ADA Tejas (LCA) News and Discussions

[tejas warrior]

Tejas - LCA facebook webpage says, SP5 & SP6 is schedule to be delivered by June 2017.

It's still turning to rate of only 4 LCA per year.

Tejas - LCA further says only SP8 by 2017 end.. So only 4 in 12 months(2017)

 

[Pandora]

Tejas - LCA further says only SP8 by 2017 end.. So only 4 in 12 months(2017)

These dickheads killing the project by their own hand.

 

[cannonfodder]

^^^ True, Another reason for critics and arms mafia.

I wonder if this promise of developing MK1A with weight reduction and other improvements was good thing or not for LCA project. GOI should have asked IAF to order 100+ MK1's itself to replace MiGs. Other things in AC could have improved in the meantime like adding AESA/adding mid air refueling probe in order of priority/further reducing weight. We waited more than a year for that cobham nose. How difficult would it be to make these such changes to existing assembly lines?

 

[Chinmoy]

Tejas - LCA further says only SP8 by 2017 end.. So only 4 in 12 months(2017)

As I already mentioned, its 1 plane per 3 months rolling out from production line. So we do need atleast 3 production line to bring the number to 1 plane per month. But again it would increase the overall cost and it would no longer be one cheap fighter.
Only way to ramp up production is confirmed larger order. And don't even think about indulging any pvt player in whole production, it would be no good as no front line player would come forward for such a meager number of 120.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Tejas at IAF Day ..

Please enter a message with at least 30 characters.

 

[Rahul Singh]

I hv written the exact scenario in comments section of one of Bharath karnard's pieces in his blog "Securitywise"

he posted my comments as a separate piece

"https://bharatkarnad.com/2013/11/10...nt-value-add-to-stop-wasteful-military-deals/
"Tejas will carry the combined weapon load of Jag and Mig-21 with lesser RCS than the MIG-29 and the Su-30 and more thrust to weight ratio than the mirage-2000 with equal detection and tracking range of RAFALE radar with almost the same RCS of RAFALE."

"
Mirage 2000s with the IAF have a clean config RCS of 1.2 meters or more,

So even after launching all BVRs IAF Mirage-2000 (or any other fighter presently in service with IAF including SU-30 MKI) with it’s 1.2 sq meter RCS will present a big enough target for the powerful PLAF SU-30 radars to track and launch.

But after the launch of all long range BVRs Tejas will have a much smaller 0.2 meter RCS .

So it will not be visible to the PLAF flanker ‘s radars from from even medium BVR range forget about long range BVR s.

SO While PLAF flanker with a 5 meter clean config RCS will be visible to the Tejas fire control radars even in clean config, tejas won’t be be visible to the PLAF flanker fire control radars even in clean config,

SO the BVRs fired by PLAF flankers won’t be given mid course update by PLAF fire control radars,

And if PLAF flanker tries to jam tejas mk-1s radar using ESM this jamming alone would be used by tejas to guide the BVR on PLAF flanker without even using it’s radars.

So PLAF flanker vs IAF Mirage-2000 and PAF F-16 blk 52 Vs Mirage 2000

will be very different cup of tea compared to

PLAF flanker vs IAF tejas
and
PAF F-16 blk 52 VsTejas

Even Tejas mk-1 has 10 percent more TWR than the Mirage-2000 and a more powerful MMR radar with 120 km tracking range,

But Tejas mk-1A will have a difficult to locate and jam ASEA radar along with 20 percent more TWR than the Tejas mk-1, So it will be unbeatable by any legacy fighter on PLAF and PAF fleet , if we strictly use the specs as guidance.

So the following analogy applies ,

1.A clean config RCS of 0.3 (not really known , but lets take the statement that it will have a third of Mirage -2000 RCS at face value),

2. Six air to air missiles with 0.5 X 6 = 3 sq meters will give an RCS of 3.5 meter max to LCA mk-1 in lightly loaded quick response air to air interception role .

If you do the same calculation for PLAF flanker then it’s clean config RCS of 5 sq meters + 3 sq meters(same 6 X 0.5 sq meter load out) will give a cumulative RCS of minimum 8 sq meters for PLAF flanker.

So even if PLAF flanker has 30 percent more radome dia giving it a more powerful radar it will present 2.5 times more RCS to the 30 percent smaller dia radar of the LCA Tejas, So in practical terms the big radome dia of PLAF flanker will hold no significant advantage over much smaller RCS of tejas.

So tracking by both the radars may happen simultaneously in real time with no significant advantage for either one of them,

But what happens after tracking is very interesting,

Say a squadron of 20 tejas fighters fire all their 0.5 sq meter BVRs on a squadron of 20 PLAF flanker, and both start evading maneuvers ,

What happens after that?

The RCS for tejas will reduce ten fold to just 0.3 sq meter , but for PLAF flanker it will reduce by just 40 percent to 5 sq meters,

So in theory 20 tejas fighters will vanish from the big powerful radar of PLAF flanker because no PLAF flanker radar can pick up a sub 0.3 meter(clean config RCS) Tejas target from any distance greater than say 50 Km.

So how will the PLAF flanker give mid course guidance to it’s BVRs to home in on Tejas ?

The 120 KM range BVrs have their own active seekers , but they can detect tejas only from a closer distance of say 18 Km.

Simply there is no way PLAF flanker can guide it’s 120 Km or 240 Km BVR on tejas in this circumstances.

But still all the 20 tejas will see the big 5 sq meter clean config PLAF flanker on their radar screen as big as foot ball. So with their discreet ASEA radars(in MK-2 , and will definitely come in as MLU in MK-1 as well) they will continue to guide them on the much bigger RCS PLAF flanker.

So there is no guarantee that the bigger PLAF flanker radar will look first, fire first, fill first at all times when it comes to air to air BVR combat?

That is the reason 4.5th gen fighters are designed with lower RCS , to minimize tracking by opposing fighter fleet’s X band fire control radars.

If you use lifecycle costing and MLU costing along with maintanenace cost we can field two or three tejas mk-2 for every single PLAF flanker. SO on the first day fleet vs fleet battles each PLAF flanker will have an unenviable job of jamming all the difficult to jam ASEA radars while continuing to be visible to Tejas ASEA radars as targets,

But Tejas mk-2 in clean config can not be tracked and targeted by PLAF flanker X band fire control radars from any distance greater than 50 Km, But tejas mk-2 will detect any PLAF flanker in clean config from distances in excess of 150 Km.

it is an undeniable physical fact.

If stealth external weapon bays are introduced on Tejas mk-2(it is being done in Hornets and F-15 and it can be done on all other fighters) then any PLAF flanker X band fire control radar won’t see Tejas mk-2 from any distance greater than 50 Km
For more of the same discussion , visit,
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/indian-air-force/43717-ada-lca-tejas-iv-94.html
"

Another comment by me
"
Regarding weapon load IAF has changed the BVR missile spec to more weight and more launch stress inducing missiles which resulted in redesign of wing and reduction in weapon load.

Also once testing telemetry equipment is taken off the LSPs another 0.4 ton will be added.

And redesign of it’s avionics display is also expected to shave off around 100 to 200 Kg of weight as per some reports from Ajaishukla,

Taking its weapon load to around 4 tons. Which is what carried on any fighter for a normal mission.

Within this 80 percent opening it has achieved close to 22 deg AOA and 18 deg STR which is nothing to complain about.

Once the spin recovery parameters test is completed it will achieve the remaining 20 percent of
it’s flight envelope parameters.
And by no stretch of imagination a fighter like LCA which has

1. a 4 ton pay load ,
2.capable of firing 120 KM range BVR
3.with one of the lowest RCS helping it to approach the enemy fighter closer before being detected
4.capable of launching laser guided long range ground attack munitions
5.with comparable leading STR and ITR specs

is going to be history, What is going to be history is the fighters like Jaguar, and MIG-21, 23 and 27(400 of which serve in IAF as on date!!!!!!) which have none of the above capabilities .

A combination of TWR, wing loading and Instantaneous turn rate at close combat speeds which determine the close combat specs of a fighter,

It exceeds IAF’s blue eyed beauty Mirage-2000 in all these parameters in a significant manner.

IAF is spending 40 million dollar a piece for upgrading to each Mirage-2000. Even after these upgrades the60 Mirage-2000s will have lesser TWR, wing loading and Instantaneous turn rate at close combat speeds and lesser climb rate than the Tejas Mk-1.

Only Su-30 MKI and Mig-29s can exceed the tejas that too by about around ten percent only in close combat specs.
Both are twin engined fighters with many times higher clean config RCS than the Tejas . And their reliability and availability rate is not as good compared the GE-414 equipped Tejas.

Some times in a squadron of Mig-29s the availability rate is single digit only.

So Tejas is as modern and as reliable and as effective as any other fighter in IAF.

Because it is ours we can introduce any new weapons in future without begging permission from the OE makers and it will be upgraded on regular basis,

The tejas mk-1 it self will carry both the akash mk-1 and MK-2 which will have 80 Km and 120 Km range in future."


"LCA mk-2 will have a slightly bigger radome dia than the RAFALE if fuselage is enlarged for GE-414.

LCA mk-2 will have a slightly higher top speeds than RAFALE as well with almost the same clean config RCS of RAFALE.

other than the longer range and higher pay load on all other parameters the LCA mk-2 will be better than 80 percent of the present IAF fleet.

And LCA mk-2 will have 120 km range BVR in Astra mk-2, What is the max range of BVRs on MIG-29?

Even with fully loaded air to air config LCA mk-2 will have far lesser RCS than the MIG-29 . Meaning it can get closer to fire it’s BVRs giving them a much better kill ratios.

A fully loaded Sukhoi for air to air mission will be spotted by enemy airborne radars at nearly thrice the distance of that of tejas mk-1.

It will carry the combined weapon load of Jag and Mig-21 with lesser RCS than the MIG-29 and the Su-30 and more thrust to weight ratio than the mirage-2000 with equal detection and tracking range of RAFALE radar with almost the same RCS of RAFALE.

According to all available open source info the more than 90 percent composite skin on the tejas surface will have a much better resistance to tough weather in India and weighs less with more stealthy characteristics ,

Already methods were developed to spot the fatigue cracks through state of the art tech and take any corrective action needed.

17 deg sustained turn rate is the initial ASR set for LCA mk-1 just 1 degree less than F-16 block C/D.

1.Even with 6G and 20 deg AOA limitation the LCA has already completed a horizontal loop in Aeroindia demo within 23 seconds. That comes to a STR of close to 16 deg with the limitations of partially opened flight envelope.We don’t know whether the plane was stretched even to this partial limit of 6Gs and 20 Deg AOA in that demo.

Also with the same 6G 20 deg AOA restriction it completed a vertical loop within 20 seconds in AeroIndia 2013 ,meaning it had a STR of close to 18 deg in vertical loop. In a recent fly past the Su-35 too completed the powered vertical loop within 18 seconds. Once again We don’t know whether the plane was stretched even to this partial limit of 6Gs and 20 Deg AOA in that demo.

Recent reports in a blog indicate that LCA mk-1 has achieved a Sustained Turn Rate to the IAf’s satisfaction even with 1 ton extra empty weight than the original target of 5470 kg. SO it must have improved over the aeroindia2013 demo in a substantial manner.

So in no way can the initial airframe design can be called draggy.

Also the TWR ratio of LCA with 50 percent fuel is 1.07. Same for F-16 is 1.25. So with even lower thrust to weight ratio than F-16 C/D , LCA has managed to pull closer to the F-16 C/D .

In mk-2 it will only further improve, with weight reduction due to more composite percentage and a 20 percent higher thrust engine in GE F414 IN S 6. Since the length of fuselage is going to be expanded by 0.5 meter only it won’t add to much empty weight either.

Also with an empty weight of 8.5 ton F-16 C/D carries 3.1 ton fuel.

LCA mk-1 with it’s empty weight of 6.4 tons carries 2.5 ton fuel.SO LCA mk-1 has a close to 10 percent better fuel fraction ratio than the F-16 C/ D. Indicating it won’t suffer much in range in an air to air configuration of 2 ton air to air missile load which is it’s primary role.

But by having a significantly lower wing loading than the F-16 C/D Tejas mk-1 will have a much better Instantaneous turn Rate than the 26 degree given for F-16 C/ D.

Even the initial ASR given for LCA by MSD Woollen indicates a requirement of 30 deg maximum attainable in the ADA website.

So in the all important high off bore sight WVR missile launching capacity based on Instantaneous Turn Rate , it will be better than the F-16 C/D, just going by the low wing loading factor alone.. But needs citation of course."

""

Yes. Kinda of reminded me of my debate with P2Parda a long time back on such senario.

 

[Bahamut]

0.2 meter RCS .

Sir it frontal RCS not the avg RCS of Tejas

 

[Rahul Singh]

But the question is will it be effective? If your vision of using LCA+MKI combination in an A2A mission over enemy airspace was so effective, won't all the countries in the world follow it? Instead, we are seeing countries moving towards medium weight fighters with bigger radar and ditching the light fighters. No one wants to have light+heavy fighter combination used as you mentioned in the previous post. If we look at all the future fighters of the world:

The biggest advantage of Tejas in any BVR combat is its low RCS (which is due to its carbon composite airframe and smaller size). The biggest advantage of SU-30MKI is extremely powerful radar and huge payload carrying capacity. A combination of both could bring down any jet with RCS equal or larger than that of Tejas. Since IAF is inducting both so such scenario was put forth. In fact, it is believed that Tejas operating in ultra-quiet mode could just turn out to be a black hole. And when against PAF this combination will hold a huge advantage in any BVR.

USA is producing a medium category F-35 when Russia is producing much larger PAK-FA. Chinese are producing Much larger J-20 still it is developing medium weight J-30. French are only using medium category Rafale. And Scandinavia is contained with much lighter Gripen. I don't see any standardization. Every nation is building or buying hardware according to its suitability. Like to mention that IAF has since long used mix fleet. It is because IAF needs both capability and numbers. The debate is not about lighter or heavier but capability in totality. We may dream of equipping IAF with 800 FGFA i.e all its squadrons but we can't. So in future when will have retired all its 4th generation fighters fleet will be a mix of FGFA and medium category AMCA.

Correction: Astra is not yet integrated with anything. It has simply been test fired from MKI. The missile's development itself is not complete. Integration will come later.

Integration and operationalization are two different things. Presently Astra MK-1 is integrated with few MKI which were dedicated to its testing and their radars are capable of firing it at electronic targets and PTAs as displayed. Once user trials are over Astra MK-1 will get certification and will be integrated with rest of the fleet. Then it will be called operational.

All of them are heavy or medium weight. No light fighters. 5th Generation of fighter aircraft will be the first generation without light weight fighters. Lightweight fighters cost less to operate, so the nations should be planning to use lightweight fighters using heavy weight/AWACS to help with targeting. But this is not happening. If the technology is accessible for all, shouldn't more nations be interested in it?

Gripen is leading contender in new MRCA quest. Why? Because they are cheaper and can be bought in numbers. Maybe little less on standalone capability but when networked with powerful sensors performs equally well in some tasks. So why not for IAF with the equally important need like numbers with capability.

Anyway, Gripen is capable of Meteor firing using third party targeting information. Since SAAB is ready to provide real, 100% TOT, which will cover tactical data link(One developed by SAAB and is considered superior to Link-16) as well . With it IAF will get another light fighter other than Tejas for said scenario.

Another example of the relevance of light 4th generation fighters as long as an adversary is using 4th generation fighters.

Anyways, I believe we should strive to develop a missile which can use third party targeting. But we shouldn't hold procurement of 100 fighters hostage to the hope that the technology will be developed on time and will be effective in the battlefield.

Any active BVRAAM with at least one-way data link can use third party targeting.

This is how it works. Radar of MKI will target enemy fighter and get a lock on it. Then its fire control computer will send coordinate of the target to fire control computer of Tejas via tactical data link or even SatLink if provided onboard. Then the fire control of Tejas will send this information to missile and missile will be fired. In the whole process, Missle will be updated about coordinates of the Target in real time using local network between weapon platform(Tejas) and sensor platform (SU-30MKI). Or directly from MKI radar.

It might sound a lot but in reality, it just networking. Certainly not complex than guiding or controlling MOM all the way to Mars using the network of stations across India and ships stationed far away in the sea.

Anyways, I believe we should strive to develop a missile which can use third party targeting. But we shouldn't hold procurement of 100 fighters hostage to the hope that the technology will be developed on time and will be effective in the battlefield.


There are various other reasons to drop the Pre-RFP sent out by the MoD. I don't believe third party targeting is one of them.

If Gripen is selected then Meteor will come so will the capability to fire it using third party targeting information. Since SAAB has promised full and real TOT we will get TOT on their data link as well by default. Integration of it onboard Tejas and SU-30MKI will just matter of time. But i don't think we need SAAB to have this technology. Today we already have building blocks like Data Link II, AFNET dedicated satellites and expertise in networking to develop such network.


Anyway, new MRCA quest, in my opinion, has many aims. Foremost is to quickly equip IAF with a fighter cheap to purchase and operate hence they mandated single engine. The reason for it is simple. Modi government is not going soft on Terrorism and they will not hold back. Since one of the consequences of multiple anti-terrorism strikes or surgical has the chance of full-scale escalation they want to be prepared for it in time. So this purchase over just Tejas.


However with this deal government must be looking for getting substantial TOT for the development of an engine for AMCA as must have apart from other critical technologies needed. Since qualifiers in the list has just two names. This deal should not take much time to materialize.

 

[dude00720]

Pardon me for asking this, here. But, is there a thread for 6th generation fighters ?

 

[Indx TechStyle]

Pardon me for asking this, here. But, is there a thread for 6th generation fighters ?

Let the 6th generation be defined properly first. Once done, I will be first member to.create a thread over it.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Avoid replying off-topic replies on tejas thread, It takes alot of work to move these post to other threads then clean again and again, Please .. http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/members/rahul-singh.211/

Thank you..

============

@Rahul Singh ,

 

[cannonfodder]

As India plans to set up a domestic fighter production line by opening talks with top aviation giants, a letter sent by the Air Force has created confusion about the plan as well as concern that it may be a death blow to the indigenous light combat aircraft (LCA) programme.

While India has received several unsolicited bids for a Make in India fighter jet from Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Saab and even Dassault, an official letter had been dispatched for the first time to several nations earlier this month inviting interest.

However, the contents of the letter are confusing to say the least. The Air Force has asked for replacements to its ‘ageing fleet of single engine fighter aircraft’. The letter says the requirement is for a ‘minimum fourth generation single engine aircraft’ to be indigenously manufactured under the Make in India initiative.

India however has an ongoing production plan for exactly the same kind of fighter – the improved version of the Tejas Light Combat Aircraft.

Orders for over 120 planes have been assured and the very aim of the Tejas programme is to replace the legacy single engine fighters in service – namely the MiG 21 fleet that is at the end of service life.

Efforts are also on to develop a new version of the LCA if the Air Force wants, with a more advanced engine. Secondly, the letter, which is not a formal invitation for bids but more of a consent that foreign nations are ready to take part in a contest, says the Air Force is looking for a medium weight category fighter and is also interested in air-to-air and air-to-ground weapons.

This, when barely a month ago India concluded a protracted procurement process for a new medium multirole fighter – the French Rafale, 36 of which have been bought for 7.8 billion euro.

The Rafale was originally chosen after it won a techno-commercial contest for a new medium multirole fighter following detailed evaluation by the air force. Thirdly, the letter seems to indicate that India has forgone any intent of acquiring key weapons or simulator technology as part of the Make in India initiative.

The letter says that the transfer of technology for ‘weapons and simulators is not envisaged’. It also says that the first ‘few aircraft’ will be bought in flyaway condition and remaining to be manufactured here, again forgoing competitive bidding by players for a better deal.

While the letter may not be the final word from India, it brings down a selection to only two contenders with what is already being described as a ‘match fixing’ condition of a single engine fighter.

http://idrw.org/air-force-letter-cr...t-up-indias-domestic-fighter-production-line/

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adding one good comment:

"India has always lacked visionary leaders who can fast-track and propel any brilliantly Made-In-India system to dizzy heights... Thus, examples like Arjun-MBT, Marut, now Tejas, and others abound here aplenty... "A desert ferrari" & "moving fortress", Arjun-MBT, is unwanted in its homeland ... A brilliantly designed Marut (a contemporay marvel) saw no further developments and wasn't mass inducted and cultivated further... A brilliantly designed, cheap, capable, semi-stealthy, multi-role (even, swing-role), light-weight, pilot-friendly, increasingly maintenance friendly modern (4 ++ mk1; 4.5 mk1A ) gen Tejas has seen orders to the tune of only 120 -- that too because of Parrikarji's personal initiatives... If Tejas would have been born in China, they'd have inducted 500 - 1000 of them... But, here in India, a prospective 2nd aircraft line is slated to go to a comparably capable foreign fighter -- not to our own, indigenous Tejas!... I'm disillusioned... Fighter-wise, the present Gripen-C/D is comparable to Tejas-mk1 -- and, Gripen-E/F to Tejas-mk1A... F16V too offers no significant advantage over Tejas-mk1A... I'm unable to fathom out why only 36 Rafales?... The next 36 will cost much less since non-recurring one-time expenses will be deducted... With S-400 arriving by 2020, why can't we fill up the dwindling numbers a bit slowly so that Tejas-mk1A gives us strategic independence ?... I hope MoD & IAF will either listen to Vox Populi (or) disclose the exact reasons behind why another non-Tejas single-engined MMRCA is being pursued for MII & induction in IAF's stable"

 

[Prashant12]

Trainer (KH-T-2010) approaching Leh with the famous Spituk Monastry on the backdrop.

 

[ersakthivel]

http://idrw.org/saab-links-gripen-bid-with-tejas-to-counter-f-16-production-numbers/#more-112737

SAAB has no Jet engine tech,
SAAB has no working ASEA GAN radar,
SAAB failed to develop Fly by wire software for Gripen C & outsourced it to a US firm,
These are the three facts that no defence correspondent praising "SAAB's Gripen E" offer are willing to write,
Why? What stops them from mentioning these pure facts & stop this worhtless Gripen circus that will bleed 10s of billions of indian tax payer money out of the contry & blow a hole in india's precious forex reserve?
How can SAAB which failed to develop all the above three will "help" india in Tejas mk2 & AMCA, which require the same three key tech?

Atleast ADA has mastered the CLAWs & RSS FCS for tejas mk1, navy, trainer etc,

If we want jet engine tech , we can buy F-16 with a caveat that there will be full TOT(including the key Single crystal blade tech for hot core for the uprated GE 414 engine prodcing close to 110 Kn wet thrust )

This tech will free tejas mk1A, mk2, AMCA from engine dependency .

Going with SAAB will be a very bad error of judgement.

SAAB's gripen E upgrade is entirely different from ADA's tejas mk2 upgrade.
SAAB upgraded Gripen E by increasing "one ton empty weight" & increasing pay load & range.

IAF brief for tejas mk2 is exactly opposite, weight reduction, coupled with higher power engine , with more or less same pay load .

So no point in extolling the non existing virtue of going with SAAb & rejecting F-16 and ending up as fools,

If US doesn't agree for SCB , jet tech, then give a guaranteed 400 order for all versions of tejas & encourage a pvt sector firm to partner with any global MNC to produce 20 tejas every year,
Pour money into jet engine tech 7 ASEA tech with israeli JV is the best choice.

 

[ersakthivel]

To be frank i thought the assembly hangars for LCA were not up-to-date. I have never visited one but what do folks think???

This is a 2000 fighter order Assembly line building fighters & inducting them , whether it has achieved IOC or not.
Without even an IOC 162 F-35s are already in service,
On the other hand , HAL line is running for the order of just 40 tejas mk1 fighters, with mk1A still far away,

 

[ersakthivel]

Kindly provide me one source where HAL/ADA have ever claimed that they are short on funds w.r.t LCA.
ADA kept pushing the IOC timelines. HAL has never ever delivered on the production timelines despite the fact that HAL decided the price of LCA themselves. If they were short on funds, why didn't they quote a higher price per unit?

Also please prove that LCA's funds were redirected for import as you are so unabashedly claiming here.

WHat time line was given for F-35 IOC & service entry?

How come already 160 F-35s operating in USAF without ever having IOC , Ioc-2 Foc et all?
There are official records to show that HAL fearing loss(because IAF has only confirmed just 40 tejas mk1 order, before Parrikar became DM & sealed tejas mk1A spec) for running a full production line , with fully trained professionals , just to fulfill 40 tejas mk1 orders asked GOI to put in the money of 1800 cr for state of the art tejas production line.

BUt GOI under the shameless UPA said, told HAL "get 900 cr from your funds, get the remaining money from IAF , Navy)

When neither GOI , nor IAF are ready to put in a peanut of 1800 cr for a state of the art production line as an advance , how can you claim that tejas program was always bathed in funds?

this treacherous attitude from UPA , UPA time IAF , which cleaned thousands of crores from HAL as dividends in every year , refusing to put in even 1800 cr for an exclusive IAF fighter production line is just the tip of the iceberg,

I dont know hoe many years it took fro NAvy & IAF to release the 50% 900 cr to HAL on their behalf.

if you have any records for IAF making any advance to HAL for 40 tejas mk1 (like advancing a massive 15000 cr for rafales if they win MMRCA), please show me.

Otherwise please don't spread the impression that LCA program was bathed in money from day one

 

[tejas warrior]

http://idrw.org/saab-links-gripen-bid-with-tejas-to-counter-f-16-production-numbers/#more-112737

SAAB has no Jet engine tech,
SAAB has no working ASEA GAN radar,
SAAB failed to develop Fly by wire software for Gripen C & outsourced it to a US firm,
These are the three facts that no defence correspondent praising "SAAB's Gripen E" offer are willing to write,
Why? What stops them from mentioning these pure facts & stop this worhtless Gripen circus that will bleed 10s of billions of indian tax payer money out of the contry & blow a hole in india's precious forex reserve?
How can SAAB which failed to develop all the above three will "help" india in Tejas mk2 & AMCA, which require the same three key tech?

Atleast ADA has mastered the CLAWs & RSS FCS for tejas mk1, navy, trainer etc,

If we want jet engine tech , we can buy F-16 with a caveat that there will be full TOT(including the key Single crystal blade tech for hot core for the uprated GE 414 engine prodcing close to 110 Kn wet thrust )

This tech will free tejas mk1A, mk2, AMCA from engine dependency .

Going with SAAB will be a very bad error of judgement.

SAAB's gripen E upgrade is entirely different from ADA's tejas mk2 upgrade.
SAAB upgraded Gripen E by increasing "one ton empty weight" & increasing pay load & range.

IAF brief for tejas mk2 is exactly opposite, weight reduction, coupled with higher power engine , with more or less same pay load .

So no point in extolling the non existing virtue of going with SAAb & rejecting F-16 and ending up as fools,

If US doesn't agree for SCB , jet tech, then give a guaranteed 400 order for all versions of tejas & encourage a pvt sector firm to partner with any global MNC to produce 20 tejas every year,
Pour money into jet engine tech 7 ASEA tech with israeli JV is the best choice.

Completely agree.

Our only aim should be to get Engine.. just buy them in numbers(1000+) and ask GE to make it here.

Uttam is progressing well for Mk2 and till it gets matured Israel's 2052 will do that job for Mk1-A.

 

[Helms deep]

Hi everyone this is my first post, has the French offered us to resolve Kaveri engine project with offest deals, kindly enlightened me on the his, if so y are still going for foreign vendors for engines

 

[Indx TechStyle]

Hi everyone this is my first post, has the French offered us to resolve Kaveri engine project with offest deals, kindly enlightened me on the his, if so y are still going for foreign vendors for engines

Offered by French as well as Yanks.
BTW,
Please introduce yourself in this section.
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/s/introductions-greetings.5/

 

[ersakthivel]

Hi everyone this is my first post, has the French offered us to resolve Kaveri engine project with offest deals, kindly enlightened me on the his, if so y are still going for foreign vendors for engines

French will never offer us any "real help" on kaveri,

This proposal was splashed widely just a month before 36 rafale deal,

But not a single word was there on the rafale contract , which says that French TOT on kaveri will form a part of offset!!!

it is all fraud by the Newstraders to prepare indians for the rafale deal, nothing more.

This is not the first time this fraud is played on india,

Even in 2005 to 2009 a DRDO-Snecma JV was discussed for using french Eco core in kaveri engine with TOT o make it here, At that time MMRCA cicus was in full flow,

Just a week after rafale won MMRCA contract, the JV was killed off by an IAF committee headed by Air marshal Matheswaran with the spurious reasoning, stating that "GTRE wouldn't gain any thing from Snecma -GTRE JV TOT on kaveri K-10!!!"

it was impossible to believe my eyes , when I read that report,

The same is happening here,

The reason 120 + 60 odd fighter MMRCA was dropped & rafale was reduced to just 36 (that too for N diilvery role performed by obsolete mirage-2000 , presently ) was the refusal of french to offer any meaningful TOT.

Now a new fraud called " buying another single engine 4.5th gen fighter for IAF to replace ageing mig-21 fleet & to get JET ENGINE ASEA radar tech in return " is now being played out!!!


http://economictimes.indiatimes.com...uction-line/articleshow/54945552.cms?from=mdr

But what is even more mysterious is , the report above states that ,
" The IAF letter to makers of 4.5th gen Single engine jet fighter to replace mig21s, have " WEAPON TECH OR SIMULATOR TECH IS NOT ENVISAGED IN THE DEAL" !!!

Only God knows what is happening