Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5348
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Kartik » 15 Jan 2020 04:25

JayS wrote:
Dileep wrote:Simulation is not trusted for any safety or mission critical aspects. As per my understanding, none of the aerodynamic aspects are certified based on simulation. However, electrical simulations are sometimes accepted as means of compliance now. Of course, they are much simpler than aerodynamics. I have seen only a few line items that accepted (electrical) simulation among the thousands I have seen in my rather short experience in this field. We do not deal with aerodynamics, so don't have data on them.

Even RF simulation is not accepted.

CEMILAC/RCMA never accept simulation for domestic stuff as I know.


I know examples of mission critical requirements certified by FAA based only on simulation results. Obviously all other civilian agencies mostly copy paste FAA certification, its true for most of them if not all. Structural simulations are particularly mature technology by now for many test cases. There are some test points, which are still too complicated for simulations, they need validation test e.g. FBO or are used as ultimate verification point for a whole set of test points, eg wing ultimate strength. The amount of test points covered by simulations are only gonna grow in future.

As I said previously, it depends on how much confidence the certifying agency has on the OEM's methods or how well the OEM can convince the agency. Its definitely a gray area, but Aerospace Engineering is quite conservative in nature as you would know already. So things are not taken lightly. We praise global OEMs all the time but then they get a lot of leeway from FAA. If FAA puts its foot down on each and every certification point to be verified in some real life test, I wonder if developing and certifying a Civil Airliner will even remain a economically feasible activity at all.

Typically first of the family takes longest. Later derivatives only need to recertify design changes, not full set of test points.


when I was still in engineering at Boeing, we were not allowed to use FEM for composites or metallic panels and parts. Only hand calculations using basic strength of materials equations using proprietary Boeing applications. Every single part's strength check notes were vetted and reviewed before being signed. And because it was all hand calcs using equations that a person could print and run through, it was all above board. In that way you're right that aerospace engineering is very conservative by nature and has healthy margins built in. For repair manuals, we had to once again do the hand calculations and then run it past a Boeing appointed FAA representative. Their job was to look at it as if they were the FAA and needed convincing about a particular design or repair. That is what a lot of people have been citing as one of the problem areas- FAA having delegated the responsibility of the final design review to Boeing engineers rather than having their own person do the review. But FAA doesn't have the budget to employ people to do this level of review for each and every system.

But FEM was permitted for panels for 1 specific check that all panels had to pass and that was aerodynamic deflection. That was a very basic static analysis, nothing fancy.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5348
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Kartik » 15 Jan 2020 04:27

Avinandan wrote:The main landing wheel is not aligned with hydraulic restraints. The wheel is slightly towards right, almost facing towards the photographer. Or are my eyes playing tricks on me ?? :roll:


Optical illusion. It is of course aligned. NP-2 just landed on a carrier and you think it would do it with mis-aligned MLG wheels?

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5348
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Kartik » 15 Jan 2020 04:33

brar_w wrote:
Kakarat wrote:For now it can be used as a LIFT and BVR capable air superiority fighter based on tests from SBTF


A Naval LIFT is probably the best bet. A naval, Carrier-launched point defense fighter is probably also possible..but where is the mission need? Against what carrier on carrier battle would the IN need this? Most carrier counter air is directed quite a bit distance away from the carrier, as the opposite force employs low flying long range strike options given the ability of the carrier to generate counter air sorties. So an ideal counter air platform would be medium to long range with the ability to maintain orbits at distance with enough endurance to engage in combat if need be (at distance). PAF/PN capability probably does not justify dedicated counter air mission aircraft as multi-role aircraft will suffice. I think the IN looked at this before it embarked on a twin engined 4+ gen. fighter requirement, both for the 57 imported aircraft and the TEDBF. Also, non optimized aircraft also have trickle down impact on other carrier aviation requirements. Currently the IN uses the MiG-29K as a recovery tanker. How is the recovery tanker mission impacted if you mix in a medium ranged carrier borne aircraft (29K) and a short-medium ranged aircraft into the operational mix? At the moment, the best bet is to field this aircraft as a naval LIFT, and use the experience and the lessons learnt as a stepping stone for a proper MiG-29K replacement, which If I were to guess, the IN can't wait to get.


Yes, and there is a definite use case for it. Currently the IN trains it's pilots on the Hawk AJT first and then onto the MiG-29KUB for conversion and training on radar/weapons delivery/tactics/carrier landing and take off, etc. All of those tasks done by the MiG-29KUB can be taken on by a small LIFT fleet of 8-10 LCA Navy Mk1s. The MiG-29KUBs could then be used for more combat oriented roles instead of being a trainer.

While the LCA Navy Mk1 may not be tasked with combat roles, embarking it on the carriers will bring in precious data on actual carrier employment and that data can feed into the TEDBF program to improve the design and fix issues before they are even encountered on that design.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9805
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Postby Rakesh » 15 Jan 2020 04:50

Kakarat wrote:...

Thank you for the latest tweets about NP-1.

Page 1 updated with that info.

SriKumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2059
Joined: 27 Feb 2006 07:22
Location: sarvatra

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

Postby SriKumar » 15 Jan 2020 08:53

Kartik wrote:when I was still in engineering at Boeing, we were not allowed to use FEM for composites or metallic panels and parts. Only hand calculations using basic strength of materials equations using proprietary Boeing applications. Every single part's strength check notes were vetted and reviewed before being signed.

But FEM was permitted for panels for 1 specific check that all panels had to pass and that was aerodynamic deflection. That was a very basic static analysis, nothing fancy.
surprising...the low reliance on FEM. A lot of geometries are complex and not very amenable to basic equations.

hnair
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3995
Joined: 03 May 2006 01:31
Location: Trivandrum

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

Postby hnair » 15 Jan 2020 11:54

JayS wrote:LOL. B-NG on NLCA Mk1 ain't happening.


:shock: If it can barely float or taxi, it better carry Brahmos or its very IOC is at risk. In keeping with the times, maybe we should have a "Troll BRF" thread with memes etc? Can be a good catchall thread than BENIS, which can deal with substantive issues in a light hearted fashion

JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2782
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

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

Postby JTull » 15 Jan 2020 11:57

Simulations help you plan your test flights with regards to number and types of test points. One test flight using one airframe does not constitute a statistically significant test result. As stated previously, they help validate and refine models. Those models are the ones which give probabilities of departure from norm. Hardware weaknesses and fatigue tests are also being effectively "simulated" on ground without needing to fly the aircraft for 10s of thousands of hours. Simulations are the reason why we've so few accidents during test flights these days. Systems engineering with simulated integration of multiple systems often identifies problems with interface definitions in today's world of large number of vendors.

pushkar.bhat
BRFite
Posts: 411
Joined: 29 Mar 2008 19:27
Location: prêt à monter dans le Arihant
Contact:

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

Postby pushkar.bhat » 15 Jan 2020 13:53

Amazing momentum to the test campaign. This is good news.

News from #NLCA campaign is both NP1 & NP2 have completed 12 cycles of arrested landings & ski-jump take-offs from #INSVikramaditya. Today both have performed 3 each, while yesterday 2+3. So, 1 (Day 1)+2+3 (Day 2)+3+3 (Day 3)=12. Both planes are holding good folks! Great job!

https://twitter.com/writetake/status/1217352936948297728

Kakarat
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2124
Joined: 26 Jan 2005 13:59

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

Postby Kakarat » 15 Jan 2020 14:00

https://twitter.com/delhidefence/status ... 1837723648
WATCH: The video of #NLCA - Light Combat Aircraft Navy taking off from the INS Vikramditya ski-jump for the first time on 12 January 2020, somewhere in the Arabian Sea. @indiannavy

Zynda
BRFite
Posts: 1922
Joined: 07 Jan 2006 00:37
Location: J4

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

Postby Zynda » 15 Jan 2020 14:04

Noob question...from the photos, I can't see any kind of sensors and/or instruments on these planes (at least on the outside). With the absence of these, what kinds of data is being collected? Possibly, we have accelerometers mounted inside to capture stuff like shock experienced during landing, grabbing the arresting cables & TO.

Kakarat
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2124
Joined: 26 Jan 2005 13:59

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

Postby Kakarat » 15 Jan 2020 14:24


JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2782
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

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

Postby JTull » 15 Jan 2020 15:03

pushkar.bhat wrote:Amazing momentum to the test campaign. This is good news.

News from #NLCA campaign is both NP1 & NP2 have completed 12 cycles of arrested landings & ski-jump take-offs from #INSVikramaditya. Today both have performed 3 each, while yesterday 2+3. So, 1 (Day 1)+2+3 (Day 2)+3+3 (Day 3)=12. Both planes are holding good folks! Great job!

https://twitter.com/writetake/status/1217352936948297728


:thumbup:

sajaym
BRFite
Posts: 161
Joined: 04 Feb 2019 09:11

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

Postby sajaym » 15 Jan 2020 15:26

A simple comparison video. Watch the difference in thrusts between a SEDBF and a TEDBF...in the SEDBF after brake release the thrust is just enough to get the aircraft moving whereas the TEDBF experiences an additional 'kick in the ass' after brake release. That 'kick' is why the IN wants TEDBF and not the NLCA Mk1. That simple 'kick' is extra fuel and weapons right there.

Kakarat wrote:



JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4554
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby JayS » 15 Jan 2020 15:44

Zynda wrote:Noob question...from the photos, I can't see any kind of sensors and/or instruments on these planes (at least on the outside). With the absence of these, what kinds of data is being collected? Possibly, we have accelerometers mounted inside to capture stuff like shock experienced during landing, grabbing the arresting cables & TO.


we can be assured the prototypes are thoroughly instrumented with strain gauges, accelerometers and other kinds of sensors, data recorders and telemetry equipment sending out data from at least a couple of hundred sensors if not more. Structural load is one thing, we need engine performance data, aero data for creating tables to be fed to the FCS, all the sensor data sent to the FCS and FCS's response/control inputs generated and the aircraft's repsonse to the control inputs. All this will be helpful in deriving most realistic design requirements, validations, inputs for static/fatigue testing at airframe level and fine-tuning of simulations and dynamics model of the aircraft.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4554
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby JayS » 15 Jan 2020 15:46

Am I the only one or it does look like NLCA rolled a bit towards starboard side after leaving the ramp, its control system corrected it and then corrected the heading a wee bit towards the port side to make it perfectly going in the headwind...??

Kakarat
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2124
Joined: 26 Jan 2005 13:59

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

Postby Kakarat » 15 Jan 2020 15:52

https://twitter.com/writetake/status/12 ... 7572193280

Here's another video of #NLCA ski-jump from #INSVikramaditya

sudhan
BRFite
Posts: 1103
Joined: 01 Jul 2009 17:53
Location: Timbuktoo..

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

Postby sudhan » 15 Jan 2020 18:18

AK says 12 cycles of Take off and landings done by NP1 and NP2..

Land, hot refuel and take off ..

Seriously impressive

ritesh
BRFite
Posts: 270
Joined: 13 Dec 2005 17:48
Location: Mumbai

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

Postby ritesh » 15 Jan 2020 18:45

JTull wrote:
pushkar.bhat wrote:Amazing momentum to the test campaign. This is good news.



:thumbup:

Jingo khush huaaaaa... :D
Hope at least as trainer Navy can get a squadron or two. That will be some start.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4554
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby JayS » 15 Jan 2020 19:22

I'll just leave it here.

Image

sudhan
BRFite
Posts: 1103
Joined: 01 Jul 2009 17:53
Location: Timbuktoo..

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

Postby sudhan » 15 Jan 2020 19:41

^^Saar, can't open image

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3090
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

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

Postby abhik » 15 Jan 2020 20:38

JayS wrote:I'll just leave it here.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EOU2VT7U8AA ... name=small

I'm hoping against hope that the payload numbers are good enough to put naval LCA Mk2 back on the table. TED-BF and ORCA sound exciting but it is just pushing left the our first deployable carrier fighter by another 5 or so years.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2488
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

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

Postby Vivek K » 15 Jan 2020 20:40

JayS wrote:I'll just leave it here


Do you have the number?

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36416
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

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

Postby SaiK » 15 Jan 2020 22:35

sajaym wrote:. That simple 'kick' is extra fuel and weapons right there.

Always the case.. take your SUV for example, if you have more load in your trunk, and add few heavy weight people sitting behind, your SUV will feel the same! more smoother, kick-ass swings and cushioning experiences.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54823
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby ramana » 16 Jan 2020 00:25

No need to go into the number which is good enough for HVT.

All I can say is NLCA is a viable carrier aircraft.
PERIOD

dkhare
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 61
Joined: 10 Feb 2009 03:30

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

Postby dkhare » 16 Jan 2020 00:57

Congratulations to all who toiled hard & long to get this done. We need to keep going...this experience, know-how, know-why, and the data especially is very important going forward.

JayS wrote:Am I the only one or it does look like NLCA rolled a bit towards starboard side after leaving the ramp, its control system corrected it and then corrected the heading a wee bit towards the port side to make it perfectly going in the headwind...??

I thought so too...but quickly dismissed it saying I was probably "seeing" things. What reference marker is used by the control system to make this correction? The yellow dotted line or something else?

In another article I read either on kaypius.com or onmanorama - how is the INS initialized on the NLCA as the carrier is constantly moving? Is it a simply a GPS fix available within the aircraft avionics itself or does it interface with the carrier?

sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1851
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

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

Postby sudeepj » 16 Jan 2020 01:24

sajaym wrote:A simple comparison video. Watch the difference in thrusts between a SEDBF and a TEDBF...in the SEDBF after brake release the thrust is just enough to get the aircraft moving whereas the TEDBF experiences an additional 'kick in the ass' after brake release. That 'kick' is why the IN wants TEDBF and not the NLCA Mk1. That simple 'kick' is extra fuel and weapons right there.



Probably has more to do with the 'moment-arm' of the engine thrust w.r.t the C.G of the plane than with any thrust/weight differentials.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21057
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

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

Postby Philip » 16 Jan 2020 02:37

Looking at the NLCA, a Q.Were wingtip AAMs not considered during the design phase earlier, or does the 3rd. UW hardpoint capable of carrying 2 WVR AAMs? It could free two UW pylons for for aux. fuel tanks , carry two BVR AAMs plus an anti- ship ASM on a centre pylon, or one aux. fuel tank on the centre pylon and two ASMs underwing.The LCA is configured to carry the smaller BMos- NG missile when it arrives within a few years.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2488
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

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

Postby Vivek K » 16 Jan 2020 03:59

agupta wrote:
ramana wrote:No need to go into the number which is good enough for HVT.

All I can say is NLCA is a viable carrier aircraft.
PERIOD


Could it be that NLCA is a viable carrier aircraft tech demonstrator instead ? That the "number", data and design experience now available with ADA/HAL actually gives us the confidence that Try 2 (e.g. TEDBF) we won't be far off in terms of the all-round set of metrics - Try 1 based on limited or zero experience was off.

To.......

I like and second Ramana's post!

Gupta sahab - without meaning to offend you - your post is the typical of the way we Indians operate. If you have a viable but not the best in the world fighter we want unobtainium. There is a saying (modified to the occassion) a NLCA in hand is better than TEDBF, ORCA (and whateve other acronym exists ) on the drawing board.

If it is viable it should be pressed into service - a lot of taxpayer dollars and engineering has gone into this. We need to get a return on our investment now rather than later. If a shooting match starts, and the 29ks are needing inspection after every flight, you may not be able to operate them for long - so the IN would have to throw the designs of the MWF/TEDBF/ORCA at the PLAAF or the PAF to protect itself. I hope the paper designs can carry precision munitions.

It is attitudes like this that demanded the Arjun Mk2 when Mk1 was already superior in armor, firepower and mobilty to what the Indian Army and the enemy possessed.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8228
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Postby Indranil » 16 Jan 2020 04:36

dkhare wrote:Congratulations to all who toiled hard & long to get this done. We need to keep going...this experience, know-how, know-why, and the data especially is very important going forward.

JayS wrote:Am I the only one or it does look like NLCA rolled a bit towards starboard side after leaving the ramp, its control system corrected it and then corrected the heading a wee bit towards the port side to make it perfectly going in the headwind...??

I thought so too...but quickly dismissed it saying I was probably "seeing" things. What reference marker is used by the control system to make this correction? The yellow dotted line or something else?

In another article I read either on kaypius.com or onmanorama - how is the INS initialized on the NLCA as the carrier is constantly moving? Is it a simply a GPS fix available within the aircraft avionics itself or does it interface with the carrier?

From the long runway, an aircraft' flight path is directed to the starboard of the ship. The correction that you observe is the pilot taking over.

I have forgotten the name of the parameter used by the FCS. But it is measure of the aircraft gaining altitude under its own power. This parameter is negative when the aircraft leaves the ramp and rises as the aircraft gains speed (and lift). At the moment when this parameter crosses zero, the FCS signals the pilot to take over. Experienced pilots can actually feel it.

That point is later on the SBTF and under higher payload. On the first TO, I am sure the aircraft was light. It had a long take off run, and the AC must be having a headwind of 30+ knots. So this point must have arrived pretty quickly, within a couple of seconds of ramp exit.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54823
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby ramana » 16 Jan 2020 04:39

As an 'academic' exercise please make a table with Seahawk, Harrier, Mig 29 and NLCA
Parameters are the
span, length, empty weight, max takeoff weight, engine thrust dry and wet, range and payloads.
Add radar also.
These are all past and current IN naval aircraft.

Please post a gif of the table.
Thanks and appreciate the effort.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2620
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby Cybaru » 16 Jan 2020 04:41

Where is Vivek_Ahuja's spreadsheet? Shalav used to have one too.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8228
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Postby Indranil » 16 Jan 2020 04:46

NLCA Mk1 can be a point defence fighter. It can take off with 6 A2A missiles and at least a centerline fuel tank. But that's not the point. I think TEDBF will be the best use of the scant deck space. Navy has evinced significant interest in the TEDBF. I will be surprised if the 57 fighter deal would go through with IAC-II not even properly on the drawing board!

There are three things which have really impressed me.
1. Sortie rates of the Naval prototypes. 3 flights in a day is wartime operational tempo. This is mindboggling for testing. That too from a crew and completely new aircraft that is embarking on and aircraft carrier for the first time!!!! I spend a lot of time reading about flight testing. I can't remember reading about this kind of tempo for land based aircrafts. May be Brar ji has!
2. IN must be commended. Making an aircraft carrier available for testing at such short notice for a technology demonstrator that it will not field is amazing. I can't find a parallel to that in the Indian scenario either. Other branches are making developed products which they can induct in six months wait years for the testing range.
3. I must also commend that IN and ADA. IN knows that single engined will be underpowered. ADA knows that changing AMCA to NAMCA will not be easy (Nobody has succeeded in doing that in history), and hence they have both taken the viable middle path of TEDBF. This shows immense maturity on both sides.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8228
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Postby Indranil » 16 Jan 2020 04:50

Okay, I will share this with you. I was playing tennis yesterday. One of my practicemates was new. Turns out that he is ex-USAF. And on more prodding it turns out that he was a TP. One of my other practice mates lets him know that I like aviation and that I have written a couple of articles. So, the conersation moves towards LCA (which he had no clue of), and then to NLCA. He was very impressed with the test program. Even with him he could not identify a test program which was undertaking 3 flights on the second day of the program from an aircraft carrier. His first remark was that is amazing. He then asked me, what's the hurry? :rotfl: I told him that's for another day. He completely understood that. He said, you don't have to tell me. I can almost guess it. He asked me to pass on my best wished to the test crew and Mao sir, which I will.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54823
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby ramana » 16 Jan 2020 05:15

Indranil It's saheb's wish.
He needs options and too much delay so far by letting the boys sort it out.
They have wasted precious time.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54823
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby ramana » 16 Jan 2020 05:19

Ok folks tell me why can the current 83 Mk1A run be extended to 200 of all types of this version of air-frame.
FOC, Trainer, Mk1A, NLCA.
All these are variants of the air-frame.
Yes the forward canards are new for NLCA + engine
The Mk1A has that mid body plug.

Meantime MWF, TEDBF etc get developed.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8228
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Postby Indranil » 16 Jan 2020 05:37

I am asking this for the past 6 months. What is the need to import 110 fighters. Extend the orders for Mk1A to 200. Mandate their delivery within 8 years with a cost on delays in delivery. Keep an option for ordering 90 more. Exercise this option only if MWF is not ready for induction by 2028. So you dont penalize HAL for ADA's failure.

I guarantee you that the 200 orders that we exercise will be at least 30% cheaper to acquire and multiple times cheaper to maintain and upgrade. And it will arrive in the same time, if not less.

On the other hand, let's assume that somehow we shortlist the fighter to be imported this year. I don't know how, but let's assume. Can we finish the bureaucratic process of signing the deal within two years? But let's say, we can. That will be 2023, a year before general elections. Will Modi govt. risk another Rafale-like election issue in that year? And let's say that they do, then deliveries will start in 2026 at the earliest. How many years will it take to get the 90 fighters? Now, imagine any of the issues that I swept aside rears its ugly head. How many more years will get added. And if things go according to normal, all of them will!

I don't see the point. How inferior is the Mk1A afterall?

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8228
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Postby Indranil » 16 Jan 2020 05:39

sudeepj wrote:
sajaym wrote:A simple comparison video. Watch the difference in thrusts between a SEDBF and a TEDBF...in the SEDBF after brake release the thrust is just enough to get the aircraft moving whereas the TEDBF experiences an additional 'kick in the ass' after brake release. That 'kick' is why the IN wants TEDBF and not the NLCA Mk1. That simple 'kick' is extra fuel and weapons right there.



Probably has more to do with the 'moment-arm' of the engine thrust w.r.t the C.G of the plane than with any thrust/weight differentials.

Exactly. The TWR and the lurch are not related.

srin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2033
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

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

Postby srin » 16 Jan 2020 06:42

sajaym wrote:A simple comparison video. Watch the difference in thrusts between a SEDBF and a TEDBF...in the SEDBF after brake release the thrust is just enough to get the aircraft moving whereas the TEDBF experiences an additional 'kick in the ass' after brake release. That 'kick' is why the IN wants TEDBF and not the NLCA Mk1. That simple 'kick' is extra fuel and weapons right there.


The video doesn't conclusively show that. Because if that were true, you'd expect the Mig to have a quicker takeoff. I clocked both the Mig and NLCA takeoff time (brake release to both wheels leaving the ramp) to be roughly 7.2 seconds.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9805
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Postby Rakesh » 16 Jan 2020 06:56

Indranil wrote:I am asking this for the past 6 months. What is the need to import 110 fighters.

Everything you have said is accurate. But this is the plan as per the Chief. Why, is a mystery. My only guess is diversification and risk reduction. But even that does not make sense.

The economy is in the shitter. From which magic hat they are going to cough up the cash for this is a mystery. But the process is indeed moving forward. The Chief has said it, the Raksha Mantri has said it, the Defence Secretary has said it...even the Peons working in the MoD have said it.

While the process will move forward, I personally do not believe it will reach contract signature. The monetary value of the deal is just too much for India to cough up. That realization will dawn upon the decision makers, as the process moves along. At that point, the MoD will have some hard choices to make.

Air Force chief outlines plan to solve shortage of fighter squadrons
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2019/10/ ... solve.html
05 October 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)."

===================================================

Now if you ask the Tier 1 industry experts on BRF, as to the why for 114 MRFA...this is what you will hear --->

1) Interoperability vis-à-vis the United States
2) Strategic Engagement vis-à-vis the United States
3) Bulwark against the marauding Chinese (thanks to the saving grace of the United States)
4) Teach India how to do mass production of cutting edge technology (gift from the United States)
5) Roll other sectors of the economy and job creation (you guessed it....thanks to the United States onlee!)
6) Downpayment to the US for jet engine tech (this point is harped on repeatedly on BRF, flogged like a horse!)*
*Remember Point #6 Indranil...OK?)

Basically 114 "American" MRFA will take the Indo-US relationship to that next mystical and erotic level. They are confident that the F-18 and F-21 are coming. After all, it is foolishness for India to tie herself to a nation (France) that got exhausted in the Libya campaign! :lol:

But...But...But...a counter to Point #6! The Tier 1 industry experts will pooh pooh the below as fake news onlee! :)

US-India co-development flop show forces new approach to DTTI
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2019/10/ ... -show.html
27 October 2019

MoD and Pentagon officials have drawn lessons from the earlier DTTI failures. A key reason was that, in entering co-development projects, New Delhi and Washington had divergent motivations, with neither side focused on co-developing usable products.

An example is the co-development of “jet engine technology”, for which both sides constituted a joint working group (JWG) in 2015. On Thursday, Lord admitted that this had been suspended because, “We could not come to an understanding of what exportable technology would be useful to the Indians. And we did run into a challenge in terms of the US export control.”

In fact, there was little that India could ever contribute to this “co-development”, with US entities already masters of aero engine technologies, while Indian scientists and technologists were at an early stage of the learning curve, struggling to develop the Kaveri jet engine. What the Defence R&D Organisation (DRDO) wanted was US solutions for unsolved technology challenges, such as high temperature alloys and single crystal blades for the “hot end” of the Kaveri.

Meanwhile, the American side expected that working with the DRDO would create a relationship that would lead to building US aero engines in India. US engine makers like Pratt & Whitney, or General Electric, would never part cheaply with intellectual property (IP) that had cost billions to develop over decades. Nor would Washington grant export control licences for critical engine technology. The best that could be hoped for was the transfer of manufacturing line blueprints for building engines in India. That would advantage American fighter vendors in on-going procurements of fighter aircraft for the Indian Air Force and Navy.

India’s MoD understood this would provide a controversial back door into India’s aircraft procurement cycle. New Delhi has also understood that US engine-makers are guided by commercial, not strategic, considerations. Although India remains a strategic partner, US defence industry, which resides in the private sector, would not hand over “hot end” technology to score a success in DTTI.

Dileep
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5855
Joined: 04 Apr 2005 08:17
Location: Dera Mahab Ali धरा महाबलिस्याः درا مهاب الي

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

Postby Dileep » 16 Jan 2020 07:35

ramana wrote:Ok folks tell me why can the current 83 Mk1A run be extended to 200 of all types of this version of air-frame.
FOC, Trainer, Mk1A, NLCA.
All these are variants of the air-frame.
Yes the forward canards are new for NLCA + engine
The Mk1A has that mid body plug.

Meantime MWF, TEDBF etc get developed.


No sir! There ain't no mid body plug for Mk1A. Only the innards change.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Dennis, Rishi_Tri and 44 guests