Traditional fabricated-aluminum bulkheads, frames and racks have been eliminated and replaced by single-piece machined components. Five-axis machining of bulkheads results in major weight savings in the mid- and forward fuselage, while holding tolerances three times tighter than those achieved in the Lockheed Martin F-16.
Well absolute tolerance levels are muddling. Flatness tolerances of 0.025mm for aluminium/steel plates are achievable even with a modest grinding machine for lengths upto one meter by one meter (Personally have seen something like this) So I am not sure why single piece machining is highlighted for these tolerances, may be because of the larger lengths. Almost Any thing that can be done quickly in 5 axis machine can be done slowly in a 3 axis one with the same kind of tolerances. I have seen aero engine parts with much tighter tolerances (<0.010mm) these are regularly made in India for various orgs
Its just the tendency to show-off by cherry picking numbers. As I said previously there are perhaps millions of tolerances in an entire aircraft of dozens of types. And not everything sounds as glorious as 0.025. Would you believe if I tell you some parts in Jet engines can be approved with say 10mm of deviation from the intended shape on primary aero surface...??
JayS wrote:
Its just the tendency to show-off by cherry picking numbers.
Typical khan marketing
JayS wrote:
As I said previously there are perhaps millions of tolerances in an entire aircraft of dozens of types. And not everything sounds as glorious as 0.025. Would you believe if I tell you some parts in Jet engines can be approved with say 10mm of deviation from the intended shape on primary aero surface...??
This is amazing , would not have guesses such large numbers
If you are on twitter, please RT the below tweet
============================================================
Hush Kit
@Hush_Kit
If this gets to 1000 RTs I'll release a Tejas pilot interview this week (fingers crossed the pilot gets all the answers to me this week..which is why I've set the RT figure so high!)
HAL: LCA-Tejas Trainer Aircraft Assembly Jigs with Air-to-Air Refueling (AAR) Commissioned. Inaugurated the LCA trainer jigs incorporating the advanced features of Air-to-Air Refueling (AAR) as per IAF’s requirement
So HAL is all dressed up to produce Trainers. How many jigs though. We have 8 trainer from 40 LCA order and another 16 IIRC from 83, total of 24 trainers). Will these Jigs supplement the existing ones or they are on their own to produce trainer. Typically 1 jig is taking 1 year to produce 1 plane.
fanne wrote:So HAL is all dressed up to produce Trainers. How many jigs though. We have 8 trainer from 40 LCA order and another 16 IIRC from 83, total of 24 trainers). Will these Jigs supplement the existing ones or they are on their own to produce trainer. Typically 1 jig is taking 1 year to produce 1 plane.
https://twitter.com/KSingh84856557/stat ... 8937393153 ---> All these geniuses saying MMRCA 2.0 is justified to give opportunities to the private sector don’t have a clue! $15 billion + on a foreign plane just for some assembly contracts in India? HAL is creating entire ecosystems (with private players) already, LCA/MWF/AMCA only option for future.
No better stimulus to the economy than pouring in an additional 10billion(LCA-assorted) + 5billion(Arjun) + 5billion(P-75I) + 3billion(IAC - 2) = 23billion with a stipulation that local manufacturing to be increased by value to 60%(the money that should stay in India)
ashishvikas wrote:HAL: LCA-Tejas Trainer Aircraft Assembly Jigs with Air-to-Air Refueling (AAR) Commissioned. Inaugurated the LCA trainer jigs incorporating the advanced features of Air-to-Air Refueling (AAR) as per IAF’s requirement
fanne wrote:So HAL is all dressed up to produce Trainers. How many jigs though. We have 8 trainer from 40 LCA order and another 16 IIRC from 83, total of 24 trainers). Will these Jigs supplement the existing ones or they are on their own to produce trainer. Typically 1 jig is taking 1 year to produce 1 plane.
This question needs to be answered with clarity, simplicity and transparency.
Thanks....and another question - It is repeatedly alleged that LCA is still 70% by value (not parts) imported? True or false. I can count many foreign things still - engine, radar, some avionics (HMS etc), actuators (?), 0/0 ejection seat....but 70%? More like 30-40%
Rakesh wrote:https://twitter.com/KSingh84856557/stat ... 8937393153 ---> All these geniuses saying MMRCA 2.0 is justified to give opportunities to the private sector don’t have a clue! $15 billion + on a foreign plane just for some assembly contracts in India? HAL is creating entire ecosystems (with private players) already, LCA/MWF/AMCA only option for future.
rohitvats wrote:Time to extend production run of Tejas Mk1 by at one more squadron. Good for IAF numbers and production.
Given that all/most MK1s will be upgraded to the MK1a standard, its a very low risk option to increase MK1 orders by a few more squadrons. Commit orders to HAL so that they can increase their production capacity, rather than worry about lines remaining idle.
For this to happen, the 110 MMRCA contract must be swiftly & publicly killed. Force the issue. Either order more Tejas or make do with 6 less squadrons.
Rakesh wrote:https://twitter.com/KSingh84856557/stat ... 8937393153 ---> All these geniuses saying MMRCA 2.0 is justified to give opportunities to the private sector don’t have a clue! $15 billion + on a foreign plane just for some assembly contracts in India? HAL is creating entire ecosystems (with private players) already, LCA/MWF/AMCA only option for future.
Isn't the radome from Cobham too?
Unfortunately.. No. Cobham Radome is applicable only for the 2032 based MMR. The AESA Radar will not have Cobham radome. What I heard is that Elta refused to work with Cobham radome. The radome will be Elta design, 'indigenously made' by HAL.
Martin Baker and Zvezda are the two manufacturers that I know of, that make ejection seats. Gurus will know of others. Points 1 and 3 are not worrisome, as Point 2 is.
Unfortunately.. No. Cobham Radome is applicable only for the 2032 based MMR. The AESA Radar will not have Cobham radome. What I heard is that Elta refused to work with Cobham radome. The radome will be Elta design, 'indigenously made' by HAL.
There were reports of an indigenous "stealth" radome that facilitates certain frequencies that can be modified to suit any radar , by an IIT , wonder what happened to that !
Dileep wrote:
Unfortunately.. No. Cobham Radome is applicable only for the 2032 based MMR. The AESA Radar will not have Cobham radome. What I heard is that Elta refused to work with Cobham radome. The radome will be Elta design, 'indigenously made' by HAL.
There were reports of an indigenous "stealth" radome that facilitates certain frequencies that can be modified to suit any radar , by an IIT , wonder what happened to that !
There is no real need for another Mk1 squadron. Sadly, the way HAL is set up to deliver the ordered numbers, even if an additional squadron is ordered now, it won't be delivered before 2023.
Here is how the delivery numbers will look like if numbers don't go beyond 16 per year :
March 2018-March 2019 - 8 Tejas Mk1 IOC single seat fighters delivered to the IAF (DONE)
March 2019-March 2020 - 4 Tejas Mk1 FOC single seat fighters to be delivered since FOC was granted only in February 2019 (ON-TRACK)
March 2020-March 2021 - 12 Tejas Mk1 FOC single seat fighters to be delivered so the second squadron is equipped
March 2021-March 2022 - 8 Tejas Mk1 FOC trainers from the first 40 batch and 8 Tejas Mk1 FOC trainers from the 83 Mk1A batch to be delivered. Total 16 trainers
March 2022-March 2023 - 2 Tejas Mk1 FOC trainers and 14 Tejas Mk1A single seat fighters
March 2023-March 2024 - 16 Tejas Mk1A single seat fighters
March 2025-March 2026 - 16 Tejas Mk1A single seat fighters
March 2026-March 2027 - 16 Tejas Mk1A single seat fighters
March 2027-March 2028 - 11 Tejas Mk1A single seat fighters and 5 Tejas Mk2 MWF single seat fighters
HAL will be delivering Tejas Mk1A fighters in the period March 2022- March 2023, after the last 2 Tejas Mk1 FOC trainers are delivered. If you order another squadron of Mk1 fighters, all that'll happen is that it'll slide the Mk1A deliveries to the right and 14 Mk1 single seaters will be delivered.
And the way to go is to push full steam ahead to get the Mk1A done and delivered. It is superior to the Mk1 and adding a few Mk1 airframes that will again need to be upgraded at a later date to Mk1A standard doesn't really make sense unless they can deliver them in parallel to the current schedule.
If at all, perhaps ordering 1 more squadron of the Mk1A as a hedge against Tejas Mk2 MWF delays would make sense. So a total of 73 single seat + 16 more single seat Tejas Mk1A fighters, for a total of 5 squadrons of Mk1A and 2 squadrons of Mk1s to be upgraded to Mk1A standard. Total 7 squadrons of Mk1A at the end of it.
If GoI, MoD and IAF push for it, and pay for the additional infrastructure at the private sector companies (jigs, tooling, hangar space, etc.) the number of Tejas fighters assembled per year could be pushed up to 20 or even 24. HAL guys have said that is possible to do, but they cannot push it unless the customer wants it done. If that happens, the timelines could be compressed further and the IAF can really bulk up fast- almost 1.5 Tejas Mk1A squadrons per year and then moving on to Mk2 MWF.
Kartik you have mised out on FY 2024-25. Your order will be over by 2027. 201 MWF and even if 250 AMCA are orderred around 50 SPORTS trainer wil be required in 2024 -28 timeperiod and Tejas production can be pushed upto 24/year in the said timeperiod and 8 year production of MWF @24/year upto 2036 can be ensured.
Indranil wrote:Dileep sir, I will ask the question here and you can reply in the military aviation thread.
Any updates on the developments on the IJT? That program worries and excited me.
Answered there. Nothing known as of now.
There is one major problem with information sharing. What being discussed in meetings, and even casual talk within the secure perimeter of buildings are covered by non-disclosure norms. What disclosed in personal chat need to be filtered based on intent. One should not get others (and oneself) into trouble you see.
What being presented in open sessions (where you participate without agreeing to confidentiality) can be openly shared. So, my post on SIATI conference was pretty detailed.
Radome design is 'black art'. We had done some work on one for a satcom terminal, which did not have beam direction criticality, and that itself was terrible. We are currently proposing one for an airborne weather radar, which is orders of magnitude tougher.
It spins my head thinking about the needs of the fighter radar. You need to give it to the Cobham guys. The performance they gave for the Mk1 was phenomenal. Till RBE2 shows up, the Mk1 radar is the best we have. Bars may have the range, but Mk1 have the clarity. To give a simile, Bars will be like a 20X digital zoom, while Mk1 will be like 10X optical zoom.
sankum wrote:Kartik you have mised out on FY 2024-25. Your order will be over by 2027. 201 MWF and even if 250 AMCA are orderred around 50 SPORTS trainer wil be required in 2024 -28 timeperiod and Tejas production can be pushed upto 24/year in the said timeperiod and 8 year production of MWF @24/year upto 2036 can be ensured.
Sorry my bad- that means that more Tejas Mk1A fighters need to be ordered, to be built in the period between March 2027-March 2028. It in fact makes it clear that either the MWF needs to enter production earlier (assembly by March 2027 which means long lead items need to be manufactured even earlier, by 2024) or at least 16-24 more Tejas Mk1A need to be ordered. Not Tejas Mk1 fighters since that would only push the Mk1A production further behind. I would bet on 1 more squadron of the Mk1A being ordered to fill that gap. MWF cannot be rushed into production by 1 year, certainly not by HAL.
As for the LCA SPORT, I really have my doubts about the IAF being into that concept, even with the SPORT trainer being combat capable. It'll be as expensive as Mk1A single seaters and help teach young rookies the basics of AESA radars, BVRAAMs, HMDS, etc. but all of that can also be taught in a simulator for a far more affordable price. The need is for combat capable fighters and I'd much rather have those production slots taken up to build more Mk1A or MWF fighters. And unless the rate is increased to 24 per year, I don't think we'll get anywhere near these 200+ numbers at all.
Also confirmed by Grp Cpt. HV Thakur of HAL that the Tejas Mk1A prototypes will be upgraded and modified Tejas Mk1 Limited Series Prototypes. Tail number is not yet identified. There'll be 2 prototypes, one as a back up.
Elta 2052 AESA radar for the first 40 odd Tejas Mk1A fighters is also confirmed.
Astra BVRAAM is first being integrated with the Tejas Mk1A, not the Tejas Mk1. Not sure why.
But I have one frustration - MK1a was proposed at least 2 years ago, was in the talk for 3-4 years now...and they have not even started a POC of it? It could have been done earlier and saved time (if the integration does not go as fast as we like or hope or think it would) plus, it gives confidence and lowers the risk. A definitive mk1a flying and proven today would have helped so much is planning - maybe extra orders, maybe cancelling of MMCRA altogether (because the bird is good), maybe another look at NLCA (perhaps the upgraded tech somehow compensates for range etc.). We start MK1A now and God forbids the radome needs to be worked out or the cooling or the missile combo gives flutter and we need yet a third party assistance, and that takes another x months to pan out, we delay the whole thing.....
Point is no one knows the future. What I say, none of it may come to pass, and they have done some risk analysis and this is not something to loose sleep over...but this (converting LSP to MK1A) could have been done 2 years ago (the requirement were frozen, they were 4 of them), but are now getting done? Why? Why this lack of leadership/responsibility?
fanne wrote: Why? Why this lack of leadership/responsibility?
Dont think you have looked around for what is happening on MK1A in HAL.
As such, Its impractical to expect HAL to make flying prototypes yrs ahead of production, especially when there is no Dev funding that they are getting separately and their own financial situation in the best of the shape. We should really ask MoD why they didn't sign the contract earlier, making funds available to HAL. It was money going from one pocket of GOI to another. Bith IAF and HAL were under full authority of MoD. So why the hell they took so much of time in finalising the contract..? It should have been done in a few months at max.
Ya , I did not mean that it was HAL fault. You are actually supporting my point. There is a leadership/organizational gap. I guess we need a LCA czar (LSP, PV, LCA - IOC,foc,MK1A), who has the highest authority and the buck stops at him. He/She and his office is fully responsible for
1. Getting LCA into IAF as fast as possible, as cheap as possible and as capable as possible
2.All planning (from ordering foreign source items with long lead time), how many jigs, where, how, whom so that there is no schedule slippage, the plant is not idle for a day and if possible, increase the through put (by identifying bottle necks that can only be identified when you have an integrated view of things).
3. Responsible for managing budget, requesting more if that makes send (if few million can drastically increase the number manufactured, why not), and getting the max out of that budget - more planes or faster or more capable
4.Responsible for R&D related to LCAMK1A, what is possible and what will delay, among that what is must have and good to have, yada yada, incorporating feedback from operational units, simulators, indigenization, making LSP etc. available for newer tech, next iteration
This czar will also have to coordinate with another R&D czar responsible to manage all R&D for NLCA, MWF,ORCA,TEDBF, NLCA-2, SPORT, AURORA, making sure that LCAmk1a needs are ahead of all others and getting done in time (as this is under production).
We are lacking that central figure. Possible an IAF officer (who is passionate about LCA) based out of MOD
As I said previously there are perhaps millions of tolerances in an entire aircraft of dozens of types. And not everything sounds as glorious as 0.025. Would you believe if I tell you some parts in Jet engines can be approved with say 10mm of deviation from the intended shape on primary aero surface...??
