Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 04 January 2021

RishiChatterjee · Post by **RishiChatterjee** » 13 Aug 2021 15:01

Barath wrote:
RishiChatterjee wrote:.. now we will have 83 Mark1A plus LIFTs, ..
I don't think the 10 twin seat trainers ordered with the FOC are the same as LIFT, if that was what was meant

"he design of LCA-LIFT is based on the LCA twin seat airframe & engine. The aircraft will be upgraded & improved to have the ability to replicate the software & avionics of other fighters" . The twin seat trainers will be part of the operational squadron, LIFT will be prior.

Edit: On re-read, I believe that was not what you were saying.

No, they are not the same indeed... But HVT once mentioned that after CATS is made available IAF will have to go for several twin-seaters (may or may not be trainers upward to LIFTs) to operate them from as motherships.

Plus the 1st Tejas trainer will come out in Surya Kiran livery (mostly because how complicated it is to detail all the body of operational machines, compared to a painted body).

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 13 Aug 2021 19:08

Barath wrote:LCA Mk-1A to take first flight by March, says HAL Chairman
https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-ne ... 4-amp.html

The first Mk-1A aircraft will be delivered to the air force by March 2024, with the rest slated to join its combat fleet by 2029.
.......
“We are working on a tight schedule, but HAL may deliver all the aircraft ahead of time. We will deliver a new aircraft with significant changes three years after the signing of contract. Even foreign original equipment manufacturers (OEM) take about five to six years to do something like that,” the HAL chairman said.
.......
The delivery schedule requires HAL to provide the IAF with the first two aircraft in 2024, eight in 2025 and the remaining in batches by 2029 at the rate of 14 to 16 fighters every year.
.......
“HAL now has to perform since the stakes involved are very high -- IAF’s potency is dependent on it. HAL’s work culture and ethos have to turn a new leaf to ensure that aircraft production timelines are met. Rigid adherence to quality in production and timely provisioning of spares would define successful contract implementation,” Air Vice Marshal Manmohan Bahadur (retd), former additional director general, Centre for Air Power Studies, previously told HT.

@Vivek_K, see the quote above from Air Marshal Manmohan Bahadur (retd)...this is the make or break moment for HAL. This order goes beyond just 83 Mk1As. It will be the litmus test for HAL to deliver anything else (Tejas Mk2, TEDBF, AMCA, etc) to the IAF and Indian Naval Air Arm in a timely manner and with stringent QC standards. Get ready for the import lobby in India to wait for something....anything to fail.

HAL's performance here will also determine how many more phoren MRFA will be acquired. So while the Mk1A will not have the same capability (mainly payload and endurance) as the Western participants in the MRFA deal, it will have a correlation to how many more phoren MRFA the IAF eventually acquires. The IAF's future ORBAT plans (114 MRFA) are not expected to work out due to budgetary concerns.

The Tejas Mk1A contract was signed in January 2021 and the first one will be delivered by March 2024. So 3.2 years after contract signature - more or less in line with the industry standard. Keeping fingers crossed.

ArjunPandit · Post by **ArjunPandit** » 13 Aug 2021 19:41

slightly OT, rakesh ji i was going through the research reports for Huntington Ingalls and Gen Dynamics. With submarines based on workshare schedule a/c the two. One thing noteworthy I learnt was USN had 2 operator model in recent years for competition/cost efficiencies. We have a pipeline of 300-500 indigeneous aircrafts. Even US has largely two operators for fighter jets boeing and LMT. I think it would make sense to have a private operator for a new production line or another govt entity solely for this assembling. Too much resting on HAL is a big risk. HAL has lot on its plate, helicopters, trainers, fighter jets. Management focus gets diverted. It would help to have focussed management on delivering focussed targets..that is how some meritocrats could be given promotions to drive things faster.
All to avoid giving imports a foot in the door

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 13 Aug 2021 20:03

Do you remember what was one of Rahul Gandhi's accusations against Prime Minister Modi over the Rafale Deal? The accusation was that Prime Minister Modi took jobs away from HAL and gave it to Anil Ambani, to build the Rafale in India. If you open a second line with a private player (i.e. TASL), it will be a political disaster. Secondly no private player will invest in a line for half (or whatever portion) of a measly 83 aircraft order.

For future aircraft (i.e. Tejas Mk2), start off with a triple digit order and make a private player one of the Tier 1 suppliers. The greater the number of production in major parts (wings, fuselage, tail, etc) will give the integrator (HAL) to build them that much more rapidly. And large scale production is one thing (which China does), but there has to be a laser vision focus on QC (which China does not do). Both have to go hand in hand, because there is too much at stake riding on this. China can afford to lose a J-20 or two or even more, India cannot afford to lose even a single Tejas. Communism vs Democracy.

We have all seen this picture before...

kit · Post by **kit** » 13 Aug 2021 20:04

ArjunPandit wrote:Too much resting on HAL is a big risk. HAL has lot on its plate, helicopters, trainers, fighter jets. Management focus gets diverted. It would help to have focussed management on delivering focussed targets..that is how some meritocrats could be given promotions to drive things faster.
All to avoid giving imports a foot in the door

Quite right, and yes that's the idea. But no one from Pvt sector has come forward to be a system integrator., mostly confined to tier 2 or 3 supplier mode.
HAL needs a competitor ideally a completely private or public pvt partnership., Tata could be one if they are so inclined.

kit · Post by **kit** » 13 Aug 2021 20:07

Rakesh wrote: If you open a second line with a private player (i.e. TASL), it will be a political disaster. Secondly no private player will invest in a line for half (or whatever portion) of a measly 83 aircraft order. For future aircraft (i.e. Tejas Mk2), start off with a triple digit order and make a private player one of the Tier 1 suppliers. The greater the number of production in major parts (wings, fuselage, tail, etc) will give the integrator (HAL) to build them that much more rapidly.

Rakesh ji., the SDRE mass production of 400 units would be like this onlee ., 83 40 20 80 , never more than a 100 at a time , just look at the Su-30 production rate and orders placed.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 13 Aug 2021 20:12

Sirjee, what you are going to do with 400 units that all arrive in lets say 3 - 4 years? You need a roster of pilots available to fly them. Induction of large number of aircraft, with little experienced pilots available is counter productive. So a production rate of around 1 - 2 squadrons per year (18 - 36 aircraft) would be ideal. To echo Saab's marketing team....a fighter aircraft is only effective, when she is in the air.

Just imagine the CAPEX hit of acquiring 100 aircraft per year. The services can kiss goodbye to modernizing anything else.

Rambha production rate was 14 aircraft per year I believe.

KSingh · Post by **KSingh** » 13 Aug 2021 21:01

I still think we are looking at this wrongly, as we can see with the ongoing deliveries (or lack thereof) of the FOC jets to IAF- the limiting factor in many of these cases is the IAF’s ability to absorb aircraft. We all know by now of the times when HAL has had to stockpile ALHs as IA/IAF weren’t in a position to accept them, this lead to HAL slowing down ALH production, similar story seems to be playing out with LCA now.

MMRCA 2.0/MRFA lays out the induction rate for the 114 jets- 8 years aka 14/year. Rafale was delivered at a rate of 12/year to them.

So HAL can create 10 production lines to produce 50 LCA/year is IAF in a position to absorb so many? I would say on the evidence we have they absolutely are not. 16/year has been set by HAL for MK1A likely in consultation with IAF.

I would LOVE to have an Indian defence journo with the sense to talk to the senior IAF leadership and drill down on this point.

HAL MUST though keep to their timelines for MK1A- first jets must be handed over in 2024 ( 3 years after contract signature) and all 83 must be in IAF hands 4-5 years later. Given their activities and pre-planning I’d say they are very much on track to deliver this

Any export orders will clearly mean HAL will upscale production and I don’t see them struggling to do that at all.

nam · Post by **nam** » 13 Aug 2021 21:17

What exactly is HAL producing till 2030 other than 16 LCA per year? There is no Su30, no Jag. Major parts of LCA are now outsourced.

KSingh · Post by **KSingh** » 13 Aug 2021 21:28

nam wrote:What exactly is HAL producing till 2030 other than 16 LCA per year? There is no Su30, no Jag. Major parts of LCA are now outsourced.

Fixed wing?

LCA, SARAS MK.2 (if it ever happens), MWF (after 2028/9) and HTT-40

Rotary wing

ALH/Rudra (hopefully orders will keep coming in to keep the line churning until the late 2020s, as I calculate they only have enough orders in hand for ALH/Rudra to sustain until the end of 2022/early 2023), LUH (hope to god not the KA226 also), LCH and IMRH (fingers crossed around 2028/9)

Also fingers crossed they get the NUH contract for ALH-NUH

Beyond
They’ll be a partner in AMCA consortium

Question mark on who will make TEDBF, hopefully private players can have a chance considering it’s a ADA product and how mature private sector will be by then

Upgrades

HAL will be undertaking continuous efforts to update LCA (imagine IOC/FOC jets will get to MK1A standard) and if MKI ever gets the super upgrade HAL will play a major role

Engines

HAL is making Shaktis, is working on their own HTSE-1200 and HTFE-25 and also the LM2500

All of the above will have ongoing maintenance contracts

Also HAL is going to be a lead agency in the 110KN JV effort for AMCA MK.2

UAVs

HAL is working with private sector on CATS and there are at least 3/4 projects under this umbrella that will likely be expanded, in addition to this they have the RUAV (rotary wing UAV), I’m also sure they will have a role in TAPAS and GHATAK UAS if they ever get going

Quite an enormous amount of work and I’m sure I’m missing quite a bit and they’ll be taking up extra in the next decade also.

titash · Post by **titash** » 13 Aug 2021 22:05

nam wrote:What exactly is HAL producing till 2030 other than 16 LCA per year? There is no Su30, no Jag. Major parts of LCA are now outsourced.

73 LCA Mk1A + 18 LCA FOC Trainers + 201 Tejas Mk2 + 200 LUH + 175 LCH + unknown nos. AMCA & IMRH & R-UAVs & Naval/ICG Dhruvs

Let's also not forget the ALH line will continue to run for 50 years at low volume (that's exactly what the Chetak, Chinook, and Mi-8/17 lines are doing. Helicopters and Transports are a "consumable")

RishiChatterjee · Post by **RishiChatterjee** » 14 Aug 2021 08:09

I'd like to draw the attention of y'all towards this detail... They're buying 99 engines, 16 more than 83

k prasad · Post by **k prasad** » 14 Aug 2021 11:23

RishiChatterjee wrote:I'd like to draw the attention of y'all towards this detail... They're buying 99 engines, 16 more than 83

Spares wonlee, sadly. It'd have been nice if this were 99 engines over and above the first order. Lets see. Hope springs eternal.

Khalsa · Post by **Khalsa** » 14 Aug 2021 13:24

Do we have clarity on the 18 attrition replacement + spare of SU-30 MKI that were in the pipeline ?
Is that order completed ? If not ... then we will only see a Pivot to LCA production after that.

LakshmanPST · Post by **LakshmanPST** » 14 Aug 2021 18:05

Barath wrote:https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-ne ... 4-amp.html

AESA radar and EW integration ongoing on Mk1 FOC Tejas to be followed by Mk1A

This particular line is interesting... (I thought someone would be discussing this point here... Anyways...)
I previously read that Mk1A configuration is being tested on one of the LSPs... So, AESA Radar would also be integrated with one of the LSPs... However, the article mentions that HAL is integrating AESA radar on an FOC aircraft... This raises new questions...
1. Is the FOC aircraft mentioned in the article an actual SP aircraft from the 16 FOC order...?
2. If it is an SP aircraft, will the AESA be removed after testing and refitted with 2032 before delivery to IAF...? (Which seems stupid to be honest)
3. Or does it indicate that HAL is planning to integrate AESA radar on all FOC jets before delivery to IAF...? (Which probably explains why there is delay in deliveries of FOC jets to IAF...)
4. If 3 is true, will the IOC jets from 45 Squadron also be upgraded with AESA in near future...?
-
5. Or it was just a typo or misquote in the article where they mentioned FOC instead of LSP and I'm thinking too much...?

RishiChatterjee · Post by **RishiChatterjee** » 14 Aug 2021 19:31

LakshmanPST wrote: I previously read that Mk1A configuration is being tested on one of the LSPs... So, AESA Radar would also be integrated with one of the LSPs... However, the article mentions that HAL is integrating AESA radar on an FOC aircraft... This raises new questions...

Reading about the recent developments, I've got a feeling that IAF actually wants all of the IOC/FOCs in Mark1A standard ASAP... some of them during delivery only.

They are pretty clear about Uttam & EW being integrated to FOC. His words "After it is proven there, we will integrate it on the final Mk-1A version".

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 14 Aug 2021 21:23

My gut feeling (and some obvious speculation)
After India has gotten Rafale and tested it against the next best (SU30MKI) may have realized that all at a time single frequency radar (non-AESA radar) are very vulnerable to upcoming new generation AESA jammers (That is what happened in between Egyptian SU35 and Rafale). I think AESA jammers (of the right kind) will find it easier (not easy) to Jam non AESA radar of the opponent. AESA radar (and digital RWR, jammers, AESA in BVR missile nose cone) like stealth in my opinion is becoming a game changer (Grippen and others have been crowing from roof top while US is silent and Russia lagging).

If we have AESA radar available (2052 or Uttam, whichever is more mature) now, it would be stupid to integrate 2032 in FOC LCA if an AESA can be integrated (even if other features of MK1A are not, frankly I can only think of 1 not being done, rearrangements of internals for easier maintenance.

Maybe that explains the frustrating delay with FOC Tejas delivery and not COVID or general incompetence of HAL. We know some 2-6 more FOC planes have flown but not delivered. Unless they have built issues, there is no need to delay delivery to a SQ that has formed and taken delivery of few planes (+ we are short on numbers).

With AESA and small cross section LCA, just in BVR (effective range = BVR missiles -100 KM - DERBY ER, python, Astra...) it maybe our second best fighter after Rafale.

sanjayc · Post by **sanjayc** » 15 Aug 2021 00:53

@TheWolfpackIN
IAF Wing Commander Varun Singh awarded Shaurya Chakra for successfully saving an LCA Tejas aircraft from crashing, and safely landing it unharmed, despite failure of Flight Control System (FCS) and aircraft pressurization system during a flight. Incident happened on 12 Oct 2020.

bharathp · Post by **bharathp** » 15 Aug 2021 01:20

sanjayc wrote:
@TheWolfpackIN
IAF Wing Commander Varun Singh awarded Shaurya Chakra for successfully saving an LCA Tejas aircraft from crashing, and safely landing it unharmed, despite failure of Flight Control System (FCS) and aircraft pressurization system during a flight. Incident happened on 12 Oct 2020.

could explain the reason for the delay? could be going in for some fixes for the root cause.

basant · Post by **basant** » 15 Aug 2021 01:48

The link to the article is here: 1st Major LCA Tejas Mid-Air Scare Wins Pilot Shaurya Chakra

God bless the brave pilot! Can't be prouder of him. What a close shave for the programme.

SriKumar · Post by **SriKumar** » 15 Aug 2021 07:03

basant wrote:The link to the article is here: 1st Major LCA Tejas Mid-Air Scare Wins Pilot Shaurya Chakra
The citation to his award details the incident in full:

During the sortie, the cockpit pressurisation failed at high altitude. He correctly identified the failure and initiated a descent to lower altitude for landing. While descending, the Flight Control System failed and led to total loss of control of the aircraft. This was an unprecedented catastrophic failure that had never occurred. There was a rapid loss of altitude while in usual attitude, with the aircraft pitching up and down viciously going to the extremities of G limits. Despite being in extreme physical and mental stress in an extreme life-threatening situation, he maintained exemplary composure and regained control of the aircraft, thereby exhibiting exceptional flying skill. Soon thereafter, at about 10,000 feet, the aircraft again experienced total loss of control with vicious manoeuvring and uncontrollable pitching. Under such a scenario, the pilot was at liberty to abandon aircraft.

Very interesting. I recall reading a post by shiv (poster) who posited that in an unstable aircraft, loss of FCS means it goes out of control in a couple of seconds. The citations mentions 'pitching up and down' (which is better than 'up and up'), and later on 'vicious maneuvering'. I dont know how one can land such an aircraft. Maybe it is more stable at low velocities? Would this be the first instance of an FCS-driven unstable aircraft being piloted manually to safety? Having a loss of pressurization AND an FCS failure suggests some software problem (or the electronics that control both systems). Indeed it was a close shave for the program.

SidSoma · Post by **SidSoma** » 15 Aug 2021 08:58

SriKumar wrote: Having a loss of pressurization AND an FCS failure suggests some software problem (or the electronics that control both systems). Indeed it was a close shave for the program.

is a pilot in a Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) Squadron. On 12 Oct 20, he was flying a system check sortie in LCA, away from parent base, after major rectification of Flight Control System (FCS) and pressurisation system (life support environment control system).

From the article, it seems to have been a test sortie after some changes to the very systems that failed. Seems like a rectification gone wrong. Close shave indeed.....

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 15 Aug 2021 11:18

Didn't one of the upgraded Miraj 2 k also suffer from something similar while taking off resulting in a loss of both pilots?

basant · Post by **basant** » 15 Aug 2021 11:39

We haven't heard of any grounding of Tejas Sq, so I presume that either the fault was immediately identified to a particular series/systems or the news was not published at all. Former appears more plausible. FCS AND pressurization loss occurring simultaneously is even more perplexing.

Barath · Post by **Barath** » 15 Aug 2021 16:00

LakshmanPST wrote:
Barath wrote:https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-ne ... 4-amp.html

AESA radar and EW integration ongoing on Mk1 FOC Tejas to be followed by Mk1A
This particular line is interesting... (I thought someone would be discussing this point here... Anyways...)
I previously read that Mk1A configuration is being tested on one of the LSPs... So, AESA Radar would also be integrated with one of the LSPs... However, the article mentions that HAL is integrating AESA radar on an FOC aircraft... This raises new questions...
<snipped for shortening >
5. Or it was just a typo or misquote in the article where they mentioned FOC instead of LSP and I'm thinking too much...?

https://twitter.com/delhidefence/status ... 9183518720

LSP 02 AND LSP03 for Uttam aesa radar testing (along with/after a bizjet, I assume). Yes, I recall reading here on BR that one LSP was to be upgraded close to Mk1A standard (can't recall which - lsp 6, lsp 8 or other)

IIRC, LSP8 was close to IoC standard - maybe it or one of the other LSP was upgraded in relevant bits to FOC standard and is used for Elta 2052 radar testing ? I too find it hard to give credence to an actual FOC plane being used for any significant radar testing

That would be 4 LSP in use for testing - not including any twin seat ones for training the squadron being stood up.

There's also work / tender for Uttam (Mk2?) for LCA Mk2 but it is targeted for rollout with plane Aug 2022 (?). Not as reliable source. So not at plane/integration level yet.

https://idrw.org/lca-af-mk2-lrde-starts ... -aesa-fcr/

Barath · Post by **Barath** » 15 Aug 2021 16:22

An old question that came up.

In 2017, IAF was trying to persuade MoD of need for SEF / (now MMRCA) and that Tejas cannot substitute.

https://thediplomat.com/2017/11/indian- ... ian-skies/

IAF talked of 59 minutes of combat endurance for Tejas vs 3 hrs for Gripen and ~4 for F-16. and payload of ~3 t for Tejas vs 6+ for Gripen and 7 for F-16
And increased maintenance needs of Tejas and reduced service life (20 yrs vs 40), both of which I assume that FOC, Mk1A etc would iterativey have addressed/improved.

In Pg1 of this thread, @hvtiaf has 2 tweets:
https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/11760 ... 87329?s=20 - Tejas has better radius of action than jaguar (unclear if using drop tanks figures into it , assume so ?)

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/11745 ... 03744?s=20 Tejas can go from Bengaluru to Jaisalmer direct (which Jag can't do). Or about 1700 km aerial distance + diversion reserve (presumably this is ferry distance with tanks (?)

The assumption is that both the 2017 assertion by IAF and @hvtiaf tweets are true, right ? And that the two tweets by hvtiaf are with drop tanks ?

The greater range minus tanks would be in Mk2

Correct?

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 15 Aug 2021 19:46

https://twitter.com/zone5aviation/statu ... 06688?s=20 --->

AdityaM · Post by **AdityaM** » 16 Aug 2021 01:35

SriKumar wrote:
basant wrote:The link to the article is here: 1st Major LCA Tejas Mid-Air Scare Wins Pilot Shaurya Chakra
Having a loss of pressurization AND an FCS failure suggests some software problem (or the electronics that control both systems). Indeed it was a close shave for the program.

How does a failure like this happen despite multiple redundancies?

As per https://journal.accsindia.org/real-time ... -aircraft/

Being a safety critical system, FCS has been developed as a fault tolerant system too. This has been achieved by adding sufficient redundancy of its various subsystems in terms of quadraplex, triplex, duplex or simplex features depending upon their criticality

FCS uses a DFCC that has high performance processors in quadraplex configuration. The identical software in each channel of DFCC is developed using a safe subset of Ada language and its identical copies are executed in all four channels of DFCC.

The four channels of DFCC are identical but they are powered by four separate electrical power sources in aircraft.

So redundancy is only of multiple identical systems running parallel. But if logic is faulty in one, it's faulty in all.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 16 Aug 2021 02:36

That's why it's heavily debugged on the ground before being even loaded up. Simulations are run, mini bird, iron bird "sorties" too. More than a CLAW failure, it could be a hardware failure, one of the elevon controllers or the input data to the FCS, got garbled. Basically wherever there was a single point of failure. As I recall LCA has a fail safe mode in the FBW too which operates with reduced maneuverability. If even that didn't function, it means a hardware issue anywhere upsteam or downstream.

k prasad · Post by **k prasad** » 16 Aug 2021 04:01

I'd be very curious for an official report from ADA about the causes for this incident.

From the citation, it looks like the two systems that failed (FCS, pressurization) were the ones that were rectified and being tested, which suggests QA issues in the actual maintenance and upgrade, and there being no news of LCAs being grounded suggests that this was NOT a design issue but one that was immediately identified and hopefully, rectified.

That said, we should be impressed by Tejas' safety record, considering how other equivalent aircraft have fared in terms of major faults and crashes during development. We've gone nearly 20 years from first flight without serious (published) incident, and over 20 years now with no crashes. Hope this continues, and I'm confident in ADA's design, but if and when the first Tejas crash happens, we shouldn't panic, or be surprised. We've had a highly successful design project. Let's celebrate that.

Nalla Baalu · Post by **Nalla Baalu** » 16 Aug 2021 21:45

Karan M wrote:That's why it's heavily debugged on the ground before being even loaded up. Simulations are run, mini bird, iron bird "sorties" too. More than a CLAW failure, it could be a hardware failure, one of the elevon controllers or the input data to the FCS, got garbled. Basically wherever there was a single point of failure. As I recall LCA has a fail safe mode in the FBW too which operates with reduced maneuverability. If even that didn't function, it means a hardware issue anywhere upsteam or downstream.

I wonder if the equipment bays are pressurized as well?Explosive/rapid decompression could possibly have precipitated loss of redundant 'paths' of the FCS. I speculate likely weakest link like cable connectors/interfaces/splices.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 16 Aug 2021 22:21

Yeah, you could be on the dot.

I mean, what we do know - the FCS loss was intermittent. Its like the pilot could control for some brief periods - otherwise he couldnt have landed it.
It happened post the ECS failure. The FCS issue caused heavy pitching.
It happened during the descent.

Lets look at the IFCS - its basically the sensors - most of which are redundant, like the Angle of Attack sensors. These then feed into an Air Data Computer. Which feeds into a 4 channel DFCC, with 4 seperate power sources, running the same code in 4 channels, with measures to cross check code integrity. There is likely an autocorrect feature, wherein the pilot can just revert to a simple FCS configuration.

So, if the code is heavily tested and verified. Then a likely issue could be sensor failure. But even they are redundant. Even the ADC must be having redundancy (common sense, why go all that trouble to make double sets of sensors and not implement that in the ADC).

Pitching can be due to improper AoA inputs or a stuck or glitching elevon. If not the former, perhaps a hardware failure in the analog controller that runs the elevon? In both these cases, even if a "safe" mode FCS was activated, it would still struggle if it had wrong data to base its simplified calculations off of, or if the elevon kept glitching and the FCS couldnt compensate for this unintended error.

Or perhaps, like you said, the data channel that runs from the DFCC was compromised in some manner? A high pressure hydraulic leak that cut out the ECS and the DFCC and only intermittent outputs got through.

So, yes, the connectors, interfaces, splices could well be the ones responsible. Cant have quad/ redundancy at every level, the aircraft simply doesnt have enough space, weight considerations apart.

k prasad · Post by **k prasad** » 16 Aug 2021 23:54

Is the Tejas' relaxed static stability in roll or pitch? I remember it was roll, but not sure.

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 17 Aug 2021 00:48

The pilot went beyond the call of duty and landed the aircraft taking calculated risks. This allowed an accurate analysis of the fault on the indigenously designed fighter and further institution of preventive measures against recurrence. Due to his high order of professionalism, composure and quick decision making, even at the peril to his life, he not only averted the loss of an LCA, but also safeguarded civilian property and population on ground.

From the citation.

So hopefully the problem was diagnosed and fixed.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 17 Aug 2021 07:24

https://twitter.com/Mave_Intel/status/1 ... 95468?s=20 ---->

No.18 Sqn, Indian Air Force,

Flying Bullets equipped with LCA Tejas

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 17 Aug 2021 13:47

Barath wrote:An old question that came up.

In 2017, IAF was trying to persuade MoD of need for SEF / (now MMRCA) and that Tejas cannot substitute.

https://thediplomat.com/2017/11/indian- ... ian-skies/

IAF talked of 59 minutes of combat endurance for Tejas vs 3 hrs for Gripen and ~4 for F-16. and payload of ~3 t for Tejas vs 6+ for Gripen and 7 for F-16

Retards didn't have the intelligence to ask ADA to create mmrca equivalent twin engine fighter in 80s? We can't depend of India's Air security on such a lot.

Which grippen carries 6 ton and flies 3 hours maneuvering like Tejas?

Not even paper plane grippen E can do it.

Addicted to IMPORT they accepted Mirage with weaker engines and no weapons, took faulty SEPECATS and worked hard to correct the fault.

But have all nakhras for Swadeshi Fighter.

ashishvikas · Post by **ashishvikas** » 17 Aug 2021 19:19

BIG NEWS!!!!

HAL has placed an order of for USD 716 million (Rs 5375 crores) for 99 F404-GE-IN20 engines and support services with GE Aviation, USA to power the Tejas Light Combat Aircraft. The contract was signed today at HAL Corporate Office.

https://twitter.com/ReviewVayu/status/1 ... 99973?s=19

MORE BIG NEWS!!

"Ordering of the engines, marks a major milestone in the execution of 83 LCA contract with IAF. The co-operation will be further enhanced with the manufacturing of GE F414 engines in India for the upcoming LCA MkII programme"

https://twitter.com/ReviewVayu/status/1 ... 00290?s=19

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 17 Aug 2021 19:47

Amen! More power to the Tejas program!

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 17 Aug 2021 22:05

f404-in 20 or something better?

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 17 Aug 2021 22:11

At this stage in the game, F404-IN20 is the way to go. Let them commence with the production of the Mk1A (as per their schedule) and not add any new complications i.e. a better F404 turbofan.

The screwdrivergiri of the F414 turbofan will be good for India, when her own turbofan for the AMCA comes on the scene.