cramped with that big old "TV thing" projecting out in the middle and occpying a lot of volume.

chola · Post by **chola** » 01 Feb 2019 18:15

PLEASE. Someone tell me that the 12 squadrons 300+ Tejas is real and will happen! The IAF Chief says they envision this so orders will happen right?!!

nam · Post by **nam** » 01 Feb 2019 18:21

chola wrote:PLEASE. Someone tell me that the 12 squadrons 300+ Tejas is real and will happen! The IAF Chief says they envision this so orders will happen right?!!

I will believe it when the order is firmly signed...

If IAF is serious about MK2, the funds & AQSR should have been allocated to ADA. Is it?

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 01 Feb 2019 18:55

nam wrote:
chola wrote:PLEASE. Someone tell me that the 12 squadrons 300+ Tejas is real and will happen! The IAF Chief says they envision this so orders will happen right?!!
I will believe it when the order is firmly signed...

If IAF is serious about MK2, the funds & AQSR should have been allocated to ADA. Is it?

IAF does not release funds. MoD does. IAF has moved the file. Ask MoD to release funds. Surprised, HAL has not pitched to MoD or has it?

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 01 Feb 2019 19:56

deejay wrote:
nam wrote:
I will believe it when the order is firmly signed...

If IAF is serious about MK2, the funds & AQSR should have been allocated to ADA. Is it?
IAF does not release funds. MoD does. IAF has moved the file. Ask MoD to release funds. Surprised, HAL has not pitched to MoD or has it?

Just to clarify, do you mean IAF has already applied for AON for LCA MK2 acquisition..?

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 01 Feb 2019 20:27

I'll believe MK2 is real when I see it, till then it is just a paper plane (like it has been for the past 10+ years).

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 01 Feb 2019 20:36

Mk2, paper plane? They are designing the assembly jigs as we speak. There will be three jigs one each for front, center and rear fuselage. The subassemblies will be jigless.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 01 Feb 2019 20:51

abhik wrote:I'll believe MK2 is real when I see it, till then it is just a paper plane (like it has been for the past 10+ years).

LCA Mk2 is part of FSED-3 and is already approved project. Problem is that LCA Mk1 work keeps getting extended. Now Mk1A got inserted.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 01 Feb 2019 20:52

Indranil wrote:Mk2, paper plane? They are designing the assembly jigs as we speak. There will be three jigs one each for front, center and rear fuselage. The subassemblies will be jigless.

No assy jig for wings..? Are they planning to use co-co composite wing..?

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 01 Feb 2019 21:44

JayS wrote:
deejay wrote:
IAF does not release funds. MoD does. IAF has moved the file. Ask MoD to release funds. Surprised, HAL has not pitched to MoD or has it?
Just to clarify, do you mean IAF has already applied for AON for LCA MK2 acquisition..?

IAF has submitted the necessary paperwork multiple times. MoD keeps sending back seeking clarifications. Submission of AON can only be considered once MoD accepts finally.

Given the large outlays, I will not fault MoD either. It's their Job to be correct or things get nasty for the GOI later. One of the reason that LCA pricing was in news was where is it going to be for the enhanced versions.

Of course, whatever, I write here is not citing an official report. I do understand that the paperwork from IAFs side was ready long back. The matter is now for MoD to move.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 01 Feb 2019 22:25

JayS wrote:
Indranil wrote:Mk2, paper plane? They are designing the assembly jigs as we speak. There will be three jigs one each for front, center and rear fuselage. The subassemblies will be jigless.
No assy jig for wings..? Are they planning to use co-co composite wing..?

Don't know yet. The jigs, I was speaking of is for HAL. Wing is likely to be supplied by private player.

Prasad · Post by **Prasad** » 01 Feb 2019 23:21

Wings are from L&T no?

gaurav.p · Post by **gaurav.p** » 01 Feb 2019 23:26

Slight OT, but given the grim capex budget numbers, will the mk1A be signed in this year?

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 02 Feb 2019 01:10

Indranil wrote:Mk2, paper plane? They are designing the assembly jigs as we speak. There will be three jigs one each for front, center and rear fuselage. The subassemblies will be jigless.

Good news to give some cheer on a day when the extremely sad news of the demise of 2 young IAF test pilots really made me gloomy.

It reinforced one thing- that flying is a risky business and everything associated with it will take time as the people involved need to be very thorough.

nam · Post by **nam** » 02 Feb 2019 02:05

IAF Chief today mentioned that SU-30 sqd has 2 times the manpower requirement and 3.5 the cost of a Mig-21 sqd.

Shows us how important LCA like capability is. Single pilot, low cost jet. Reason why IAF is not keen on expanding Su30 sqd.

There is now lot of bad blood between IAF & HAL. The Mirage incident today may make it boil over.

Fundamentally we have unionized, driven by bureaucracy, late delivering HAL. IAF which does not have history of aircraft development, looking for perfection in LCA and does not trust HAL.

Watching all these is the mute MoD. Not wanting to take on the HAL union & not anger IAF.

I feel now there is a genuine issue to the security, because of this mess. Paks may become serious threat to us, based on sheer number of cheap to operate jets like JF17 and tie us down on western front.

This needs PMO intervention and some hard decisions. No point beating around the bush..

ArjunPandit · Post by **ArjunPandit** » 02 Feb 2019 02:28

^^i doubt anything drastic will come before next elections

kit · Post by **kit** » 02 Feb 2019 04:10

HAL will likely be broken in to to leaner separate entities

sahay · Post by **sahay** » 02 Feb 2019 05:24

gaurav.p wrote:Slight OT, but given the grim capex budget numbers, will the mk1A be signed in this year?

I think it depends on how much money is left over after paying for committed procurements. For example, most of the money left over in the 2016-17 and 2017-18 budgets would have gone to Rafale (15% and 25% of EUR 7.87 billion, respectively) and I suspect the same would have happened to the 2018-19 budget due to S-400. If there is no second tranche payment due for S-400 in 2019-20 and if there is no new large capital procurement planned, the contract could be signed.

ashthor · Post by **ashthor** » 02 Feb 2019 12:27

The funds crunch might be a way of nudging IAF go for Mk1A and not for import. Just like
MP nudged them.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 02 Feb 2019 12:57

Prasad wrote:Wings are from L&T no?

We have three vendors for three fuselage sections as well no..?

Indranil wrote:
JayS wrote: No assy jig for wings..? Are they planning to use co-co composite wing..?
Don't know yet. The jigs, I was speaking of is for HAL. Wing is likely to be supplied by private player.

Why would HAL source only wing from outside but not fuselage sections when we already have suppliers for them for Mk1/1A..?? In fact I would expect HAL to take those vendors on-board for jig design and manufacturing for Mk2 so in next iterations they could do it on their own.

I hope we are talking about structural sub-assy jigs and not the equipping jigs. Otherwise we would be talking of two different things. LOL

nam · Post by **nam** » 02 Feb 2019 14:47

gaurav.p wrote:Slight OT, but given the grim capex budget numbers, will the mk1A be signed in this year?

The best advantage of having a local solution is the game you can play with the budget.

One aspect to remember with the budget, is that the amount is what we plan to pay for 2019-20. The key word "planned". There is no money allocated,"hoping" to sign "some contract". No organisation does that.

Coming to LCA, without allocating anything, GoI could still order MK1A. HAL, IAF are GoI entities.

GoI could give 1 Rs as signing amount to HAL. If HAL is short of money to pay private suppliers, well it can take loan from banks.. another GoI entity. Probably at zero percent interest.

All underwritten by GoI. There has been hu ha, about IAF not paying it's dues to HAL. It does not matter. Sab GOI ka maal hai.

This is why it is so important to have local solutions.

gaurav.p · Post by **gaurav.p** » 02 Feb 2019 16:23

nam wrote:
...
Coming to LCA, without allocating anything, GoI could still order MK1A. HAL, IAF are GoI entities.

GoI could give 1 Rs as signing amount to HAL. If HAL is short of money to pay private suppliers, well it can take loan from banks.. another GoI entity. Probably at zero percent interest.

All underwritten by GoI. There has been hu ha, about IAF not paying it's dues to HAL. It does not matter. Sab GOI ka maal hai.

This is why it is so important to have local solutions.

Sounds good but isn't this amount to fiscal indiscipline (being already listed company) and perpetual inefficiency (with no zeal to get things done on time)?

nam · Post by **nam** » 02 Feb 2019 16:35

gaurav.p wrote: Sounds good but isn't this amount to fiscal indiscipline (being already listed company) and perpetual inefficiency (with no zeal to get things done on time)?

GoI gets to maintain fiscal discipline by moving numbers around. Regarding the listed company, i don't know if there is a bigger example of "Conflict of Interest", with GoI being the client and owner of HAL..

ArjunPandit · Post by **ArjunPandit** » 02 Feb 2019 16:56

kit wrote:HAL will likely be broken in to to leaner separate entities

I sincerely hope the entities are named after the pilots who died in crash