ADA Tejas (LCA) News and Discussions

[Pulkit]

France had been completely invaded by Germany in WW@. Also, the old technology of the past is nothing with the arrival of supercomputers. So, it is incorrect to glorify France. Indian technology levels as of now is not below French levels of 1980s when they made M88 engines.

My friend you got me wrong and I believe have not actually gone through the context.

I meant given the current Infrastructure its not easy for us to develop the new aircraft from the old one.
For example Tejas Mk2 based on the current platform has the timeline of 2025. Tejas Mk1A which is improvement on Mk1 is still in work for few years and will be in work for another few.

 

[Advaidhya Tiwari]

My friend you got me wrong and I believe have not actually gone through the context.

I meant given the current Infrastructure its not easy for us to develop the new aircraft from the old one.
For example Tejas Mk2 based on the current platform has the timeline of 2025. Tejas Mk1A which is improvement on Mk1 is still in work for few years and will be in work for another few.

If I am right, in today's world, the avionics and software parts are the most difficult ones and takes the most amount of time. So, the upgrade of Tejas Mk1 to MK1A will take time. But the Tejas MK2 is likely to have similar technology as Mk1A with some additional parameters to better use the increased size.

If I am right, Tejas MK2 should be considered as a parallel development over Mk1A and the technology developed will be shared. Tejas Mk1 had almost nothing when it started taking flight tests in 2015. The previous government ruined the project by underfunding.

 

[Pulkit]

If I am right, in today's world, the avionics and software parts are the most difficult ones and takes the most amount of time. So, the upgrade of Tejas Mk1 to MK1A will take time. But the Tejas MK2 is likely to have similar technology as Mk1A with some additional parameters to better use the increased size.

Technology being similar is not the assurance that it wont take time and in the case of Tejas Mk1A also not all the techs required in Mk2 are available, Take into account fly by wire that is available in all and can be used but even that will need upgradation or update with the change in platform.

If I am right, Tejas MK2 should be considered as a parallel development over Mk1A and the technology developed will be shared. Tejas Mk1 had almost nothing when it started taking flight tests in 2015. The previous government ruined the project by underfunding.

hmmmm... this has been discussed here many times and everyone has there take on it, so I will skip it.

 

[WolfPack86]

HAL chief T. Suvarna Raju takes a spin in an LCA Tejas (PV5). The trainer was was piloted by Group Captain KK Venugopal.

 

[Sancho]

So, the upgrade of Tejas Mk1 to MK1A will take time. But the Tejas MK2 is likely to have similar technology as Mk1A with some additional parameters to better use the increased size.

If I am right, Tejas MK2 should be considered as a parallel development over Mk1A and the technology developed will be shared.

Not exactly,

MK1A = base of MK1 FOC + simple upgrades that initially were planned for MK2 (AESA radar, EW, avionics, external loads).
So this upgrade is rather simple, since it uses an (by then hopefully) available and certified airframe as the base. All that's left is, selecting, integrating and certifying the new systems.

MK2 however is based on a completely new airframe, with lots of internal and external changes, which itself makes development and certification a major task. So even if we would take the same systems of MK1A (which probably won't be the case the to DRDO lobbying), it's not a parallel development.

You basically have...

LCA IOC => FOC => MK1A to bridge the gap

And a separate MK2 development, to finally meet the requirements.

P.S. Just to put it in perspective...

We achieved IOC in 2013 and 5 years later we still integrating and testing modifications for FOC, while the certification is still not achieved.
MK2 does not just add modifications on the same airframe, but starts with a largely new design itself and that probably will require the most time to develop, test and certify. The risks therfore are higher with the MK2, than with FOC or MK1A. One can only hope that ADA has learned anything in the meantime and that IAF control will make things better and not worse.

 

[no smoking]

If I am right, in today's world, the avionics and software parts are the most difficult ones and takes the most amount of time.

Only be true to US, Russia, British and partly France, for other countries like China, India, Japan, the aerodynamic, material, precision manufacturing, etc are the most difficult as they lack the accumulation in history. Instead, aviation and software are the field where the gaps are smallest.

 

[Enquirer]

Not exactly,

MK1A = base of MK1 FOC + simple upgrades that initially were planned for MK2 (AESA radar, EW, avionics, external loads).
So this upgrade is rather simple, since it uses an (by then hopefully) available and certified airframe as the base. All that's left is, selecting, integrating and certifying the new systems.

MK2 however is based on a completely new airframe, with lots of internal and external changes, which itself makes development and certification a major task. So even if we would take the same systems of MK1A (which probably won't be the case the to DRDO lobbying), it's not a parallel development.

You basically have...

LCA IOC => FOC => MK1A to bridge the gap

And a separate MK2 development, to finally meet the requirements.

P.S. Just to put it in perspective...

We achieved IOC in 2013 and 5 years later we still integrating and testing modifications for FOC, while the certification is still not achieved.
MK2 does not just add modifications on the same airframe, but starts with a largely new design itself and that probably will require the most time to develop, test and certify. The risks therfore are higher with the MK2, than with FOC or MK1A. One can only hope that ADA has learned anything in the meantime and that IAF control will make things better and not worse.

You're right on most of the stuff.
Only thing I would add is that despite Mk2 being a 'different' airframe, it employs the same wings (albeit a little bigger). So there's not much risk given that ADA fully understands these set of wings.
Technically speaking, Mk2 corrects some aerodynamic flaws (and some operational aspects like bigger fuel tank & bigger engine) in Mk1 without altering the design too much.

 

[Advaidhya Tiwari]

Not exactly,

MK1A = base of MK1 FOC + simple upgrades that initially were planned for MK2 (AESA radar, EW, avionics, external loads).
So this upgrade is rather simple, since it uses an (by then hopefully) available and certified airframe as the base. All that's left is, selecting, integrating and certifying the new systems.

MK2 however is based on a completely new airframe, with lots of internal and external changes, which itself makes development and certification a major task. So even if we would take the same systems of MK1A (which probably won't be the case the to DRDO lobbying), it's not a parallel development.

You basically have...

LCA IOC => FOC => MK1A to bridge the gap

And a separate MK2 development, to finally meet the requirements.

P.S. Just to put it in perspective...

We achieved IOC in 2013 and 5 years later we still integrating and testing modifications for FOC, while the certification is still not achieved.
MK2 does not just add modifications on the same airframe, but starts with a largely new design itself and that probably will require the most time to develop, test and certify. The risks therfore are higher with the MK2, than with FOC or MK1A. One can only hope that ADA has learned anything in the meantime and that IAF control will make things better and not worse.

It is true that MK2 has bigger airframe but the design is very similar with only some scaling difference. The internals will have to be rearranged and few more subsystems will be accommodated over MK1A. However, technology of subsystems, especially regarding sensors, processors, softwares etc are likely to be very similar. Even things like SPJ, EW suite etc are available in MK1A, though in a pod. These things will be put inside MK2. So, except for rearranging things, the difference would be minimal. The FBW changes will also be minimal as some parameters regarding dimensions will have to be altered, but the overall design related algorithm is likely to stay same.

 

[Sancho]

Only thing I would add is that despite Mk2 being a 'different' airframe, it employs the same wings (albeit a little bigger). So there's not much risk given that ADA fully understands these set of wings.

True the wings, or vertical tail or the cockpit section remain the same, because the changes are focused on the center fuselage. But take the FOC as an example, the only external change was, the new radome and refuelling probe. Flight testing and certifying them, is of course much easier, than a complete new airframe in the MK2.

 

[Sancho]

Even things like SPJ, EW suite etc are available in MK1A, though in a pod. These things will be put inside MK2.

That alone makes a big difference! You need to implement the parts into the airframe, or new external housings. Rewire the internals and hopefully add some new sensors (a fighter in 2025 without MAWS, wouldn't be technologically up to date) too. You are mistaken if you belive that's just plug an play.
And as said, we don't know if MK2 will get the same AESA and EW as MK1A, since DRDO will lobby for their own systems, rather than the imported once in MK1A. So even that, can require a whole set of new integration, testing and certification again.

 

[Advaidhya Tiwari]

That alone makes a big difference! You need to implement the parts into the airframe, or new external housings. Rewire the internals and hopefully add some new sensors (a fighter in 2025 without MAWS, wouldn't be technologically up to date) too. You are mistaken if you belive that's just plug an play.
And as said, we don't know if MK2 will get the same AESA and EW as MK1A, since DRDO will lobby for their own systems, rather than the imported once in MK1A. So even that, can require a whole set of new integration, testing and certification again.

If I am right, the EW for MK1A itself is DARE EW suite and the AESA is likely to be UTTAM. So, the AESA and EW of MK2 is likely to be same as that of MK1A as India will not change indigenous items with imports.

India already has DCMAWS for Su30 aircraft which was developed with Israel and uses 6 dual band IR sensors on the aircraft to detect missile arrival. It has been indigenised too. Mi17 has Indian MAWS made by BDL. I would not say that making a MAWS upgrade for Tejas will be difficult.

Source: https://www.drdo.gov.in/drdo/English/DRDO-a-glimpse-ebook.pdf PS: This is 2014 book. It has been improvised further in the last 4 years.

 

[Sancho]

If I am right, the EW for MK1A itself is DARE EW suite and the AESA is likely to be UTTAM.

That's not correct, an RFI was sent out to foreign OEMs, to supply AESA radar and EW for the MK1As. That's why they might be added later on MK1 IOC/FOC and MK2.

I would not say that making a MAWS upgrade for Tejas will be difficult.

Again the key is space! LCA was sadly designed with limited foresight on upgradability, the focus was on a very small overall size, which in return leaves not enough space for internal systems. That's one reason MK1A will remain with an external SPJ, although that's not modern standard anymore, or why MK2 gets a plug to add avionics.
The same is the issue for MAWS, which require space either in the airframe, or in external housings on the airframe or pylons.

 

[Enquirer]

That's not correct, an RFI was sent out to foreign OEMs, to supply AESA radar and EW for the MK1As. That's why they might be added later on MK1 IOC/FOC and MK2.




Again the key is space! LCA was sadly designed with limited foresight on upgradability, the focus was on a very small overall size, which in return leaves not enough space for internal systems. That's one reason MK1A will remain with an external SPJ, although that's not modern standard anymore, or why MK2 gets a plug to add avionics.
The same is the issue for MAWS, which require space either in the airframe, or in external housings on the airframe or pylons.

There's a project underway with DRDO to fit internal RWR and SPJ onto Tejas Mk1A. Fingers crossed if they'll succeed in time.

 

[Advaidhya Tiwari]

That's not correct, an RFI was sent out to foreign OEMs, to supply AESA radar and EW for the MK1As. That's why they might be added later on MK1 IOC/FOC and MK2.

Considering the slow rate of production, the FOC version production is likely from 2020 and last till 2021. From 2022, MK1A is likely to be made. Why would foreign AESA be ordered 4 years before? India is likely ordering AESA for MK1 and MK1 FOC which will be integrated once the radars arrive.

After 2022, radars will likely be Indian UTTAM. UTTAM has been stated to have completed ground trials according to DRDO newsletter of this year. 3 years would be a reasonable time for testing and refining it and it must be ready by 2021 itself. Why would MK1A have imported radar?

Again the key is space! LCA was sadly designed with limited foresight on upgradability, the focus was on a very small overall size, which in return leaves not enough space for internal systems. That's one reason MK1A will remain with an external SPJ, although that's not modern standard anymore, or why MK2 gets a plug to add avionics.
The same is the issue for MAWS, which require space either in the airframe, or in external housings on the airframe or pylons.

Just like internal hard drives can be converted to external ones, the equipments can be placed internal or external. MK2 is made bigger to accommodate these extra items. If the items already have software integration done, just rearranging it internally is not a difficult task. It is just about internal wiring and organisation. They are mechanical problems and not technological. Mechanical problems are easier to resolve. Since space constraint is unlikely in MK2 (it is designed to be bigger for exactly this reason), there is no other problem in integrating.

 

[Advaidhya Tiwari]

Duplicate message. There is no delete option.

 

[Sancho]

There's a project underway with DRDO to fit internal RWR and SPJ onto Tejas Mk1A. Fingers crossed if they'll succeed in time.

That was the initial plan, but the indigenous SPJ reportedly was too heavy. HAL is in charge for the MK1A and the upgrade includes foreign EW =>

 

[Sancho]

Why would foreign AESA be ordered 4 years before?

Because it also takes times to order and build the components of the radar of course. And since Uttam is still under development on it's own, we can't afford to wait till it's ready, certified and enters production. That's why it's best chance is IOC/FOC upgrades and MK2.

Just like internal hard drives can be converted to external ones, the equipments can be placed internal or external.

Wrong, since external changes on a fighter will effect weight balance and aerodynamics. Also an external drive will be plugged to an "available" USB port. Adding new IR sensors to a pylon on the other hand, not only requires changes to the pylons, but also a whole set of new wiring in the wings and airframe, that are not available now.

MK2 is made bigger to accommodate these extra items.

Nope, the airframe changes are primarily required to the engine change, or additional fuel tanks and some upgraded avionics behind the cockpit. If the SPJ and additional MAWS can be integrated and where needs to be seen. Even for the large MKI, DARE plans show parts of the MAWS integrated to the pylons. So space for changes that were not planned in the design stage itself, is always an issue.

 

[Enquirer]

That was the initial plan, but the indigenous SPJ reportedly was too heavy. HAL is in charge for the MK1A and the upgrade includes foreign EW =>

No, I am talking about a project approved this year.

 

[Enquirer]

That was the initial plan, but the indigenous SPJ reportedly was too heavy. HAL is in charge for the MK1A and the upgrade includes foreign EW =>

No, I am talking about a project approved this year.

 

[Dovah]

The thread should be clean now, I think. Report any posts that remain of that embarrassing slap-fight. Do not take matters into your own hand and start arguing again. Please remain civil and follow forum rules. More derailment on this thread will lead to infractions and quarantines.