LCA TEJAS MK1 & MK1A: News and Discussion

[Enquirer]

https://economictimes.indiatimes.co...-to-defence-ministry/articleshow/67723715.cms

LCA Tejas Mk1A delay

Issues raised by IAF:
- Price validity period in HAL tender needs to be 18 months (& not 12 months)
- Delivery schedule needs to be better
- Range of the Mk1A not adequate

The first one is easily fixable, second issue can also be worked out.
But how the f**k will the last issue be resolved (is it resolved by just making a bigger external tank)?

 

[rone]

https://economictimes.indiatimes.co...-to-defence-ministry/articleshow/67723715.cms

LCA Tejas Mk1A delay

Issues raised by IAF:
- Price validity period in HAL tender needs to be 18 months (& not 12 months)
- Delivery schedule needs to be better
- Range of the Mk1A not adequate

The first one is easily fixable, second issue can also be worked out.
But how the f**k will the last issue be resolved (is it resolved by just making a bigger external tank)?

Without enlargement of body I think it's hard ,

 

[Enquirer]

Without enlargement of body I think it's hard ,

That's out of question for Mk1A!
Only possible solution is to enlarge the external tanks; else Mk1A is dead!

 

[G10]

I dont get this. LCA is lightest combat aircraft in the world. It should carry more arms over longer range unless ADA and other organizations are noobs at designing one.

 

[Kay]

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.

For some time, IAF leadership had decided to put personal interests before that of the country. One former chief was found connected to a foreign chopper scam and another to foreign trainer aircrafts scam.
This calls for restructuring the leadership. IAF has to be cut down to size. Start creating theater commands. Transfer ownership of combat helicopters to army.

 

[Narasimh]

I thought there will be at least one prototype of mk1A. how HAL plans to start producing it?
How would they evaluate the repositioning of LRUs, removal of ballast and stuff?

 

[HariPrasad-1]

Without enlargement of body I think it's hard ,

Aerodynamic improvements and raising of canopy will allow 60 kg additional fuel. Aerodynamic improvements will allow tejasTto fly faster which shall improve fuel efficiency. Moreover, Tejas has a lots of space in cabin and behind pilot sear which may be used to put few hundred kg more fuel.

 

[cyclops]

https://economictimes.indiatimes.co...-to-defence-ministry/articleshow/67723715.cms

LCA Tejas Mk1A delay

Issues raised by IAF:
- Price validity period in HAL tender needs to be 18 months (& not 12 months)
- Delivery schedule needs to be better
- Range of the Mk1A not adequate

The first one is easily fixable, second issue can also be worked out.
But how the f**k will the last issue be resolved (is it resolved by just making a bigger external tank)?

The ferry range is good.
It's the delivery schedule that's the problem.
From the article:

However, the IAF officials said it received two responses in last 15 days but the responses are still not in line with its requirements.

“A fresh delivery schedule was submitted on January 16, 2019 while on January 22, HAL submitted that the ferry range of the aircraft is in compliance with RFP requirements. The Technical Evaluation Committee report has been finalised and the delivery schedule now proposed by HAL, however, remains a non-compliance, for which the IAF is approaching Defence Acquisition Council," they said.

 

[Enquirer]

The ferry range is good.
It's the delivery schedule that's the problem.
From the article:

However, the IAF officials said it received two responses in last 15 days but the responses are still not in line with its requirements.

“A fresh delivery schedule was submitted on January 16, 2019 while on January 22, HAL submitted that the ferry range of the aircraft is in compliance with RFP requirements. The Technical Evaluation Committee report has been finalised and the delivery schedule now proposed by HAL, however, remains a non-compliance, for which the IAF is approaching Defence Acquisition Council," they said.

It's not completely clear though! Because before that statement there's this:

"However, the IAF officials said it received two responses in last 15 days but the responses are still not in line with its requirements.
responses -> plural

HAL responded that the ferry range is in compliance with RFP, but it's not clear if IAF has accepted that claim.

 

[vampyrbladez]

It's not completely clear though! Because before that statement there's this:

"However, the IAF officials said it received two responses in last 15 days but the responses are still not in line with its requirements.
responses -> plural

HAL responded that the ferry range is in compliance with RFP, but it's not clear if IAF has accepted that claim.

Main issue is delivery schedule as HAL has a habit of running late. Ferry range is alright if it meets RFP issued by CCS/DAC.

 

[Enquirer]

Main issue is delivery schedule as HAL has a habit of running late. Ferry range is alright if it meets RFP issued by CCS/DAC.

IAF is claiming that Mk1A doesn't meet the RFP requirements. It's not clear if the matter has been settled to the liking of IAF.

 

[cyclops]

It's not completely clear though! Because before that statement there's this:

"However, the IAF officials said it received two responses in last 15 days but the responses are still not in line with its requirements.
responses -> plural

HAL responded that the ferry range is in compliance with RFP, but it's not clear if IAF has accepted that claim.

If the article is correct and HAL is not lying on an official document that might just be made public in the future then the ferry range issue is probably as per the IAF RFP, I don't see IAF officer's quote claiming non-compliance for the ferry range but for the delivery schedule.

"Requirements" might just be referring to other requirements heretofore not mentioned in the article. These things are usually more comprehensive than just 1 or 2 problems and probably that's what IAF took to the Defence Ministry.

Eitherway, we won't know the complete story and until a government agency makes an official announcement about the issue we won't know wtf is going on.
Coz usually, the journalists are either willfully negligent or just through sheer incompetence edit their reportage in such a fashion that alters the initial story to a large degree. Even adding a punctuation mark here or there might give a completely different result.

 

[Enquirer]

If the article is correct and HAL is not lying on an official document that might just be made public in the future then the ferry range issue is probably as per the IAF RFP, I don't see IAF officer's quote claiming non-compliance for the ferry range but for the delivery schedule.

"Requirements" might just be referring to other requirements heretofore not mentioned in the article. These things are usually more comprehensive than just 1 or 2 problems and probably that's what IAF took to the Defence Ministry.

Eitherway, we won't know the complete story and until a government agency makes an official announcement about the issue we won't know wtf is going on.
Coz usually, the journalists are either willfully negligent or just through sheer incompetence edit their reportage in such a fashion that alters the initial story to a large degree. Even adding a punctuation mark here or there might give a completely different result.

Yes, the quality of reporting is generally very poor. The nutjob journalists don't even ask follow-up questions to seek clarifications! The desi babus also don't know to make clear and comprehensive statements - they normally speak in some discordant staccato style!

One would think that it would be ludicrous for IAF to argue about ferry range at this point in time, but knowing how IA and DRDO communicated with each other on Arjun Mk2 (where IA asked for so many heavy add-ons but expected no increase in weight without actually saying so, and DRDO didn't even communicate their weight increase projection until several years later when the new tank was ready!) I wouldn't be surprised if IAF, HAL, ADA are playing a similar Chinese whisper!

 

[cannonfodder]

If the article is correct and HAL is not lying on an official document that might just be made public in the future then the ferry range issue is probably as per the IAF RFP, I don't see IAF officer's quote claiming non-compliance for the ferry range but for the delivery schedule.

"Requirements" might just be referring to other requirements heretofore not mentioned in the article. These things are usually more comprehensive than just 1 or 2 problems and probably that's what IAF took to the Defence Ministry.

Eitherway, we won't know the complete story and until a government agency makes an official announcement about the issue we won't know wtf is going on.
Coz usually, the journalists are either willfully negligent or just through sheer incompetence edit their reportage in such a fashion that alters the initial story to a large degree. Even adding a punctuation mark here or there might give a completely different result.

Wasn't air 2 air refueling tested to close the deficiency of shorter ferry/combat range. What IAF is looking for is unclear in report (usual of defence related reporting standard).

 

[cyclops]

As per the 114th 2018-19 Public Accounts Committee presented to the Lok Sabha on December of 2018, apparently IAF VCAS stated that Tejas can fire both the Astra & Derby.

I don't know on what context he is saying so, might just be that some initial tests of both the missiles have been done on the Tejas coz we know the full BVR integration hasn't been completed as of yet.

 

[Chinmoy]

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



Clearly you were talking about IAF's problem with price

You just picked up one line from the whole para and so it looked like that for you. I would requote myself here.

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.

Here I am talking of price validity. In my second post I just expanded the view.

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.

This is not my assumption. As I said earlier, a price validity period is needed to brush off the various knick knacks of a proposal. These are generally technical in nature. In case of a multi vendor approach, it is a deciding factor as it do take time for technical evaluation of products and it is a security that during all this evaluation period, the quoted price doesn't change at time of order.

But in case of Tejas, it was a single vendor contract. IAF had to evaluate just one system and if they had not been able to do it in 1 year, what they could achieve in further 6 months. IAF is simply hanging to one laid down procedure and is sticking to the point instead of coming to terms and change it. IAF knew about the price validity on March 2018 itself and now when its nearing March 2019, they are moving to MOD.

I mean in one year all IAF had came up with is,
1- Deferred range aspect, which as per HAL has been resolved and fresh proposal submitted.
2- Non compliance of delivery schedule. A genuine concern, but which could be worked out in one year time frame.
3- Price validity period. Again, if IAF could not have come to order in one year period, what more would change in another 6 month that they would order?

Out of the three, the only technical issue IAF has pointed is sorted out. 6 month extension is not going to solve the delivery schedule any way.

 

[Defcon 1]

You just picked up one line from the whole para and so it looked like that for you. I would requote myself here.



Here I am talking of price validity. In my second post I just expanded the view.

Next time, instead of trying to explain me what you wrote, please try to write accurately in the first time itself. Will save all of us a lot of time.

This is not my assumption. As I said earlier, a price validity period is needed to brush off the various knick knacks of a proposal. These are generally technical in nature. In case of a multi vendor approach, it is a deciding factor as it do take time for technical evaluation of products and it is a security that during all this evaluation period, the quoted price doesn't change at time of order.

But in case of Tejas, it was a single vendor contract. IAF had to evaluate just one system and if they had not been able to do it in 1 year, what they could achieve in further 6 months. IAF is simply hanging to one laid down procedure and is sticking to the point instead of coming to terms and change it. IAF knew about the price validity on March 2018 itself and now when its nearing March 2019, they are moving to MOD.

Did you even read the article? It clearly mentions that IAF had raised the two points about ferry range and delivery schedule by October 2018. Therefore IAF had finished evaluating the proposal in less than 6 months. That is why they hadn't asked to increase the price validity at that time.Now since HAL took another 4 months to respond to queries asked in October 2018, price validity is a problem. It is actually HAL's fault that they violated the DPP in the first place. Why didn't HAL give 18 month price validity to begin with?

I mean in one year all IAF had came up with is,
1- Deferred range aspect, which as per HAL has been resolved and fresh proposal submitted.
2- Non compliance of delivery schedule. A genuine concern, but which could be worked out in one year time frame.
3- Price validity period. Again, if IAF could not have come to order in one year period, what more would change in another 6 month that they would order?

Out of the three, the only technical issue IAF has pointed is sorted out. 6 month extension is not going to solve the delivery schedule any way.

As I said, you need to read the article clearly. HAL's response came only by January 22. And immediately after that IAF is moving to MOD. How is IAF responsible for the delay here?

 

[Enquirer]

As per the 114th 2018-19 Public Accounts Committee presented to the Lok Sabha on December of 2018, apparently IAF VCAS stated that Tejas can fire both the Astra & Derby.
View attachment 31469
I don't know on what context he is saying so, might just be that some initial tests of both the missiles have been done on the Tejas coz we know the full BVR integration hasn't been completed as of yet.

Here's an article from 2017 that states that 'mechanical' integration with Astra was to commence soon then.
However, the radar integration was supposed to commence in early 2019. Even if everything went according to schedule radar integration work is definitely not complete, as such no target firing would have happened as of now.

http://idrw.org/astra-bvraam-integration-work-for-lca-tejas-to-begin-soon-report/

 

[cyclops]

GTRE TO BE FULLY AUTONOMOUS?

 

[Chinmoy]

Next time, instead of trying to explain me what you wrote, please try to write accurately in the first time itself. Will save all of us a lot of time.



Did you even read the article? It clearly mentions that IAF had raised the two points about ferry range and delivery schedule by October 2018. Therefore IAF had finished evaluating the proposal in less than 6 months. That is why they hadn't asked to increase the price validity at that time.Now since HAL took another 4 months to respond to queries asked in October 2018, price validity is a problem. It is actually HAL's fault that they violated the DPP in the first place. Why didn't HAL give 18 month price validity to begin with?


As I said, you need to read the article clearly. HAL's response came only by January 22. And immediately after that IAF is moving to MOD. How is IAF responsible for the delay here?

It seems that you have read the article thoroughly. Now could you just make clear few of the points here?

“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.

“A fresh delivery schedule was submitted on January 16, 2019 while on January 22, HAL submitted that the ferry range of the aircraft is in compliance with RFP requirements. The Technical Evaluation Committee report has been finalised and the delivery schedule now proposed by HAL, however, remains a non-compliance, for which the IAF is approaching Defence Acquisition Council," they said.

So here by January 22 HAL had submitted a revised proposal where in the ferry range issue has been sorted out. But now IAF is approaching MoD for delivery schedule. That's fine. But could you kindly shed light on what took IAF its own sweet time of 6 months to evaluate 1 RFP? What was the evaluation committee doing in all these days? And at the end of of 6 months, they have just came out with one technical point of ferry range and that too got sorted out.

Officials said the case for procurement had to be taken two times more to the DAC, after initial sanction, by the government as the sanction for a programme is valid only for six months.

Now could you kindly enlighten the fact that when the DAC sanction in itself is valid for 6 months, why is IAF crying on the 12 month validity period by HAl? Its ok that it is a norm, but by going through single vendor approach IAF is deviating from norm. Then why on earth they are stuck with the validity point? The delivery schedule is a valid point and there is nothing to argue on it.

And for your kind information, in any kind of RFP, there is a provision for time extension on price validity. It could vary but the general term is of 90 to 120 days. Raising an issue on that point is simply absurd.

In my opinion IAF is simply dilly delaying the project.