Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Roop · Post by **Roop** » 29 Jan 2020 12:36

Isn't it also true that the Mk1A will be plumbed/equipped for in-flight refueling, whereas the Mk1 is not?

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 29 Jan 2020 13:13

I think Mk1 FOC aircraft have AAR

mody · Post by **mody** » 29 Jan 2020 15:06

Any idea about possible reduction in weight of the MK1A over the MK1-FOC? HAL had made claims of possible weight reduction of upto 800 Kgs, when they had pitched the MK1A concept. 800Kgs is obviously a pipe dream. However even 100-300Kgs reduction in the empty weight, will be great.

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 29 Jan 2020 18:05

I will take shri @hvtiaf input that HAL is going full speed with LCAMK1A (even though, if you rely on public info, it would seam that it is not so - no order for 83 mk1a, no news on 2052 on any air frame etc etc).
HAL took it's own initiative and developed 15 LCH, apparently (not sure about correctness of info), it is lying at HAL and has not been accepted by IAF. Similarly it looks like 2 IOC LCA is at HAL and not inducted by IAF (the order was for 16 IOC, how did HAL produce 18?, or are the 2 part of 16 and they have some teething issue? The first aircraft from the first line had some issues).
There is an element of risk (all based on public info). I would not be surprised if info flow has dried up (which is the right thing to do) and we all are just speculating. At least from political level, this govt will be pushing the hardest to have max LCA in IAF. Of course Modi ji cannot be the worker, manager, technician, test pilot, etc., he would be doing his max by pushing it from executive level. But all the other pieces have to work, and it is still the old leaky system, with some break India group trying all their trick to fail it so that some xxx planes can be imported and LCA aborts.

Zynda · Post by **Zynda** » 29 Jan 2020 18:47

I think most of the weight savings in Mk.1A will be in secondary structures like E-Bay racks redesign and/or elimination of a few...probably savings from better conduit & looming design (from support clips & such) as well as probably newer & lighter LRUs. Provided there is no weight creep, around 200-250 Kgs should be realistic. Certainly no primary structures will be touched.

Per one chaiwallah's cousin, our indigenous actuators cost around 40% of what imported ones from Moog costs. And product improvement is continuing...

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 29 Jan 2020 19:10

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/12224 ... 90912?s=21

Some Experts says that it's 59 Minutes where as Saab Grippen Has 3 Hour endurance time and F16 Has 4 Hours...
Is it true

Hvtiaf says this about mk1 imagine mk2

No no! Endurance is slightly lesser than Gripen-E. Not the figures you've quoted.

There are no other experts. All are working here with us, in Bangalore. Don't trust hearsay

.

Raghunathgb · Post by **Raghunathgb** » 29 Jan 2020 20:08

Zynda wrote:
Per one chaiwallah's cousin, our indigenous actuators cost around 40% of what imported ones from Moog costs. And product improvement is continuing...

Which Indian company is entrusted to manufacture actuator ? Hoping they go on to make it big and enter global stage in some years.

pushkar.bhat · Post by **pushkar.bhat** » 29 Jan 2020 20:10

Which Indian company is entrusted to manufacture actuator ? Hoping they go on to make it big and enter global stage in some years.

No need to expose the name right now. First we need to get them the Nazar ka tika and the Kala thread.

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 29 Jan 2020 20:21

If range is not an issue, then nlca should be considered

nam · Post by **nam** » 29 Jan 2020 20:56

Raghunathgb wrote:
Zynda wrote:
Per one chaiwallah's cousin, our indigenous actuators cost around 40% of what imported ones from Moog costs. And product improvement is continuing...
Which Indian company is entrusted to manufacture actuator ? Hoping they go on to make it big and enter global stage in some years.

Godrej.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 30 Jan 2020 00:15

Dileep wrote:Not sure if they signed the nuptial, but definitely living together

Thank you

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 30 Jan 2020 00:45

nachiket wrote:Did they finalize on the 2052 for the radar Dileep saar?

Confirmed by Grp Cpt HV Thakur that they did.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 30 Jan 2020 00:47

Dileep wrote:Not sure if they signed the nuptial, but definitely living together

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 30 Jan 2020 00:48

Roop wrote:Isn't it also true that the Mk1A will be plumbed/equipped for in-flight refueling, whereas the Mk1 is not?

All the Tejas Mk1 FOC aircraft are coming with AAR probe and the plumbing. All the Tejas MK1 IOC jets will be upgraded to the same standard when they go in for MLU.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 30 Jan 2020 00:52

mody wrote:Any idea about possible reduction in weight of the MK1A over the MK1-FOC? HAL had made claims of possible weight reduction of upto 800 Kgs, when they had pitched the MK1A concept. 800Kgs is obviously a pipe dream. However even 100-300Kgs reduction in the empty weight, will be great.

Source for your claim that HAL made such claims? I have not yet seen a single authoritative article that claims such weight reductions.

kit · Post by **kit** » 30 Jan 2020 03:56

Kartik wrote:
JTull wrote:
Do you really believe Colombians will be able to buy a fighter with American engines?
Colombian Kfirs have even gone to Red Flag to exercise with the USAF. I think you're confusing them with Venezuela.

Does HAL have the production capacity to generate export sales ? ., guess its a chicken and egg question !

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 30 Jan 2020 04:14

kit wrote:
Kartik wrote:
Colombian Kfirs have even gone to Red Flag to exercise with the USAF. I think you're confusing them with Venezuela.
Does HAL have the production capacity to generate export sales ? ., guess its a chicken and egg question !

That's a secondary question. Orders dictate the assembly line's production rate, not the other way around. First let them get an export order. I'm sure with private suppliers involved, HAL could scale up the rate. So much will depend on the customer's requirements too- what numbers do they want, starting when and what is the date by when they want all delivered, etc. This may just be preliminary interest and isn't really a problem to worry about for now. IAF is the customer for now and their needs need to be met.

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 30 Jan 2020 05:32

will we export the same version as IAF? Or will there be an export version, that if compromised, will not compromise IAF's LCA

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 30 Jan 2020 10:04

IMO partnering with Isreal might make exports viable, they already have a good foot hold on the market, Mk1A on any day would be better platform than decades old mirage airframes.

Avinandan · Post by **Avinandan** » 30 Jan 2020 14:09

abhik wrote:IMO partnering with Isreal might make exports viable, they already have a good foot hold on the market, Mk1A on any day would be better platform than decades old mirage airframes.

Israel is already bidding for Kfir NG, i guess they won't oblige.
On another note, Colombia is already evaluating Gripen since June 2019. So it is not an easy task.

mody · Post by **mody** » 30 Jan 2020 14:40

Kartik wrote:
mody wrote:Any idea about possible reduction in weight of the MK1A over the MK1-FOC? HAL had made claims of possible weight reduction of upto 800 Kgs, when they had pitched the MK1A concept. 800Kgs is obviously a pipe dream. However even 100-300Kgs reduction in the empty weight, will be great.
Source for your claim that HAL made such claims? I have not yet seen a single authoritative article that claims such weight reductions.

Here is link from same thread from 2016. The proposed 800 Kg weight reduction is being discussed. This was in the original HAL proposal, when they pitched the MK1A concept. They had claimed that a weight reduction of upto 800 Kgs might be possible.

viewtopic.php?t=7112&start=680

maitya · Post by **maitya** » 30 Jan 2020 16:23

mody wrote:
Kartik wrote: Source for your claim that HAL made such claims? I have not yet seen a single authoritative article that claims such weight reductions.
Here is link from same thread from 2016. The proposed 800 Kg weight reduction is being discussed. This was in the original HAL proposal, when they pitched the MK1A concept. They had claimed that a weight reduction of upto 800 Kgs might be possible.

viewtopic.php?t=7112&start=680

Yep this was discussed in great detail in 2016(?) or thereabouts ... but without any direct links etc.

However here are some of them - see how wildly the numbers vary from each other:

In Avitioan defence Universe
In addition to the LCA mK1 the additions in Tejas MK I-A are the AESA Radar co-developed with Israel’s ELTA corp, a reduced weight by 1000 kg from its initial weight of 6500 kg, made maintenance friendly by re-configuring some of its LRUs and proper distribution of the dead weight in the aircraft, adding an In-flight refueling capability and an integrated electro-optic Electronic Warfare (EW) sensor.

In Indiastrategic
The new LCA-MkI-P variant with the EW Package will also add some 50 kilos of more weight, but then, Mr Raju explained, the capability of the aircraft increases significantly, offsetting the disadvantage of a smaller engine.

The current LCA-MkI version uses 210 kilos with ballast in the nose to stabilize the aircraft. This will be removed, and the AESA and EW suite weighing about 250 kilos will be added. The net weight gain will be of about 50 kilos.

In Defensenews
HAL has also promised to reduce the weight of the LCA-Mark-1A so that the General Electric F404 engine can power the upgraded LCA-Mark-1A, the official said.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 30 Jan 2020 23:20

mody wrote:
Kartik wrote: Source for your claim that HAL made such claims? I have not yet seen a single authoritative article that claims such weight reductions.
Here is link from same thread from 2016. The proposed 800 Kg weight reduction is being discussed. This was in the original HAL proposal, when they pitched the MK1A concept. They had claimed that a weight reduction of upto 800 Kgs might be possible.

viewtopic.php?t=7112&start=680

Grp Cpt HV Thakur confirmed that there'll be some minor reduction of weight thanks to removal of ballast with the new AESA radar coming in. But nothing like 800 kg of weight reduction. Some refinements being planned, but we can finally put this whole major weight reduction myth to bed. It's not true.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 30 Jan 2020 23:43

Another very interesting thing that Grp Cpt HV Thakur confirmed on Twitter- the Tejas Mk1 carries 8 hours worth of Liquid Oxygen in tanks onboard. That is what will define the endurance or the amount of time that a Tejas Mk1 can stay flying.

So, with Air to Air refueling becoming possible with FOC jets, a Tejas Mk1 could tank up multiple times and fly non-stop without having to return to base, for 6-7 hours!

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 31 Jan 2020 00:06

Do we know the amount of weight reduction (if any) due to any remaining sensors carried on-board for structural health monitoring - that will not be a part of the IOC MK1 normal pacakge? What would be the weight reduction with the 2052/Uttam in place of the current plug?

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 31 Jan 2020 00:07

Vivek, I think there isn't much from the twitter chatter.

nam · Post by **nam** » 31 Jan 2020 01:11

fanne wrote:will we export the same version as IAF? Or will there be an export version, that if compromised, will not compromise IAF's LCA

More than tech compromises, we should be more worried about the product support mess that HAL will invariably create.

We all know what happened with Ecuador. We can live with not selling LCA, than recreate Ecuador.

If we sell LCA, I would prefer IAF provide the spares and product support from it's stock and base workshop. It would be horrible to watch a Columbian LCA crash, because the jokers at HAL did not bother to send the spares on time.

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 31 Jan 2020 03:03

product support is a different problem, that has to be tackled, but LCA secrets remaining secrets should be higher priority. We should create a different version (same engine and plane lay out, but electronics and 'other' things should be different, and even if compromised, should not effect IAF LCA one bit.

Vamsee · Post by **Vamsee** » 31 Jan 2020 04:07

January is almost finished & we are still waiting for the first flight of Mark1 FOC

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 31 Jan 2020 04:13

Series of tweets by Grp Cpt HV Thakur on the Tejas Mk1 and Mk1A.

Blasts the myths that have been propagated about the range and endurance of the type. Both endurance and payload as good as that of a Jaguar. Which implies that it can take over the Jaguar's roles as well.

Twitter link

Endurance is same as Jaguar. Which is quite good.

Twitter link

8 hours of oxygen is there. Su-30 has done 10 hour sorties with 2 pilots on regular oxygen.

Twitter link

Both range & endurance get enhanced with in-flight refueling. The comparison made is between unrefueled aircraft.

OBOGS is planned on Mk-2 (MWF)

Twitter link

On deck (for Naval version) & in forward areas (for AF version), OBOGS is required. Liquid Oxygen & Cylinders etc are difficult to manage logistically (supplies etc to reach location).

On weight reduction

Ballast reduction yes, with AESA coming in. Some refinements.

Question:So the AESA is heavier than the MSA on Mk1 and hence ballast in the rear can be reduced? Are those refinements you mentioned likely to yield any drag count reduction or weight reduction?

Answer:
little bit

sum · Post by **sum** » 31 Jan 2020 04:47

OBOGS is planned on Mk-2 (MWF)

Huh? Wasnt OBOGS supposed to be done and ready to go after decade of toil?
We still couldnt crack it?

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 31 Jan 2020 05:56

OBOGS was meant come with the Mk2, AFAIR. And I mean the earlier 15 ton MTOW version of the Tejas Mk2. Now it'll be on the MWF.

But anyway, with 8 hours worth of LOX onboard, it isn't a critical requirement for the Mk1 and Mk1A as yet. If there is a lack of real estate on board to allow for fitment of the OBOGS, it may have been de-prioritised as a result rather than waste time and resources trying to fit it onboard.

AAR is the critical requirement and thankfully that's coming with the FOC fighters. Hopefully all of the IOC jets will be retrofitted with AAR probes without having to wait for it to be done during MLU.

raghuk · Post by **raghuk** » 31 Jan 2020 07:00

nam wrote:
fanne wrote:will we export the same version as IAF? Or will there be an export version, that if compromised, will not compromise IAF's LCA
More than tech compromises, we should be more worried about the product support mess that HAL will invariably create.

We all know what happened with Ecuador. We can live with not selling LCA, than recreate Ecuador.

If we sell LCA, I would prefer IAF provide the spares and product support from it's stock and base workshop. It would be horrible to watch a Columbian LCA crash, because the jokers at HAL did not bother to send the spares on time.

The jokers at HAL sent all spares ordered by the Ecuadorians. The reason for crash is very different. The support for a product depends on what the customer pays for. I'm very sure you have no idea about the Ecuadorian crash and i would request you to stop assuming things.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 31 Jan 2020 10:53

Indranil wrote:
Kartik wrote: As a strike platform, it had the best scores at Exercise Gagan Shakti, as per AM Nambiar in an article.

Saurav Jha had also mentioned this on Twitter

Twitter link

They have swept everything since then. Why do you think IAF is ready to let the Jaguars slip away with just the Darin III updates? Mk1 can do everything that a Jaguar can do and better. IAF knows this now.

A2A is equivalent to Mirage 2000, with both Derby and R-73E.

Tejas always faced a mindset problem. At the onset of development, the then crop of pilots grew up on Gnats/MiG-21s and wanted Mirage 2000 capabilities in the size of a MiG-21. With the present set of pilots growing up on Su-30MKI, they want a Sukhoi sized fighter, hence ORCA/AMCA scope creep.

Ergonomics of Tejas is better than everything else other than Rafale & Mirage 2000, so we should see Mk1A orders exceeding 83.

Dileep wrote:5.Total re-layout of the innards. Much more orderly and interchangeability/maintenance friendly. LRUs move. Cable loom organized. Piping is order of magnitude better.

This is the most important change in Mk1A and what IAF wanted for years. Lack of this was basis for the 3 legged cheetah statement.

This is extremely important operationally for faster turn around between sorties and ease of maintenance.

mody · Post by **mody** » 31 Jan 2020 15:02

Kartik wrote:
mody wrote:
Here is link from same thread from 2016. The proposed 800 Kg weight reduction is being discussed. This was in the original HAL proposal, when they pitched the MK1A concept. They had claimed that a weight reduction of upto 800 Kgs might be possible.

viewtopic.php?t=7112&start=680
Grp Cpt HV Thakur confirmed that there'll be some minor reduction of weight thanks to removal of ballast with the new AESA radar coming in. But nothing like 800 kg of weight reduction. Some refinements being planned, but we can finally put this whole major weight reduction myth to bed. It's not true.

That's what my original question was. Earlier there were claims of weight reduction possible upto 800 Kgs and this was discussed extensively. However, almost everyone agreed that 800Kgs seemed to ambitious or downright unfeasible.
My question was if they have managed to reduce the empty weight of the plane for the MK1A at all or not and if so by how much.
HVT has confirmed that there will be some weight reduction, though not the exact value. I guess this will be known, only when the prototype is ready. A weight reduction of 200-250 Kgs in the empty weight of the plane would be good.
The weight reduction was mainly going to come from reduction in the ballast dead weights, updating of some of the LRUs, some changes in plumbing and possibly also some redesign of the landing gear.

Zynda · Post by **Zynda** » 31 Jan 2020 18:11

^^I doubt they would touch LG for Mk.1A. Would involve re-certification of the same. Expensive and time consuming...

Probably we can see better designed LG for MWF.

dipak · Post by **dipak** » 31 Jan 2020 23:18

So, it finally appears that a fighter originally designed as a replacement for Mig-21, is equivalent to Jaguar + Mirage 2000.
Truly multirole.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 31 Jan 2020 23:53

mody wrote: That's what my original question was. Earlier there were claims of weight reduction possible upto 800 Kgs and this was discussed extensively. However, almost everyone agreed that 800Kgs seemed to ambitious or downright unfeasible.

I remember being gobsmacked by those claims when they first came out as well. It turned out that HAL themselves had claimed nothing of the sort. 800kg claim was solely in some media reports and not a direct quote from anyone. So 100% DDM.

Jay · Post by **Jay** » 01 Feb 2020 00:04

dipak wrote:So, it finally appears that a fighter originally designed as a replacement for Mig-21, is equivalent to Jaguar + Mirage 2000.
Truly multirole.

I known, Right? Cannot believe how stupid it was of all those idiots calling this plane a 'three legged cheetah' and what not, when in fact they are the half-brained ones. I do not feel I need to be charitable towards that lot.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 01 Feb 2020 01:36

Jay wrote:
dipak wrote:So, it finally appears that a fighter originally designed as a replacement for Mig-21, is equivalent to Jaguar + Mirage 2000.Truly multirole.
I known, Right? Cannot believe how stupid it was of all those idiots calling this plane a 'three legged cheetah' and what not, when in fact they are the half-brained ones. I do not feel I need to be charitable towards that lot.

The Jaguar and Mirage 2000 capabilities comes from its subsystems.

1. Safety & Reliability - GE F-404IN20 engine that is far more safer and reliable than Al-31FP, RD-33Series3 and a generation ahead of Adour and M53. No other engine has true FADEC

2. Range - due to high fuel efficiency of GE F-404IN20

3. A2G capabilities due to Israeli Litening pod that provides optical cueing for weapons like SPICE, laser designation for Paveway and Griffin LGBs and accurate rangefinding even for unguided bombs.

4. Elta 2032 has the best A2G SAR/ISAR/GMTI capabilities among all Indian fighters.

5. Elta 2032 + Derby offers BVR capabilities. Its much more reliable than N011M, Zhuk ME, RDM4/7

6. Elbit DASH helmet gives WWR point & shoot capabilites

7. The AoA, ITR, STR envelope are comparable to similar delta winged fighters.

So most of the Jaguar + Mirage 2000 capabilities come from GE F-404IN20, Litening, Elta 2032, Derby, Elbit DASH.

The 3 legged cheetah comment was made during the IOC-1 in 2011, which essentially was just a ceremony, and with most IOC capabilities coming with IOC-2 in 2013. There is a detailed PIB release that I have posted a 100 times on the capabilities that came with IOC-2. Tejas was an unknown / unproven Cheetah before IOC-2 in 2013.

And with the internal layout realignment in Mk1A, it will be a production capable and maintainable fighter.