Air Force Tejas Mk1A: News & Discussions: 02 January 2022

[V_Raman]

If IAF/IN is serious about more Mk1A - then this is the time to talk to GE about more engines so they can place orders in their supply chain.

[Vayutuvan]

I wish LCA Tejas was built around a Russian or French engine, but I guess planners got obsessed with tech specs of engines (in which GE engines are the best) and did not consider strategic aspects. That was poor decision making.

Are Russians reliable going forward? They seem to be in a bind in that they have to choose between Sona Bandar or Eleven Jin Pegs. If they make up with Orange-u-tang, their southeastern border with Sugarland might become warm. China might start salami slicing just like they were trying to do in Ladakh.

Chinese need Russian oil. That may prevent China for a few years before they turn on Russia.

That leaves only France. And ofc our own defence labs/private industry.

[Rakesh]

If IAF/IN is serious about more Mk1A - then this is the time to talk to GE about more engines so they can place orders in their supply chain.

Interest in the Tejas (from the services) is equivalent to what is doled out in their "Atmanirbhar Bharat" speeches that they give.

* The follow-on 97 Mk1A order should have been sanctioned a lot earlier
* There is zero movement on talking to GE about a second contract for GE F404 turbofans, for the 97 order.
* Discussions on the GE F414 turbofan is stuck at 99 turbofans and that will translate to only around 5 squadrons (~20 aircraft each)

There is no seriousness whatsoever. The services' track record is this;

1) Let the Su-30MKI fleet languish for upgrades, because their precious CAPEX had to be set aside for the MRFA boondoggle.

2) When the Super Sukhoi upgrade was finally sanctioned, it was for a mere 84 airframes (against 260+ in service) and over a 7 year period.

3) Starved the TEDBF program of funding, because Rafale M had to be inducted at all costs. If not 54 aircraft in one go (the original MRCBF requirement), then do 26 as a first tranche and order the rest later.

But will give gyan on Atmanirbhar Bharat at every Navy Day, Air Force Day, Independence Day, Republic Day, etc.

[Bharadwaj]

Given the present situation, it would make sense for DRDO to at least have a small team looking at the possibility of integrating the m88. I am quite sure if this scenario heads into secondary sanctions we will lose the f404/414 supply. The state department specifically spoke of secondary sanctions(not tariffs) today. The rd93 infused with the same technologies as the 177s can also be a possibility. The Russians are promising 6000hr life for the 177s. Even 4000 hrs would be acceptable rather than letting the Tejas program die. I am not panicking or exaggerating- the situation is heading beyond what any of us foresaw.

[Manish_P]

^^ depressing reading, Admiral sir.

Well GoI can divert all the funds to Missiles. Who needs aircraft when you have missiles hain...

[basant]

I wish LCA Tejas was built around a Russian or French engine, but I guess planners got obsessed with tech specs of engines (in which GE engines are the best) and did not consider strategic aspects. That was poor decision making.

I am dead certain that LCA Mk-1, Mk-2 are not only designed with F-4X4 in mind, but are so well-designed that you can't find a replacement. It does not take much brains to avoid this pitfall, after all LCA was sanctioned already in its infancy by the USA. The fact that it continued, and was extended to Mk-2 and then again to TEDBF to carefully eliminate any possibility of using Kaveri tells you a different story. In designing a strategic weapon such as a/c, you need to have backup plans. That there are none is a testimony to the vision and intent of IAF.

For instance, we could have gone for an equivalent of Mirage 4000 with 2 Kaveri engines. FWIW, it would be sanction-proof and would continue to fly. Imagine the type of leadership we got. For all the patriotism that ex-IAF officers rumble about, I am yet to see a few who strongly criticized IAF for shelving Kaveri. That's the Holy cow ecosystem one needs to take on, and quite predictably, civilian leadership is always apprehensive and hesitant to discipline.

[Cain Marko]

I wish LCA Tejas was built around a Russian or French engine, but I guess planners got obsessed with tech specs of engines (in which GE engines are the best) and did not consider strategic aspects. That was poor decision making.

I am dead certain that LCA Mk-1, Mk-2 are not only designed with F-4X4 in mind, but are so well-designed that you can't find a replacement. It does not take much brains to avoid this pitfall, after all LCA was sanctioned already in its infancy by the USA. The fact that it continued, and was extended to Mk-2 and then again to TEDBF to carefully eliminate any possibility of using Kaveri tells you a different story. In designing a strategic weapon such as a/c, you need to have backup plans. That there are none is a testimony to the vision and intent of IAF.

For instance, we could have gone for an equivalent of Mirage 4000 with 2 Kaveri engines. FWIW, it would be sanction-proof and would continue to fly. Imagine the type of leadership we got. For all the patriotism that ex-IAF officers rumble about, I am yet to see a few who strongly criticized IAF for shelving Kaveri. That's the Holy cow ecosystem one needs to take on, and quite predictably, civilian leadership is always apprehensive and hesitant to discipline.

Agree with most of what you say except what is highlighted. I'm sorry but the engine decision rests largely on BRFs sacred cow, the ADA. And of course, HAL. Their penchant for high tech has again jeopardized the LCA program and the national security equation.

In fact one reason that the iaf was reluctant to support the LCA program was precisely this bias towards US tech, which the iaf had never been comfortable with. From the very beginning they pushed for a simpler design and more effective delivery times. At every stage the iaf was against the use of US tech, even as late as 2018.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dnaind ... 320196/amp

The Navy was smarter and played along, pretending to be pro desi in it's equipment acquisitions, nevermind the fact that this desi tilt was largely a result of the anemic budget they get vs the iaf and army.

It was obvious to anyone with with half a brain and an iota of common sense that the LCA would never have enough power for carrier ops (when the iaf was complaining about thrust issues). They pushed for the nlca only to finally reject it at the last moment. Trust me, even if the mk2 based on the 414 comes thru, it'll still have thrust issues in stobar carriers.

The one area that I do hold the iaf and navy responsible is the point that they could've pushed harder for an lca built around the al31 or a twin engined design as you suggested, even if it turned out to be just a tad better than the mig29..

What to do wonlee, this is my reading of the situation.