LCA TEJAS MK1 & MK1A: News and Discussion

[vampyrbladez]

Show me the money honey

Come budget 2019 after elections, money will automatically present itself.

 

[cobra commando]

HAL To Build Tejas Trainers For Indian Air Force

 

[rone]

so basically mk1a config was predefined yrs before it considering ..looks like a prophecy ..this one is from threshold trident blog which he wrote abt mk1a config long back..

also, it doesn't have any structural modifications that why it doesn't need separate foc?

 

[Enquirer]

so basically mk1a config was predefined yrs before it considering ..looks like a prophecy ..this one is from threshold trident blog which he wrote abt mk1a config long back..

also, it doesn't have any structural modifications that why it doesn't need separate foc?

You're giving unnecessary credit to Trishul blog! He was COMPLETELY wrong on Tejas Mk1A all along!

Initially he denied the very existence of Mk1A for years, even though HAL and Parrikar were publicly making statements on Mk1A. He claimed that all of them were blowing hot air, and that only Mk2 (with full structural redesign) is the only viable option for Tejas.

Even after the dude accepted the existence of Mk1A, he had relentlessly claimed that the SPJ will NEVER be carried externally (due to drag effects!).

All these nutjobs are just tossing a coin. Half the time they'll claim that their 'prediction' came true, and the other half they'll claim that if not for the wind effect their prediction would have come true!

 

[rone]

You're giving unnecessary credit to Trishul blog! He was COMPLETELY wrong on Tejas Mk1A all along!

Initially he denied the very existence of Mk1A for years, even though HAL and Parrikar were publicly making statements on Mk1A. He claimed that all of them were blowing hot air, and that only Mk2 (with full structural redesign) is the only viable option for Tejas.

Even after the dude accepted the existence of Mk1A, he had relentlessly claimed that the SPJ will NEVER be carried externally (due to drag effects!).

All these nutjobs are just tossing a coin. Half the time they'll claim that their 'prediction' came true, and the other half they'll claim that if not for the wind effect their prediction would have come true!

am not saying whatever said was true am saying abt this hal leaflet.. look at it ..the recent rfi win and 2021 induction without mk1a separate foc for me all it came to light now, anyway my question is this will be the final loadout configuration for mk1a with any structural modification becoz Elta 2052 little bit larger i think..

also, why don't they add one more station for SPJ like LDP station it can mono utility station anyway

 

[Enquirer]

am not saying whatever said was true am saying abt this hal leaflet.. look at it ..the recent rfi win and 2021 induction without mk1a separate foc for me all it came to light now, anyway my question is this will be the final loadout configuration for mk1a with any structural modification becoz Elta 2052 little bit larger i think..

also, why don't they add one more station for SPJ like LDP station it can mono utility station anyway

The 'leaflet' is not created by Trishul! It actually came from ADA/HAL. He has a habit of watermarking ALL pics he posts on his blog, even if he doesn't have copyright over them.
Since Mk1A was conceived to be without any structural modifications, extensive tests for 'air worthiness' weren't deemed as necessary right from the start. 2052 (though slightly bigger and heavier in power requirements) will fit in existing nose of Tejas.

Adding another 'station' means 'structural modifications' to the airframe, which they wanted to avoid. One thought was to fit the current LDP station with 'twin' railing (like the one used for the SRAAM station). Maybe the load factor and space didn't permit.

 

[rone]

The 'leaflet' is not created by Trishul! It actually came from ADA/HAL. He has a habit of watermarking ALL pics he posts on his blog, even if he doesn't have copyright over them.
Since Mk1A was conceived to be without any structural modifications, extensive tests for 'air worthiness' weren't deemed as necessary right from the start. 2052 (though slightly bigger and heavier in power requirements) will fit in existing nose of Tejas.

Adding another 'station' means 'structural modifications' to the airframe, which they wanted to avoid. One thought was to fit the current LDP station with 'twin' railing (like the one used for the SRAAM station). Maybe the load factor and space didn't permit.

cool. but another dedicated station for SPJ will be a gud idea becoz using in wing pylons it is consuming a possible short-range aam space, but anyway am happy to see these upgrades ...

one more question how it will be pitted against JF17 bk3 which have AESA,IRST(am not sure just see in PDF), and improved weapon load, and a new engine, also is it possible to refit mk1a with f414 engines(which is more powerful than f404)?

 

[Enquirer]

cool. but another dedicated station for SPJ will be a gud idea becoz using in wing pylons it is consuming a possible short-range aam space, but anyway am happy to see these upgrades ...

one more question how it will be pitted against JF17 bk3 which have AESA,IRST(am not sure just see in PDF), and improved weapon load, and a new engine, also is it possible to refit mk1a with f414 engines(which is more powerful than f404)?

I think they are trying to minimize structural modifications that might add more time (after this long, one might argue that it's not a big deal for some more additional work!)

JF17's proposed AESA radar is not very powerful when compared to ELM 2052 (on Tejas) in terms of range, number of targets tracked etc. It's a cheap chinese knock-off radar specifically made for JF17.

Just like the first few pancakes always turn out less than perfect and then you toss it to your dog, all components that go into JF17 are like that....

JF17 doesn't compare with Tejas even from flight control perspective. Tejas has full fly-by-wire; JF17 has FBW only in one of the three axis, it's engine doesn't have FADEC...

All said and done, any fighter with BVRAAM should not be taken too lightly....

Mk1A will NEVER be fitted with F414 (as the engine size is bigger for the fuselage diameter).

 

[rone]

I think they are trying to minimize structural modifications that might add more time (after this long, one might argue that it's not a big deal for some more additional work!)

JF17's proposed AESA radar is not very powerful when compared to ELM 2052 (on Tejas) in terms of range, number of targets tracked etc. It's a cheap chinese knock-off radar specifically made for JF17.

Just like the first few pancakes always turn out less than perfect and then you toss it to your dog, all components that go into JF17 are like that....

JF17 doesn't compare with Tejas even from flight control perspective. Tejas has full fly-by-wire; JF17 has FBW only in one of the three axis, it's engine doesn't have FADEC...

All said and done, any fighter with BVRAAM should not be taken too lightly....

Mk1A will NEVER be fitted with F414 (as the engine size is bigger for the fuselage diameter).

are u sure abt f404 and f414

Specifications (F404-GE-402)
General characteristics

• Type: Afterburning turbofan
• Length: 154 in (391 cm)
• Diameter: 35 in (89 cm)
• Dry weight: 2,282 lb (1,036 kg)

Specifications (F414-400)
Data from GE Aviation[27] and Deagal.com[28]

General characteristics

• Type: Afterburning turbofan
• Length: 154 in (391 cm)
• Diameter: 35 in (89 cm)
• Dry weight: 2,445 lb (1,110 kg) max weight

 

[Enquirer]

are u sure abt f404 and f414

Specifications (F404-GE-402)
General characteristics

• Type: Afterburning turbofan
• Length: 154 in (391 cm)
• Diameter: 35 in (89 cm)
• Dry weight: 2,282 lb (1,036 kg)

Specifications (F414-400)
Data from GE Aviation[27] and Deagal.com[28]

General characteristics

• Type: Afterburning turbofan
• Length: 154 in (391 cm)
• Diameter: 35 in (89 cm)
• Dry weight: 2,445 lb (1,110 kg) max weight

That's misleading specs. It's the max diameter that's being mentioned. The inlet diameters are different.
The very reason Mk2 (with new design) came into existence was to accommodate the bigger engine - everything else in Mk2 is more like 'since we are redesigning....might as well do this...."

 

[Saichand K]

On a separate topic, does anyone has a idea of what LSPs are being used for what tests... i know LSP-8 is being used for Air-air refuelling tests. What about other LSPs?

 

[Saichand K]

are u sure abt f404 and f414

Specifications (F404-GE-402)
General characteristics

• Type: Afterburning turbofan
• Length: 154 in (391 cm)
• Diameter: 35 in (89 cm)
• Dry weight: 2,282 lb (1,036 kg)

Specifications (F414-400)
Data from GE Aviation[27] and Deagal.com[28]

General characteristics

• Type: Afterburning turbofan
• Length: 154 in (391 cm)
• Diameter: 35 in (89 cm)
• Dry weight: 2,445 lb (1,110 kg) max weight

Not just the size of the engine, using more powerful engine requires structural changes such as increase in air-intakes. This will further modify the airframe. Hence F414 will be in Mk2.

 

[darshan978]

are u sure abt f404 and f414

Specifications (F404-GE-402)
General characteristics

• Type: Afterburning turbofan
• Length: 154 in (391 cm)
• Diameter: 35 in (89 cm)
• Dry weight: 2,282 lb (1,036 kg)

Specifications (F414-400)
Data from GE Aviation[27] and Deagal.com[28]

General characteristics

• Type: Afterburning turbofan
• Length: 154 in (391 cm)
• Diameter: 35 in (89 cm)
• Dry weight: 2,445 lb (1,110 kg) max weight

Figures are fake on wiki pedia
Ge f 414 has slightly bigger fan
And diameter

 

[dumdumdum]

Sunday Morning good news !!

Tejas - LCA
29 mins ·
14th series produced Tejas, LA - 5014 had her maiden flight yesterday. The 13th member will follow soon. The competition between the two assembly hangars is intensifying. Competition, in one sense, is a symbol of better future.

 

[patriots]

Sp 14 first flight...sp13 to follow....

Hal will deliver sp 16 before march end.....

 

[Defcon 1]

IAF to take HAL's LCA Tejas' non-compliant proposal to Defence Ministry

According to this, HAL's response to RFP was unsatisfactory and it was communicated to them back in Oct 2018. And some defence blogger had wrongly claimed that IAF's TEC has been "sitting" on LCA Mk1A proposal for over 10 months.

It is because of those stupid articles that IAF gets a bad reputation about not wanting to support indigenization where as DRDO and PSUs always get away with unable to develop or produce quality weapons on time.

 

[Chinmoy]

IAF to take HAL's LCA Tejas' non-compliant proposal to Defence Ministry

According to this, HAL's response to RFP was unsatisfactory and it was communicated to them back in Oct 2018. And some defence blogger had wrongly claimed that IAF's TEC has been "sitting" on LCA Mk1A proposal for over 10 months.

It is because of those stupid articles that IAF gets a bad reputation about not wanting to support indigenization where as DRDO and PSUs always get away with unable to develop or produce quality weapons on time.

From the news item.

“There were three major defects in their response to the RFP. The PSU offer on price and other aspects was valid only for 12 months whereas the procurement procedure mandates it to be minimum 18 months and the delivery schedule offered by the HAL was not in compliance with our requirements," top IAF officials told ANI.

RFP has been issued in March 2018 and its almost coming to be a year now. IAF for all this near 12 month is stuck up with the 6 month extension. What good they would achieve with it? If they can't do anything in 12 month, what more they think to achieve in 6 month? Moreover its a single vendor contract, so instead of sticking to a point, they should have worked on it. If they would have ordered the fighter by now, the price would not have been a problem for them.

“The endurance levels or the amount of time for which the aircraft can fly have also not been found to be very optimal. We had told the HAL that the ferry range of the aircraft was not compliant with requirements put in the tender by us," the officials said.

IAF knows well about its ferry range and still there is difference between what is demanded and what is offered. It again shows that IAF is sticking to what is not there with the product.

Its just a LUDO game being played by IAF and HAL.

 

[Defcon 1]

From the news item.



RFP has been issued in March 2018 and its almost coming to be a year now. IAF for all this near 12 month is stuck up with the 6 month extension. What good they would achieve with it? If they can't do anything in 12 month, what more they think to achieve in 6 month? Moreover its a single vendor contract, so instead of sticking to a point, they should have worked on it. If they would have ordered the fighter by now, the price would not have been a problem for them.



IAF knows well about its ferry range and still there is difference between what is demanded and what is offered. It again shows that IAF is sticking to what is not there with the product.

Its just a LUDO game being played by IAF and HAL.

Please read the article properly. No where it is written that IAF had a problem with price. 3 main concerns were:
1. Low validity of PSU offer on price- in violation of the procurement procedure
2. Low ferry range
3. Non compliance with the delivery schedule

IAF is not demanding a ferry range from what is different in the product. According to HAL itself, the ferry range in their response is according to the RFP. IAF has agreed on range parameter as well. The only sticking problem is now delivery schedule, which is completely HAL's fault.

 

[Chinmoy]

Please read the article properly. No where it is written that IAF had a problem with price. 3 main concerns were:
1. Low validity of PSU offer on price- in violation of the procurement procedure
2. Low ferry range
3. Non compliance with the delivery schedule

IAF is not demanding a ferry range from what is different in the product. According to HAL itself, the ferry range in their response is according to the RFP. IAF has agreed on range parameter as well. The only sticking problem is now delivery schedule, which is completely HAL's fault.

No where I said that IAF has problem with price. I am only saying their attitude towards the validity of the price. In a single vendor tender, when there is any discrepancies in price validity, which generally occurs, a team is set up to look at the cause and a show cause is sent to the vendor. Based on the response, it is decided whether the validity term should be changed on not. But it seems IAF had overlooked this single vendor aspect in this RFP.

Usually a price validity period is for the evaluation team to work on various knick and knack of the offer which is mainly technical and procedural which crops up during the billing. But in this case, IAF is working on the technical aspect for past how many years? They have the complete brochure of Tejas with them before issuing the RFP. In this case it clearly shows the mindset that they are not eager to settle up their internal financial decision making and pushing it on vendor.

As far as ferry range is concerned, again they are well known of its capability before hand. Again being a single vendor situation, this could have been easily sorted out. One doesn't need a year to sort it out. HAL has said that the ferry range issue has been sorted out, which indicated that it was not a major technical point.

Non compliance of delivery schedule is what really is a HAL problem. Now what number IAF is demanding out of HAL per year is somewhat to look at. As I have already mentioned, higher demand on part of IAF would result HAL to increase the production and assembly line. But lower demand would compel HAL to work with existing infra and this would result in delay of delivery.

 

[Defcon 1]

No where I said that IAF has problem with price.

Dude, please don't lie now. Maybe you made an honest mistake earlier but you wrote this:

If they would have ordered the fighter by now, the price would not have been a problem for them.

Clearly you were talking about IAF's problem with price

I am only saying their attitude towards the validity of the price. In a single vendor tender, when there is any discrepancies in price validity, which generally occurs, a team is set up to look at the cause and a show cause is sent to the vendor. Based on the response, it is decided whether the validity term should be changed on not. But it seems IAF had overlooked this single vendor aspect in this RFP.

Usually a price validity period is for the evaluation team to work on various knick and knack of the offer which is mainly technical and procedural which crops up during the billing. But in this case, IAF is working on the technical aspect for past how many years? They have the complete brochure of Tejas with them before issuing the RFP. In this case it clearly shows the mindset that they are not eager to settle up their internal financial decision making and pushing it on vendor.

Non compliance of delivery schedule is what really is a HAL problem. Now what number IAF is demanding out of HAL per year is somewhat to look at. As I have already mentioned, higher demand on part of IAF would result HAL to increase the production and assembly line. But lower demand would compel HAL to work with existing infra and this would result in delay of delivery.

This is simply your assumption. It is quite possible that evaluating HAL's response would actually take 18 months, which is why DPP asks for 18 month evaluation time. Regardless, IAF didn't make it a sticking point. IAF only asked responses for other two points.

Also, how do you know that the delivery schedule problem is due to lower demand and not HAL's general incompetence? Because as I see it, HAL has a unique ability to delay production even in projects of huge demands. MKI and Dhruv manufacturing are prime examples. 1300 crores were approved years ago to expand Tejas manufacturing capacity, but as per HAL's MD interview few days back, they will still continue producing 8 Tejas per annum till 2022.

Btw, my point in my original post was that IAF gets very wrong reputation of being anti indigenization because of stupid articles of some defence bloggers, where as much bigger crimes by DRDO and PSUs go un-noticed. I am not here to bash HAL.