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

SidSoma · Post by **SidSoma** » 21 Mar 2020 17:38

basant wrote: Considering this being first flight of FOC, and that it would (most likely) be with no telemetry, isn't it a bit puzzling that there seems to be no chase plane?

On a lighter note.......
What chase plane.... it offers no protection like the combination of a coconut, 2 lemons and a bunch of flowers....

nam · Post by **nam** » 21 Mar 2020 17:56

basant wrote:
ravikr wrote:#JustIn
VIDEO #Tejas #SP21 on its maiden flight. @akananth#Tarmak007 #LCA #FlyingBullets

https://twitter.com/writetake/status/12 ... 4758220800
Considering this being first flight of FOC, and that it would (most likely) be with no telemetry, isn't it a bit puzzling that there seems to be no chase plane?

It is FOC production item, not development. FOC development finished by end of 2018. So there is no need for chase plane.

They are running production tests, before handing it over to IAF squadron.

basant · Post by **basant** » 21 Mar 2020 18:15

nam wrote:
basant wrote: Considering this being first flight of FOC, and that it would (most likely) be with no telemetry, isn't it a bit puzzling that there seems to be no chase plane?
It is FOC production item, not development. FOC development finished by end of 2018. So there is no need for chase plane.

They are running production tests, before handing it over to IAF squadron.

Thank you for the clarification. IIRC, this is the first FOC aircraft whose specs were tested in parts on others towards certification. Plus there were rumors on having newer FBW. So I was just wondering.

SidSoma wrote:
basant wrote: Considering this being first flight of FOC, and that it would (most likely) be with no telemetry, isn't it a bit puzzling that there seems to be no chase plane?
On a lighter note.......
What chase plane.... it offers no protection like the combination of a coconut, 2 lemons and a bunch of flowers....

True. But telemetry also offers no protection!

Dileep · Post by **Dileep** » 21 Mar 2020 18:27

Kartik wrote: Thank you for the explanation Dileep. How is this obsolescence issue not present in SP-17 (formerly SP-21) and all other FOC fighters? Has it been already catered for by upgrading to new LRUs?

Obviously they must have used whatever available on SP-17 nee 21, and left 15 and 16 waiting. The

side of me would even look for 'long term grounded' aircraft from the LSP or one absent from the flight line at Sulur. We don't get to see/hear such things na?

srin · Post by **srin** » 21 Mar 2020 19:55

Indranil wrote:
suryag wrote:IR and other gurus two questions. I presume the gun hasnt been fired till date in air, true/false? Second, in one of the LSPs the small little hole on the spine(pardon my terminology) close to the vertical stabilizer was have a rounded clam shape however, nowadays they have gone back and made it regular duct shape whats the story behind it.
1. The gun hasn't been fired in the air. But did you notice the unpainted area just ahead of the gun in SP21. First time
[...]

I'm quite surprised. I'd have expected that it'd have been trialled in one of the PVs or LSPs. For multiple reasons
- To gauge the stress it puts on the components.
- To integrate with the avionics. I recall watching a video long ago of a US fighter (Hornet I think) HUD that showed the dispersion cone of shells, and I presume that other fighters have similar sights/aids. And they'd have to test it out in the air to match theory against reality and calibrate the avionics.
- Having FOC aircraft do the gun testing would probably delay it's induction into squadron ?

basant · Post by **basant** » 21 Mar 2020 21:28

srin wrote:
Indranil wrote: 1. The gun hasn't been fired in the air. But did you notice the unpainted area just ahead of the gun in SP21. First time
[...]

I'm quite surprised. I'd have expected that it'd have been trialled in one of the PVs or LSPs. For multiple reasons
- To gauge the stress it puts on the components.
- To integrate with the avionics. I recall watching a video long ago of a US fighter (Hornet I think) HUD that showed the dispersion cone of shells, and I presume that other fighters have similar sights/aids. And they'd have to test it out in the air to match theory against reality and calibrate the avionics.
- Having FOC aircraft do the gun testing would probably delay it's induction into squadron ?

My guess would be that while calibration can (and probably will) be done on prototypes, the only remaining work on FOC would be to apply a software patch.

ashishvikas · Post by **ashishvikas** » 23 Mar 2020 15:52

LCA Tejas Division of #HAL continues to inspire us amidst the #Corona scare. Here's #TejasSP22 undergoing the EGR. The first flight should be soon. And, let's not forget the lockdown in #Bangalore and the difficult situations. #FlyingBullets

https://twitter.com/writetake/status/12 ... 5477643264

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 23 Mar 2020 23:58

Tejas looks better in primer and without the two tone dark grey and lighter grey colors. Would look a LOT better in a uniform light grey all over paint scheme.

nam · Post by **nam** » 24 Mar 2020 00:08

Check out the build quality.Mashallah. Are the private sector parts now coming in? SP16 had the wings. I wonder if the fuselage is now available as well. It has been a year since Sp16.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 24 Mar 2020 00:09

Is it possible to apply the same dark grey color to the nose cone as well? Or does the material (quartz) of the radome restrict it to specific colors?

We can see this in the M2k and Su-30 fleet as well. The older models had a black radome. The M2k-I has a light grey radome as does the newer Su-30 builds (Mk-3 onwards perhaps). Was this because of a change in radome material?

nam · Post by **nam** » 24 Mar 2020 00:09

Fabulous decision to go for composite, despite the brickbats ADA received for so many years for "aiming high".

Vamsee · Post by **Vamsee** » 24 Mar 2020 00:10

@Rakesh,

Time to update the first post

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

@hvtiaf

Previously, HAL's first FOC series production aircraft SP-21 rechristened as SP-17 (AF tail number LA-5017).

SP-1 to 16 (LA-5001 to LA-5016) are IOC single seat variants

SPT-1 to 4 will be LT-5201 to LT-5204 & so on for FOC & Mk-1A twin seat variants.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 24 Mar 2020 00:29

Vamsee Saar, you rock! Thank you. Updated Page 1.

BTW, do we have the link of HVT Sir's tweet?

Vamsee · Post by **Vamsee** » 24 Mar 2020 00:45

Rakesh wrote:Vamsee Saar, you rock! Thank you. Updated Page 1.

BTW, do we have the link of HVT Sir's tweet?

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/1242151451708624896

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 24 Mar 2020 01:40

Thanks Vamsee!

BTW, does anyone know from which production line SP-17 (formerly SP-21) came out from?

I need to add that on the first page. Thanks.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 24 Mar 2020 03:03

From what Dileep had written a couple of pages earlier

Here is the detail from the presentation by Yogindra at SIATI SCM Conference:
LCA Division is line 1. They also manage the outsourcing and supply chain management. Their current capacity is 8 AC per year.
Aircraft Division is Line 2. Here they run the second sub assembly and integration lines. Their current capacity is 4 AC per year.
They plan to reach 16 AC per year by "capacity augmentation" of these two lines onlee.
There was no mention of the "third line" in his presentation. So, IMO, that doesn't exist.

From what we've seen coming from Ananth Krishnan, it is the Aircraft Division that rolled out SP-17. That would be Line 2.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 24 Mar 2020 05:00

Perfect. Thanks Kartik. Updated Page 1 again.

sajaym · Post by **sajaym** » 24 Mar 2020 08:01

ashishvikas wrote:...

The height of the cockpit from the ground never ceases to amaze me. I wonder if any of the Gnat/Ajeet fighter designers were on board the LCA team too. In a scramble, a pilot can literally be in the cockpit with just one leg on the ladder...Just like how it was in the Gnat!

(PS: My comments about Gnat are based on an article on BRF by some Gnat pilot...AM Raghavendra I think)

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 24 Mar 2020 08:05

Gurus is the IFR probe fitted after this event ?

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 24 Mar 2020 11:10

I think there is a provision between the Canopy and Nose cone where the Ground Crew can attach or Detach the IFR, Besides, Flag, serial No. etc are yet to be painted, I guess IFR will be fixed as one of the Last stages.

srin · Post by **srin** » 24 Mar 2020 13:51

Is IFR optional ? Can IAF choose to fly the Tejas on a sortie with the IFR probe removed ?

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 24 Mar 2020 14:10

I don't to what to what extent Bolt on is meant here, and what impact it has on FBW software and adjustments, I dont know it can fly with the IFR removed but I think ground crew should be able remove and replace the IFR probe in case of any damage etc.

5 year old article

https://www.news18.com/blogs/india/saur ... 48651.html

However FOC for the Tejas Mk-I is now expected to be achieved only by late 2015. This, according to Dr K. Tamilmani, Director General (Aero),DRDO, is chiefly on account of delays in receiving two significant parts from an overseas vendor that will need to be certified for FOC acceptance. These are of course a bolt on inflight refuelling (IFR) probe and a new quartz nose cone radome, both of which are being procured from different divisions of UK's Cobham.

Looks like the Mirage 2000 and Rafale probes are removable, so this probably applies to Tejas as well

https://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/de ... rage-2000/

Fixed (removable) probe for in-flight refuelling

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 24 Mar 2020 20:12

Rakesh wrote:Thanks Vamsee!

BTW, does anyone know from which production line SP-17 (formerly SP-21) came out from?

I need to add that on the first page. Thanks.

LCA Division https://english.manoramaonline.com/news ... tures.html

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 24 Mar 2020 20:21

Kartik posted earlier that it was Line 2 or did I read that incorrectly?

naird · Post by **naird** » 24 Mar 2020 22:20

This virus situation has me worried - what are the chances that MK1A deal will sail through. We will be going through a tremendous economic upheaval..

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 24 Mar 2020 22:32

Rakesh wrote:Kartik posted earlier that it was Line 2 or did I read that incorrectly?

This is quoted by Anantha Krishnan. I'd believe him over anyone, other than an insider, on this matter. You could DM him on teetar.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 25 Mar 2020 07:21

naird wrote:This virus situation has me worried - what are the chances that MK1A deal will sail through. We will be going through a tremendous economic upheaval..

It will be an annual allocation. No one is going to give the whole amount now

basant · Post by **basant** » 25 Mar 2020 11:24

Tweet from HVT! Please check the tweet for some great videos!

FOC LCA SP-17, AF Tail No LA-5017 did complete most of its flight-testing as Flying Bullets get ready in their newer Avatar

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 25 Mar 2020 13:13

No gun firing as per reports? It was not part of FOC as it takes long time?

basant · Post by **basant** » 25 Mar 2020 18:08

Yagnasri wrote:No gun firing as per reports? It was not part of FOC as it takes long time?

Due to lack of inert ammunition, as per DDR.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 25 Mar 2020 21:08

Airborne gun firing tests shortly. Most probably in next detachment.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 25 Mar 2020 21:54

Will that be done by NFTC test pilots on a LSP prototype?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 26 Mar 2020 02:36

The last gun firing trial was in 2016 with that drafting paper target. It looks quite bad that inert ammo for repeating the trials was not thought of. Someone doesn't care for gun firing trials obviously. Note the caveat on air to air firing. Why not stream a banner or tow a target? What's needed is to show the shell spacing and record the gun vibrations for the designers to review.

Air to the ground can easily be demonstrated.

Kartik I would rather they do it on the FOC planes as that is what matters. LSP black box configuration might not be the same.
If it's the same as the ground firing version there is gun mounting stiffness issue. The patter on the RHS barrel is tighter. So the mounting on the left barrel is softer for some reason.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 26 Mar 2020 03:42

Kartik wrote:Will that be done by NFTC test pilots on a LSP prototype?

I don't know. But that would be my guess. Last couple of test points (along with the gun) to be cleared in this detachment.

Ramana sir, they don't need to find the pattern on target. They know the gun. Among other things, they know the tolerance for a close enough patterns. As long as the vibrations are less than the tolerance. The pattern will be close enough.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 26 Mar 2020 05:32

basant wrote:
Yagnasri wrote:No gun firing as per reports? It was not part of FOC as it takes long time?
Due to lack of inert ammunition, as per DDR.

Interestingly, the article also mentions this

Meanwhile, the design of dual carriage pylons for carrying missiles as well as a jammer pod on a single underwing station is complete.

Dual rack pylon for the carriage of a CCM and a jammer pod or 2 CCMs on the outermost wing hardpoint is complete, originally probably meant for the Mk1A.

Is there then, any reason why the FOC Tejas Mk1 cannot carry the pylon apart from it probably not having been flight tested across the Tejas' flight envelope and certified? It would straightaway double the number of CCMs or allow carriage of a SPJ with 3 CCMs in total. If a conflict breaks out, these things will really matter if a Tejas Mk1 squadron mans the ORP at any forward Air Base.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 26 Mar 2020 05:40

Kartik wrote: Is there then, any reason why the FOC Tejas Mk1 cannot carry the pylon apart from it probably not having been flight tested across the Tejas' flight envelope and certified? It would straightaway double the number of CCMs or allow carriage of a SPJ with 3 CCMs in total. If a conflict breaks out, these things will really matter if a Tejas Mk1 squadron mans the ORP at any forward Air Base.

This is just my guess, but I'm not sure of the utility of a dual-pylon for carrying 2 R-73's on the Mk1. Don't see the reason why a Tejas would be flying with 4 CCM's in a combat sortie. Centerline EFT plus 4 BVRAAMs and 2 CCMs should be good enough for an air-to-air mission. Now if we had a pylon which allowed 2 BVRAAMs on the mid-board stations that would be a different thing.

So the utility is only limited to carrying the SPJ pod without sacrificing a CCM in order to carry it. The ELL-8222 makes the most sense but it has not even been selected yet, let alone integrated with the aircraft. That itself is unlikely to happen before the Mk1A comes in.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 26 Mar 2020 05:49

The way I see it, in combat, 3 or 4 CCMs versus 2 CCMs is always a plus, even with the marginal drag increase. Given the scenario that was seen on Feb 27, 2019, you may only have a couple of fighters on ORP that may need to take on a large package.

srai · Post by **srai** » 26 Mar 2020 11:50

Quite a few wing tip type of EW/ECM pods come in pairs. Provides lots more space to pack different types of sensors, counter measures, jammers and decoys.

Hoping to see in the near future DARE twin-pods for Su-30MKI adapted for LCA.

EUroFighter’s DASS

One side pod rear holds two towed decoys.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 26 Mar 2020 13:49

Certain jamming techniques require two spatially separated pods.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 29 Mar 2020 03:32

Read this twitter back-and-forth between aam junta on tweetar and Group Captain HV Thakur (Retd).

The patience that HVT Sir displays is truly amazing. Kudos to him.

--------------------------------------------

https://twitter.com/Vamsina90252211/sta ... 56358?s=20 ---> Sir, what about dual rack pylons for BVR missiles in Tejas Mk1A?

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/12428 ... 61376?s=20 ---> Carriage of a very large number of AAMs is ungainly. Good for brochures. FOC onwards will be able to carry 4 x BVRAAMs and 2 x CCMs. That's greater than 60 crore payload on every aircraft. More than enough for any envisaged combat scenario in the Indian subcontinent.

https://twitter.com/Vamsina90252211/sta ... 79776?s=20 ---> Yes Sir, what u said is true. But if we use a dual rack pylon, Tejas can carry 4 x BVRAAMs, 2 x CCMs and at least 2 drop tanks sir. But without dual rack pylon, Tejas cannot carry 2 drop tanks which limits endurance of the aircraft.

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/12428 ... 85888?s=20 ---> It can carry one centreline tank, one inboard tank, 3 x BVRAAMs, 2 x CCMs. Range & Endurance is huge

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/12428 ... 56704?s=20 ---> Meteor is 20 crore. All imported missiles are 10+ crore. Only Astra is reasonable. Make In India.

https://twitter.com/WildFact_com/status ... 87555?s=20 ---> That's an odd number of BVRs. May i ask how? This?
Link to picture ---> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EUGa087UcAM ... ame=medium

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/12434 ... 46209?s=20 ---> No. One side EFT only. Inboard.

-----------------------------------------------

https://twitter.com/Mishra28Deepak/stat ... 31744?s=20 ---> Dual rack pylons is a good idea. But why can't they have triple rack pylons like some western fighters

MWF has plenty of space for that and even LCA has. Gives you more ordnance carrying capacity.

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/12428 ... 33504?s=20 ---> Should be possible in swing role configuration to carry decent payload of bombs and AAMs. Tejas Mk 2 has eleven stations. More than enough. Dual/Multi-racks are very popular for bombs (all aircraft in IAF have - for more weight-of-attack). But not for AAMs. Too many AAMs not required.

https://twitter.com/Rashmir23696747/sta ... 16480?s=20 ---> Too many AAMs not required? WHY not? Pls elaborate.

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/12428 ... 50566?s=20 ---> Very, Very, Expensive. Unaffordable almost. 15+ crore with every trigger press. In any mission, one would expect a fighter to launch not more than four to six missiles, with reasonable assurance of kill. Beyond that, they could just be getting wasted. Possible to carry more. But ungainly.

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/12428 ... 95202?s=20 ---> All stealth aircraft carry 4 x BVRAAMs. F-22, F-35, Su-57 & J-20. That's their intended air combat payload. That is enough as per their combat experience. AMCA is also planned with 4 BVRAAMs.

-----------------------------------------------

Some examples of brochuritis.....

F-15EX

F-21