ADA Tejas (LCA) News and Discussions

[Superdefender]

See above, this is what is happening.

I was talking about modular approach in Tejas.

 

[abingdonboy]

I was talking about modular approach in Tejas.

Yes, this is what is going to happen (and already is in part).

 

[tejas warrior]

Outsourcing should happen to private firms at earliest.. Like wings are made by L&T.

may be something like this:

Rest HAL will do the needful with screwdriver :biggrin2:

 

[Rahul Singh]

I was just thinking if they can make a private assembly line for Tejas.. there is huge difference in quality..

See foe example HAL assembly line vs TATA Advance System's assembly line for Helicopters :
View attachment 8156 View attachment 8157

Government works on the principle of Lowest bidder, private companies works on quality (sometimes unnecessary). You may wanna produce Tejas there but cost will not be same. Quality attracts but economics is all about finding balance. TATA line is using artificial lightening in all parts of hanger HAL line is using only in necessary sections while rest is dependent on sun roof.

Modular approach would be much more fruitful. Several private players will produce different components and HAL will integrate them under one roof.

Its already happening, L&T is manufacturing wing.

 

[garg_bharat]

Air conditioned spaces use less glass, to reduce loss of Ac efficiency. Artificial lighting is for uniform illumination.

I think Tata manufacturing facility is far superior to HAL facility.

Everybody uses competitive bidding. Do not get lost in lies. Private sector is more efficient with money.

 

[garg_bharat]

High tech manufacturing requires stable and high class subsidiaries. This typically translates to long term contracts or partnerships. A pure transient bidding system where even small components have big lead times is not suitable.

The procurement systems of PSU have been found faulty with substandard equipment bought and many cases of corruption.

 

[Rahul Singh]

Here you are. N LCAs are now in goa doing trials at SBTF.

 

[garg_bharat]

Is it a great achievement? We get excited by minor things. What we are missing is the delay in NLCA.
The major issue is weight of NLCA Mark-1 which needs to be reduced so that it can carry two fuel tanks and at least one AShM with two Astra BVR, to make it suitable for deployment on Carrier. Otherwise it becomes a tech demonstrator.

 

[Rahul Singh]

^^^ SBTF trials are risky, every move has to be carefully planned. Besides NP-1,2 are mearly TDs, hence won't see major changes to airframe. However it's the inputs from their test flights which will surely go into Mk-2. Which is the real fighter and will see intire spectrum of trials surely ship born which NP-1,2 may never see.

It is however other thing that Naval program being the step child have been delayed due to delays in air force Tejas. Now when Tejas has clear cut path to follow, Naval LCA should accelerate. And we might se NLCA MK-2 in air soon.

 

[garg_bharat]

SBTF trials are risky? Why? Risk is a normal part of fighter program.
Navy has provided enthusiastic support to LCA program. Where are the corresponding results?

The generation of data is OK. But the fighter has to carry a certain load to be useful in Carrier ops. It is time that the version being tested is the version that can be deployed.

Naval Mark-2 is far. At least 5 years away.

 

[tejas warrior]

DEFExpo 2016 : F414-INS6 for LCA Tejas Mk II by year end , New Contract for F404-IN20 in pipeline for Tejas MK-1A : GE
Published April 6, 2016
SOURCE : IDRW NEWS NETWORK


GE officials at recently concluded DEFExpo 2016 in Goa have confirmed to idrw.org that considerable progress on the development of F414-INS6 has been made and development work of F414-INS6 for LCA Tejas Mk II will be completed by the end of 2016 .

” We are ready to initiate technology transfer for F414-INS6 engine production with HAL and we are in talks for continuing supply of F404-IN20 engines for LCA Tejas Mk I and for its variants ( MK-1A),” Said GE official to idrw.org .

he also added that ” Engine support solutions for F404-IN20 engines for LCA Tejas Mk I in IAF fleet is already available ” . The F414-INS6 engine has a maximum power output of 98 kiloNewtons (kN) for which GE has been awarded an order for supply of 99 engines for the Tejas Mark II.

While Indian Air Force has agreed to place fresh orders for 80 LCA-Mark 1A which will be powered by F404-IN20 engines which has a maximum power output of 84 kiloNewtons (kN) it’s not clear when fresh orders for F404-IN20 engines will be placed but official hinted at backchannel talks with HAL.

DRDO and GE are also in talks in the joint development of new engine which can generate 110 KN of peak power required for Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA), a fifth-generation medium fighter jet that ADA/DRDO plans to develop next.

 

[Neelkanth]

Is it a great achievement? We get excited by minor things. What we are missing is the delay in NLCA.
The major issue is weight of NLCA Mark-1 which needs to be reduced so that it can carry two fuel tanks and at least one AShM with two Astra BVR, to make it suitable for deployment on Carrier. Otherwise it becomes a tech demonstrator.

SBTF trials are risky? Why? Risk is a normal part of fighter program.
Navy has provided enthusiastic support to LCA program. Where are the corresponding results?

The generation of data is OK. But the fighter has to carry a certain load to be useful in Carrier ops. It is time that the version being tested is the version that can be deployed.

Naval Mark-2 is far. At least 5 years away.

1. Naval LCA is a prototype and an experimental design and nothing more, Indian navy has placed no operational requirement of an "LCA" only key technologies are being tested and developed for contingencies, and long term aircraft development.

INS Vikramaditya has Mikoyan MiG-29K, INS Vikrant (IAC 1) will have Mikoyan MiG-29K, The IAC 2 will be, in all likelyhood, a nuclear-powered flat top. Neither the LCA Navy nor the MiG 29 are designed for CATOBAR platforms. Best choices (today) are either the Rafale M or the F/A-18F Super Hornet.

Trivia : For the requirement of Weight distribution and and designing of lifts and maintenance bays, on board infrastructure etc, Full data of the air craft to be deployed on an aircraft carrier is required before hand.

2. LCA (Navy) Mk2 is likely to be seen on IAC 3, so it is more than 10 years away, will be a flat top design. and will be completely new aircraft designed from scratch and not just an upgrade.

The LCA Navy with its current design and even its (perceived final config. of 2 fuel tanks, 1 AShM, 2 Astra BVR, is pretty much useless in the Naval Aerial Warfare Doctrine)

 

[garg_bharat]

@Neelkanth, can you elaborate on "Naval Aerial Warfare Doctrine".

Why you think a flat-top is MUST if India does not have the requisite technology. Don't you think importing everything (specially maintenance intensive equipment) is quite risky?

India's defence forces have become a united nations of arms. The arms imports are putting huge pressure on diplomacy where India can hardly take a stand on international matters as it is dependent on almost every other country. This state of affairs is shameful.

The Services need to learn to reduce dependency, not increase it.

 

[Rahul Singh]

SBTF trials are risky? Why? Risk is a normal part of fighter program.
Navy has provided enthusiastic support to LCA program. Where are the corresponding results?

The generation of data is OK. But the fighter has to carry a certain load to be useful in Carrier ops. It is time that the version being tested is the version that can be deployed.

Naval Mark-2 is far. At least 5 years away.

SBTF trials are risky because it is utmost unknown ADA has ventured into so far. Lot could go wrong. For start. Landing gear may break just after ski jump or fuselage could break into two just after trapping the wire. How much downtime you guess will incure? Do consider they have only two prototypes. Any crash will ridiculously delay the program, if not something worse.

SBTF trials are needed and a lot of data needs to be generated before MK-2's design could be frozen and realeased for manufacturing. Least many unknowns into MK-2 the better.

Weapon integration are least of concerns as much will come.directly from airforce program called MK-1A.

Thing is with present engine LCA is never getting deployed. It is known since 2009. That is even before the first flight. An modified air force design lacks the basics of carrier based fighter and for that reason fugelage needed to be strengthen to not only wear a heavy landing gear but hook too. This made the airframe too heavy for any use in tactical arena. Cutting any meaningful weight is not possible so they confined MK-1 to TD only and moved ahead to MK-2 which is a naval fighter from ground up. Which by rough estimates could carry 4 tons of combat load with full volume of internal fuel. That after attaining 14-15 ton MTOW.

Following video shall clear why MK-2.

 

[garg_bharat]

@Rahul Singh, you did not understand.

How many ski jump flights happened after first flight in Dec 2014? How much time does it take for analysis?

The correct way is to make adequate number of flights you need for data, and then check the condition of different subsystems. This way you draw conclusions.

I think they never accumulated enough data with NP1. They have two prototypes now but there are inexplicable delays in testing. They were supposed to redesign the landing gear, but that cannot happen unless they complete testing on SBTF with the current one.

They also need to see how much load can be taken off ski-jump, so that it is known if the aircraft has practical utility. If the plane can take off with adequate load, then it will be possible to use it on Carrier even with current design, rather than waiting for Mark-2.

 

[Rahul Singh]

Anyway i won't be able to reply any further for few days because of work load. So sorry.

 

[Rahul Singh]

@Rahul Singh, you did not understand.

How many ski jump flights happened after first flight in Dec 2014? How much time does it take for analysis?

The correct way is to make adequate number of flights you need for data, and then check the condition of different subsystems. This way you draw conclusions.

I think they never accumulated enough data with NP1. They have two prototypes now but there are inexplicable delays in testing. They were supposed to redesign the landing gear, but that cannot happen unless they complete testing on SBTF with the current one.

They also need to see how much load can be taken off ski-jump, so that it is known if the aircraft has practical utility. If the plane can take off with adequate load, then it will be possible to use it on Carrier even with current design, rather than waiting for Mark-2.

I can't tell you how many tests they have carried out at SBTF. Because i have not seen any report regarding SBTF trials after 2014. But does this mean they have not carried out any tests? No.

Even we don't know kind of trials that are going on in Goa presently? It is only a tweet afterall.

I have seen pics of LCA,doing dummy aproches at SBTF's recovery area. May be they are at advance stage. My be not. In absence of any credible reporting there is no way of telling. So i refrained.

As for MK-1. Well it lacks power and meaningful combat load something simulation revealed. That is why Mk-2 came up as not only re-engined but also as a new fighter which is significantly larger yet lighter than its predecessor.

BTW Navy has 8 LSPs on order, they all are MK-1s. Lets see if it has anything to do beyond stabilization of production line.

 

[garg_bharat]

Simulation is not adequate. Now you have the real bird in hand, which needs real testing.
Hope they complete testing this time.

 

[Neelkanth]

@Neelkanth, can you elaborate on "Naval Aerial Warfare Doctrine".

Why you think a flat-top is MUST if India does not have the requisite technology. Don't you think importing everything (specially maintenance intensive equipment) is quite risky?

India's defence forces have become a united nations of arms. The arms imports are putting huge pressure on diplomacy where India can hardly take a stand on international matters as it is dependent on almost every other country. This state of affairs is shameful.

The Services need to learn to reduce dependency, not increase it.

I cannot elaborate much on the "Naval Aerial Warfare Doctrine" for obvious reasons, but of the few things that can be told about equipment are.

1. All fixed wing Aircraft must be twin engine platforms. LCA is Single engine
2. They must have high payload carrying capacity,
3. Can perform multiple role combat (LCA by definition isn't one, LCA Navy Mk 2 design isn't final yet ) and
4. Have a large combat radius

A flat-top is a must because, it increases load carrying capacities of aircraft, can launch a variety of aircraft and can stay for patrol/combat for longer duration without the need to refuel. (Apparently, if a CBG is to be refueled with diesel, the AC will drink up more fuel than all the other ships combined).

"Importing everything" is risky but that is a very generalized statement, The Indian Navy is by far the most indigenous force than any other. there is a reason why it is investing itself in LCA Navy development they plan in long term basis (10-15 years ahead with an eye for 40 years), and going by our manufacturing and industrial might, we need at least a decade or so of 8%-9% growth to rival China's Capacity today Let alone the industrial advancement of China by the end of the next decade.

But, for protection and defense we need equipment better and designed counter the war equipment of PLA/PLAN/PLAF so I guess for the time being there will be dependence on imports even though we will produce significant indigenous equipment. Russian equipment have been reverse engineered by Chinese, so it gives a fair bit of Idea that China knows the capacity and the limitations of our equipment. As essentially we both have historically used Russian/Soviet equipment.

Its not the Services, or our Industrial capacity, that decides the weapons we need but our "threat matrix and threat perception" and going by current scenario we don't have much choice but to be dependent because we cannot build systems overnight which were built by the western MICs after decades of research spending. We need to develop our learning and research path before we can develop and produce cutting edge weapons.

 

[garg_bharat]

@Neelkanth, major countries (and specially the ones who aspire for big power status) depend on local industrial base for equipment.

I am sorry to say that Navy has TOO MUCH IMPORT DEPENDENCE. The word indigenous is flawed, as PSU also import a lot. We hoped that ship sensors and weapons will start to be sourced from local industry, but unfortunately there is a reversal, and there is a queue for foreign equipment.

Russian navy has ordered Mig-29K after having operated Su-33. It realized that Mig is more cost effective while able to do similar tasks. I think IN has a good aircraft in hand, that is practically developed through IN funds. Logical to acquire it for future also. I think ski jump Carrier are adequate for India. AWACS coverage can be provided from land bases. It is not necessary for AWACS to fly from Carrier. Carrier can be used for strike packages of aircraft (fixed wing and heli) as they are supposed to be used. What is needed is EW version of Mig-29K.

Mig can be supported by Indian industry as we are familiar with it. We can build its engine and most spares.