ADA Tejas (LCA) News and Discussions

[Sancho]

If an idiot chooses to stay an idiot. Who can help?

Lol you don't need to be that harsh on yourself. I am trying to help you all the time, that's why I constantly telling you to inform yourself and UNDERSTAND things, before you claim to know LCA better than ADA, it's developer for example. :biggrin2:

 

[Rahul Singh]

Lol you don't need to be that harsh on yourself. I am trying to help you all the time, that's why I constantly telling you to inform yourself and UNDERSTAND things, before you claim to know LCA better than ADA, it's developer for example. :biggrin2:

Actually by avoiding the rest of my post you did prove my point stated in the first place.

Thanks for helping me. I really appreciate it.


That part of my post(below under dotted line) that made you try to evade unsuccessfully! As always!

....................................
Anyways

'Swing Role' capability wrt. to Tejas and its combat load configuration for such a mission. As spoken by Then ADA chief Cmdr(retd) Balaji; the horse's mouth for anything related to Tejas.

Did he mention A2G weapons on innerboard? Sure he did at 6:25

Just tune to 6:14 onwards. Enjoy!



And yes, thank you. I have had a fantastic day, full of amusement and laughter. Sorry, that your work turned out to be just a peanut. Anyway, I enjoyed what I enjoy best.

Another case is closed!

 

[Rahul Singh]

Indeed though with just 6 aircraft and no major crash (Touchwood)... that's not benchmark setting but still a good number. Nevertheless, what's the benchmark sortie rate, compared to other jet's of it's class?

May tejas live long and prosper!

No. 5,6 and 7 have only joined recently.

If you take the average, it will be like only ~3 SP contributing close to 1000 flights clocking over 600 hours of flight time. Divided over two years it is plus 100 flight hours per year for each SP.

 

[tejas warrior]

No. 5,6 and 7 have only joined recently.

If you take the average, it will be like only ~3 SP contributing close to 1000 flights clocking over 600 hours of flight time. Divided over two years it is plus 100 flight hours per year for each SP.

100 flight hours are Excellent for any fighter.

It speaks for its very high availability.. should be easily above 80%.

 

[Pulkit]

100 flight hours are Excellent for any fighter.

It speaks for its very high availability.. should be easily above 80%.

The Numbers appear good but remember that the Number of aircrafts is too low to claim such high availability.
They are in production so inventory is easy fro spares, resources need not to focus on too many aircrafts, after every sortie time can be given to each and every aircrafts.

Remember Man power I snot gonna increase as per the number fo aircrafts and also spares/inventory will bemore difficult and costly to manage later on.

So its too early to predict that.

 

[tejas warrior]

The Numbers appear good but remember that the Number of aircrafts is too low to claim such high availability.
They are in production so inventory is easy fro spares, resources need not to focus on too many aircrafts, after every sortie time can be given to each and every aircrafts.

Remember Man power I snot gonna increase as per the number fo aircrafts and also spares/inventory will bemore difficult and costly to manage later on.

So its too early to predict that.

Sorry bro, I don't agree.

With smaller fleet, higher availability is in fact difficult.

Aircraft in production is not a reason as SU30mkI availability is on lower side even if it's in production.

 

[darshan978]

Another impressive show that you have not even a little clue of what you are talking. Lol

I thought your confusion of dumb and smart bombs was funny, but this is hilarious man!

You don't even have to zoom into the picture to see, that the WVR missiles on the external stations were replaced by different pylons, because they are clearly visible with their red painting! And if you would zoom in / or have any clue, you would know that they have cameras attached to it, which are recording the drop tests of these dumb bombs, because...

and here is another lesson for you...

...this is no operational mission config for IAF, but a weapon test config, to flight and launch test of weapons!

That's why it doesn't carry any missiles or drop tanks, like they would in any mission configuration for war times.


Weapon drop test:

[/IMG]

No drop tanks, camaras on pylon

VS

Real strike mission config for LCA, :

2 x fuel tanks
2 x 1000lb LGBs
2 x WVR missiles

And here are some test flight's, for real mission configs, with cameras to record the tests:

2 x fuel tanks
2 x 500lb dumb bomb
1 x WVR missiles
1 x camera pylon

2 x fuel tanks
2 x 500lb LGBs
1 x WVR missiles
1 x camera pylon

Now in war times, the camera pylon would be replaced by an SPJ, or if ADA can develop and integrste it, twin rack with SPJ and WVR missile, as I already explained.


But thx, after a hard work day, laughing like this was exactly what I needed. :biggrin2:

cant accept and digest truth ok go in hole where u came from btw how do u know this pics are test mission and strike mission and iaf going to use same in war too?? there is thing called flexibility

 

[Rahul Singh]

100 flight hours are Excellent for any fighter.

It speaks for its very high availability.. should be easily above 80%.

Exactly!

Importantly that 80% or so availability has been achieved with first 3-4 production examples. It is excellent by any standard.

Now one can easily imagine how MK-1A will perform. Not to mention that it is being developed keeping in focus higher maintainability over present airframe.

 

[Rahul Singh]

cant accept and digest truth ok go in hole where u came from btw how do u know this pics are test mission and strike mission and iaf going to use same in war too?? there is thing called flexibility

He actually thinks that those Test Missions are flown costing thousands of dollars without any purpose. In his opinion, Tejas has just one load/store mix (x2 DT, X2 LGB, x2 WVRAAm) for every strike mission.

 

[Kshithij]

Exactly!

Importantly that 80% or so availability has been achieved with first 3-4 production examples. It is excellent by any standard.

Now one can easily imagine how MK-1A will perform. Not to mention that it is being developed keeping in focus higher maintainability over present airframe.

Mk1A is similar to Mk1 with some additional subsystems and capability. Airframe or modularity wise, it is same as MK1.

If you are speaking of MK2, yes it is said to be made modular for easy repairs in case of wars

 

[Rahul Singh]

Mk1A is similar to Mk1 with some additional subsystems and capability. Airframe or modularity wise, it is same as MK1.

If you are speaking of MK2, yes it is said to be made modular for easy repairs in case of wars

MK-1A is supposed to undergo rearrangement for better serviceability. Also some weight reduction. Tejas FB page admin says it could be between 200kgs to 500kgs.


"On maintainability alone, the Tejas Mk.1A will have the 43 improvements out of 57 planned on the bigger, more powerful Tejas Mk.2:"

https://www.livefistdefence.com/2016/06/revealed-the-lca-tejas-that-the-iaf-has-chosen.html

 

[Kshithij]

MK-1A is supposed to undergo rearrangement for better serviceability. Also some weight reduction. Tejas FB page admin says it could be between 200kgs to 500kgs.


"On maintainability alone, the Tejas Mk.1A will have the 43 improvements out of 57 planned on the bigger, more powerful Tejas Mk.2:"

https://www.livefistdefence.com/2016/06/revealed-the-lca-tejas-that-the-iaf-has-chosen.html

Yes, internal rearrangement is possible and even some weight will be reduced by removal of ballasts, simplification of landing gear etc. But, the modularity and serviceability also requires extensive modification in internal as well as external fittings. It will require some redesign and that is best avoided for MK1A and the time better spent for Mk2

 

[Rahul Singh]

Yes, internal rearrangement is possible and even some weight will be reduced by removal of ballasts, simplification of landing gear etc. But, the modularity and serviceability also requires extensive modification in internal as well as external fittings. It will require some redesign and that is best avoided for MK1A and the time better spent for Mk2

Yeah, I know and totally agree with you that is why posted a link in my last post.

"On maintainability alone, the Tejas Mk.1A will have the 43 improvements out of 57 planned on the bigger, more powerful Tejas Mk.2:"

https://www.livefistdefence.com/2016/06/revealed-the-lca-tejas-that-the-iaf-has-chosen.html

 

[Pulkit]

Exactly!

Importantly that 80% or so availability has been achieved with first 3-4 production examples. It is excellent by any standard.

Now one can easily imagine how MK-1A will perform. Not to mention that it is being developed keeping in focus higher maintainability over present airframe.

Sorry bro, I don't agree.

With smaller fleet, higher availability is in fact difficult.

Aircraft in production is not a reason as SU30mkI availability is on lower side even if it's in production.

sorry I beg to differ.
Aircraft In production is important because it keeps the inflow of parts smooth.
Su30mki has most of the issues related to engine which adds to it low availability.

once the production is complete no manufacturer is ready to produce small batches.
Heard of interchangebility of parts that Is imp to address this issue . You canabalize one aircraft to make another functional.

 

[HariPrasad-1]

Exactly!

Importantly that 80% or so availability has been achieved with first 3-4 production examples. It is excellent by any standard.

Now one can easily imagine how MK-1A will perform. Not to mention that it is being developed keeping in focus higher maintainability over present airframe.

Mk1 shall be more maintenance friendly as fuselage shall be widen marginally and some LRUs shall be relocated. This should make maintenance easy.

 

[Rahul Singh]

sorry I beg to differ.
Aircraft In production is important because it keeps the inflow of parts smooth.

once the production is complete no manufacturer is ready to produce small batches.
Heard of interchangebility of parts that Is imp to address this issue . You canabalize one aircraft to make another functional.

Right now all Tejas SPs are at HAL so with HAL's support it is being maintained at the optimum level.

Once SPs start leaving Banglore for their respective bases. If IAF chooses for the right approach the availability of Tejas could remain higher and will get better with time even when entire 324 Tejas has been delivered. For it, IAF will have sign PBL with HAL to ensure higher availability.

IAF's own spare management methodology at this time is not helping. Case in point is SU-30MKI.

Hope they don't do this with Tejas too.

Su30mki has most of the issues related to engine which adds to it low availability.

See SU-30MKI two issues hence its availability is low.

1. Inherent maintenance intensive design. Of which engine is also a part.

2. IAF not ordering its spares well in advance and in sufficient numbers.

I leave point one because you had already mentioned.

The point 2 is as such. IAF has been reluctant in ordering required volume of spares well in advance. And for whatever it does it known to give HAL less lead in time. Since some of the spares of MKI still comes from 3rd parties i.e Russia it takes time for HAL to manage the requirement on short notices. To solve this problem HAL has created a buffer stock at Nasik. HAL has also proposed "Performance Based Logistics" to ensure higher availability of Su-30MKI. But IAF chooses to reject it probably to protect its BRDs. Interestingly IAF accepted something similar for Rafales.

Without competent inventory management by IAF, and with spares ordered piecemeal when defects arise, Su-30MKI fighters spend weeks on the ground awaiting spares.

To ensure that 13-14 per cent of the Su-30MKI fleet is not grounded for want of spares, HAL has stockpiled spares worth Rs 400 crore in Nashik. According to S Subrahmanyan, the chief of HAL's Nashik facility, the inventory is based on a study of consumption patterns of Su-30MKI spares over the preceding five years.

HAL has proposed to MoD that IAF must order spares required over a five-year period, stocking them at 25 Equipment Depot, IAF's holding depot for spares at Nashik.

HAL is confident that it can deliver higher serviceability rates for the Su-30MKI than the current 58 per cent.

HAL has offered the IAF "Performance Based Logistics" (PBL) for the Su-30MKI fleet - a solution common in advanced western air forces. PBL would bind HAL to maintain the Su-30MKI, providing the IAF a specified serviceability rate - calculated in flight hours, or as a percentage of the total aircraft fleet - in exchange for an annual service charge. Besides saving maintenance costs for the IAF, PBL has been found to encourage quality manufacture, since manufacturers know they will be responsible for keeping the aircraft serviceable through its operational life.

IAF dislikes PBL model, because outsourcing maintenance to HAL threatens a large maintenance empire built around "base repair depots", manned by IAF personnel. In 2008-09, IAF rejected HAL's proposal for a PBL contract for maintaining the Hawk advanced jet trainer.

http://www.business-standard.com/ar...mki-s-poor-serviceability-114102300006_1.html

 

[tejas warrior]

2X800 Ltr Drop Tanks,
2XLGBs,
2XR-73 CCMs and
the LDP.

 

[Rahul Singh]

Mk1 shall be more maintenance friendly as fuselage shall be widen marginally and some LRUs shall be relocated. This should make maintenance easy.

Yes. Enhancing maintainability is one of the thrust areas for MK-1A.

I hope turn-around time could be brought to ~10 minutes in MK-1A from 15-17 for LSPs(as reported during Iron Fist 2013)

 

[scatterStorm]

100 flight hours are Excellent for any fighter.

It speaks for its very high availability.. should be easily above 80%.

I am good with 80% availability, or worse case scenario even at 70% too.

 

[scatterStorm]

Exactly!

Importantly that 80% or so availability has been achieved with first 3-4 production examples. It is excellent by any standard.

Now one can easily imagine how MK-1A will perform. Not to mention that it is being developed keeping in focus higher maintainability over present airframe.

Can it be said, this is due to the fact, our Tejas has a simpler design and knowledge of our production line and operations and where we stand currently in technology so as to practise it, innovate over it, makes the availability roughly to 80%?

I am asking this question because, lot of legendary corporations like MC Douglass (now Boeing), Northrop, Lockheed in there infancy learned the art of close coupled manufacturing involving key stakeholders like Pratt&Whitney, raytheon etc to be in closed feedback loop. This gave them tremendous roll out timings.

Hope we do the same!