ADA Tejas (LCA) News and Discussions

[charlie]

Lol, coming from someone that compares LCA to F35, that really shows credibility. :biggrin2:

well as absurd as it sound, I have seen you saying that european tech is better then American.

 

[no smoking]

well as absurd as it sound, I have seen you saying that european tech is better then American.

I think that he has been saying that the tech level of the weapons exported by European suppliers are always better than the tech presented by American exported weapon.
It is reasonable considering American global military deployment and war experience. American weapons are generally more mature and bring better maintenance and tech support after sales. More importantly, you may have chance to gain American information and data link support in a potential war. In order to compete against all these advantages, Europeans have to offer something better.

 

[Kshithij]

If we don't have the US engines LCA is indeed in trouble, the only ready alternative would be Russian once and neither Kaveri, nor RD93 offer enough thrust for AMCA. Which then brings back the EJ200 as an option.

https://defenceforumindia.com/forum/threads/eurofighter-ef-2000-typhoon.76395/page-18#post-1442167

Kaveri is F414 equivalent, not F404 equivalent. This must be understood well. Kaveri will not be able to be used in Tejas MK1 as it will be a fuel guzzler. But it will be able to be used for AMCA and Tejas MK2. Kaveri was designed to be F404 equivalent initially but eventually it was made to be F414 equivalent due to need of higher power. Also, India has RD33 which is as efficient as F404 and developing same the again would not make sense. So, the Kaveri was further enhanced to F414 level to make it future usable.

 

[ersakthivel]

Lol, coming from someone that compares LCA to F35, that really shows credibility. :biggrin2:

Ofcourse, for guys who don't have the ability to understand tech & effort behind greenfield tech development program names are the only thing that matter.

The article says, F35 cost is due to complex software code efforts for fly by wire tech, composites, avionics etc,,,

Nay sayers , won't admit Tejas tech development too has the same genes,

Not all of F35 costs are due to stealth shaping, & internal bays,

A substantial part of it is FOR DIGITAL FLY BY WIRE Tech, composites, avionics,, EW equipment, ASEA Radars, etc,, same as Tejas.


F35 has more complex technology costing higher,

But it is divided by thousands in number production.

But less complex tech development cost of MK1A is divided by 83,

MOD, IAF, journos, assorted experts are accusing HAL of ripping IAF by quoting 460 cores for MK1A.

They are not comparing the ASEA, EW equipped gripen or f16,

or even no ASEA, no HMDS mirage 2000 upgrade PRICES to justify their lairs,

Because they know it will fall flat on their faces,


Instead they are using the 1990s negotiated price of su 30,,being supplied to IAF,

Who's the supplier,,


LOL,

The same HAL, That is being a cursed for over pricing MK1A,,


Irony died, a thousand deaths

mauled by three leg cheetah,,,

 

[stew98]

You are spot on. Fly by wire is no simple feet to achieve. If I recollect previously we were developing with the help of LM, but due to sanctions in '98 nuclear tests we have to develop in house. So it goes for many other indigenous systems. But you are trying to convince hit job is just spoiling the thread. To get kickbacks IAF babus look at brochures of foreign toys and demands in LCA just derail.

Best advice would be to just ignore hit jobs.

Ofcourse, for guys who don't have the ability to understand tech & effort behind greenfield tech development program names are the only thing that matter.

The article says, F35 cost is due to complex software code efforts for fly by wire tech, composites, avionics etc,,,

Nay sayers , won't admit Tejas tech development too has the same genes,

Not all of F35 costs are due to stealth shaping, & internal bays,

A substantial part of it is FOR DIGITAL FLY BY WIRE Tech, composites, avionics,, EW equipment, ASEA Radars, etc,, same as Tejas.


F35 has more complex technology costing higher,

But it is divided by thousands in number production.

But less complex tech development cost of MK1A is divided by 83,

MOD, IAF, journos, assorted experts are accusing HAL of ripping IAF by quoting 460 cores for MK1A.

They are not comparing the ASEA, EW equipped gripen or f16,

or even no ASEA, no HMDS mirage 2000 upgrade PRICES to justify their lairs,

Because they know it will fall flat on their faces,


Instead they are using the 1990s negotiated price of su 30,,being supplied to IAF,

Who's the supplier,,


LOL,

The same HAL, That is being a cursed for over pricing MK1A,,


Irony died, a thousand deaths

mauled by three leg cheetah,,,

 

[BON PLAN]

well as absurd as it sound, I have seen you saying that european tech is better then American.

it depend.
Meteor is away the best AMRAAM.
ASTER 15/30 has better anti missile capacity than equivalent US product.
Leopard 2 and Leclerc MBT are (slightly) better than Abrams.
HK416 is unrivaled in USA.
...

The main problem of europe is the multiplication of the same kind of weapon : 5 AA frigates, 3 fighters, 4 MBT ... The R&D budget is fragmented.
Once this will be resolved, there is absolutely no reason not to be on par on everything.

 

[Kshithij]

Ofcourse, for guys who don't have the ability to understand tech & effort behind greenfield tech development program names are the only thing that matter.

The article says, F35 cost is due to complex software code efforts for fly by wire tech, composites, avionics etc,,,

Nay sayers , won't admit Tejas tech development too has the same genes,

Not all of F35 costs are due to stealth shaping, & internal bays,

A substantial part of it is FOR DIGITAL FLY BY WIRE Tech, composites, avionics,, EW equipment, ASEA Radars, etc,, same as Tejas.


F35 has more complex technology costing higher,

But it is divided by thousands in number production.

But less complex tech development cost of MK1A is divided by 83,

MOD, IAF, journos, assorted experts are accusing HAL of ripping IAF by quoting 460 cores for MK1A.

They are not comparing the ASEA, EW equipped gripen or f16,

or even no ASEA, no HMDS mirage 2000 upgrade PRICES to justify their lairs,

Because they know it will fall flat on their faces,


Instead they are using the 1990s negotiated price of su 30,,being supplied to IAF,

Who's the supplier,,


LOL,

The same HAL, That is being a cursed for over pricing MK1A,,


Irony died, a thousand deaths

mauled by three leg cheetah,,,

Most of the development of fly by wire, avionics etc happened for Tejas Mk1 and Su30 and that happened beore 2014. The MK1A came after 2015 and that had only some upgrades. So, the older cost would already have been reimbursed by the government as Tejas was developed on government sanction, not under HAL's own initiative.

The question is about the difference in cost for Tejas before MK1A and after MK1. What changed in between that increased cost by 100%? Do not bring in development cost of original Tejas but only bring the upgradation cost of Mk1A

 

[ersakthivel]

You don't even know that Tejas fly by wire tech is Relaxed Static Stability type & needs extensive testing & validation,

Chalk & cheese if you compare it with positive stability sukhoi fly by wire, which is a simple one compared to RSS.

IT takes a genius to argue that 163 crore per plane x40 Tejas Mk1 =6500 crores approx covers every thing

from composites,

glass cockpit,

fly by wire RSS Tech,

HMDS integration with High offbore WVR Missile,

Cost of the iron bird facility,

Thousands of flying hours spread over 10 test vehicles, & pilot efforts,

Along with cost of product tips line,,, ,,,

So no point in hiding Tejas Mk1 costs as baseline for Tejas development cost.

We still don't know whether 460 crs is flyaway cost of single Tejas mk1A

Or

Like all inclusive cost like Rafael deal.


I don't whether any part of this this 463 crore will go to govt or ADA as reimbursement for development costs,


Or

Will it remains as fat profit in HAL BOOKS & Tobe gifted TO GOI as big fat dividend in a fully SDRE compliant ceremony

But the 463 crore price is still cost effective compared to single engined birds in MARCA Tender,

With lesser forex outgoings & prompt HAL Response to any issues to be raised by IAF on Tejas,

It will seed Mil aviation Industry with 300 firm orders for all Tejas variants.

 

[ersakthivel]

You don't even know that Tejas fly by wire tech is Relaxed Static Stability type with lowest wingloading,


Optimized for high altitude Himalayan flights, takeoffs & landings with decent loads,

& needs extensive testing & validation,like F35 & F22

CHEESE & Chalk if you compare it with positive stability sukhoi fly by wire, which is a simple one compared to RSS.

IT takes a genius to argue that 163 crore per plane x40 Tejas Mk1 =6500 crores approx covers every thing

from composites,

glass cockpit,

fly by wire RSS Tech,

Cost of autoclaves set up for composite parts,

The exclusive software developed for it,

HMDS integration with High offbore WVR Missile,

Cost of the iron bird facility,

Thousands of test flying hours, infra, spread over 10 test vehicles, & pilot efforts,

Along with cost of new top notch production line,,, ,,,

So no point in holding Tejas Mk1 costs as baseline for Tejas development cost.

We still don't know whether 460 crs is flyaway cost of single Tejas mk1A

Or

Like all inclusive cost like Rafale deal.


I don't know, whether any part of this this 463 crores will go to govt or ADA as reimbursement for development costs,


Or

Will it remains as fat profit in HAL BOOKS & To be gifted TO GOI as big fat dividend in a fully SDRE compliant ceremony

But the 463 crore price is still cost effective compared to single engined birds in MARCA Tender,

With lesser forex outgoings & prompt HAL Response to any issues to be raised by IAF on Tejas,

It will seed Mil aviation Industry with 300 firm orders for all Tejas variants.

Still the money stays in Indian Mila viator system, energizing AMCA effort,

So what's the gripe,,,,,,


When IAF, MOD, fake technical analysts, xdump journos

keep all their holes shut off. 350 crores per plane mirage upgrade,

Which has none of the items listed above,,,

all of a sudden starts crying g, "my cookie is broke", the moment Hal says 463 crore per Tejas MK1A,,,,,

 

[Kshithij]

You don't even know that Tejas fly by wire tech is Relaxed Static Stability type with lowest wingloading,


Optimized for high altitude Himalayan flights, takeoffs & landings with decent loads,

& needs extensive testing & validation,like F35 & F22

CHEESE & Chalk if you compare it with positive stability sukhoi fly by wire, which is a simple one compared to RSS.

IT takes a genius to argue that 163 crore per plane x40 Tejas Mk1 =6500 crores approx covers every thing

from composites,

glass cockpit,

fly by wire RSS Tech,

Cost of autoclaves set up for composite parts,

The exclusive software developed for it,

HMDS integration with High offbore WVR Missile,

Cost of the iron bird facility,

Thousands of test flying hours, infra, spread over 10 test vehicles, & pilot efforts,

Along with cost of new top notch production line,,, ,,,

So no point in holding Tejas Mk1 costs as baseline for Tejas development cost.

We still don't know whether 460 crs is flyaway cost of single Tejas mk1A

Or

Like all inclusive cost like Rafale deal.


I don't know, whether any part of this this 463 crores will go to govt or ADA as reimbursement for development costs,


Or

Will it remains as fat profit in HAL BOOKS & To be gifted TO GOI as big fat dividend in a fully SDRE compliant ceremony

But the 463 crore price is still cost effective compared to single engined birds in MARCA Tender,

With lesser forex outgoings & prompt HAL Response to any issues to be raised by IAF on Tejas,

It will seed Mil aviation Industry with 300 firm orders for all Tejas variants.

Still the money stays in Indian Mila viator system, energizing AMCA effort,

So what's the gripe,,,,,,


When IAF, MOD, fake technical analysts, xdump journos

keep all their holes shut off. 350 crores per plane mirage upgrade,

Which has none of the items listed above,,,

all of a sudden starts crying g, "my cookie is broke", the moment Hal says 463 crore per Tejas MK1A,,,,,

Are you saying that the government did not pay a separate developmental assistance of tens of thousands of crores to make Mk1 initially? If government has already given the money for development, the developmental costs must not be incorporated in the unit cost. If developmental cost was not reimbursed by the government already, then this demand is justified. The big question is about developmental cost being included in unit cost or only integration costs in addition to manufacturing parts and assembly costs?

 

[no smoking]

Kaveri is F414 equivalent, not F404 equivalent. This must be understood well.

Interesting, according to DRDO website, the current maximum dry thrust of Kaveri is only 81kn. In the meantime, F414 thrust is 98kn.

 

[Kshithij]

Interesting, according to DRDO website, the current maximum dry thrust of Kaveri is only 81kn. In the meantime, F414 thrust is 98kn.

The status of Kaveri in DRDO has not changed for long. Also, the Kaveri is stated as a flat rated engine where the thrust is reduced to a flat rated level to ensure stable thrust even as altitude changes. This means that even though the peak thrust is 98kN, the stabilised peak is 84-85kN. Moreover, the 0.16 bypass ratio is untenable and is bound to be increased to 0.3-0.5 to make it practical.

 

[ersakthivel]

Do

Are you saying that the government did not pay a separate developmental assistance of tens of thousands of crores to make Mk1 initially? If government has already given the money for development, the developmental costs must not be incorporated in the unit cost. If developmental cost was not reimbursed by the government already, then this demand is justified. The big question is about developmental cost being included in unit cost or only integration costs in addition to manufacturing parts and assembly costs?

Does anyone has any answers for the questions

1,Does MK1A cost include reimbursement to GOI,,,

2, DOES 463 CR is the flyaway cost,,,, or includes spare, support for X no of years,,,,

3.what is the break up of 463 cores, ,,, with respect to

extra hardware cost,
integration cost,
Weapon cost,
Recouping of production line costs,
Material cost,
LRU COSTS,,

You can take Mk1 baseline as guidance for,

only for material cost & older LRU costs(newer LRU of MK1A include so many more costly stuff)

 

[Enquirer]

Interesting, according to DRDO website, the current maximum dry thrust of Kaveri is only 81kn. In the meantime, F414 thrust is 98kn.

Dry thrust??? The numbers suggest wet thrust.

 

[Enquirer]

Do


Does anyone has any answers for the questions

1,Does MK1A cost include reimbursement to GOI,,,

2, DOES 463 CR is the flyaway cost,,,, or includes spare, support for X no of years,,,,

3.what is the break up of 463 cores, ,,, with respect to

extra hardware cost,
integration cost,
Weapon cost,
Recouping of production line costs,
Material cost,
LRU COSTS,,

You can take Mk1 baseline as guidance for,

only for material cost & older LRU costs(newer LRU of MK1A include so many more costly stuff)

Don't know for sure. But if I have to hazard a guess the cost is the flyaway cost including spares & support (going by how MoD is doing all the other deals nowadays - /w Rafale, Boeing etc). I don't think the price includes weapons package but will include the integration costs for the already named systems (this work is DRDO's anyways & is already done).

One question that still lingers in my head is if HAL is paying any kind of royalty to ADA/DRDO for the design IP.

If the price does not include any royalties & the price is solely for 'manufacturing' then HAL is totally out of line!

 

[patriots]

guys keep calm..the committee will give its report within 2 months ....wait

and .....I am thinking of mk2 and amca .....if hal is charging this for tejas mk1a

 

[Sancho]

well as absurd as it sound, I have seen you saying that european tech is better then American.

OT but...
...Meteor, Spectra, Arexis, WVR missiles, AASM, Brimstone..., should be obvious examples of superior technology. What Europe lacks is money for projects and common goals, but certainly not know how.

 

[Sancho]

You are spot on. Fly by wire is no simple feet to achieve.

The same old 2 successfully developed techs (FBW and composites) argument, while ignoring all the failures, design, radome, radar, engine, weapons...you name it. All these indigenous developments failed and we ended up to import more and more stuff instead, or begging foreign companes for help (Airbus, Snecma, Elta, Cobham). So ignoring the facts, just because you don't like to hear the truth, is not helping LCA in any way.

Also his flawed point was, that LCA is suppose to have 4.5th let alone 5th gen techs, but as proven, that is not the case. Having a single advanced tech (AESA radar), doesn't make a Darin 3 Jag comparable to MMRCAs let alone F35 either, just as it doesn't make a compromise LCA MK1A any better either, especially since the biggest problem, flight performance remains the same.

 

[Sancho]

Interesting, according to DRDO website, the current maximum dry thrust of Kaveri is only 81kn. In the meantime, F414 thrust is 98kn.

81kN was the development goal for wet thrust, which wasn't achieved and why DRDO asked for Snecmas help for years. But even Snecma only prejected 90kN thrust so far, which IAF considered as not enough either and prefered EJ 200 or GE414 instead and the latter won the competition.
Kaveri/Snecma engine might be able to replace GE 404, in all MK1s someday, but is not enough for a heavier MK2, let alone an AMCA with around 110kN requirements.

 

[Kshithij]

The same old 2 successfully developed techs (FBW and composites) argument, while ignoring all the failures, design, radome, radar, engine, weapons...you name it. All these indigenous developments failed and we ended up to import more and more stuff instead, or begging foreign companes for help (Airbus, Snecma, Elta, Cobham). So ignoring the facts, just because you don't like to hear the truth, is not helping LCA in any way.

Also his flawed point was, that LCA is suppose to have 4.5th let alone 5th gen techs, but as proven, that is not the case. Having a single advanced tech (AESA radar), doesn't make a Darin 3 Jag comparable to MMRCAs let alone F35 either, just as it doesn't make a compromise LCA MK1A any better either, especially since the biggest problem, flight performance remains the same.

Radome has been indigenised. The ToT for silica radome has been given to private company already. Weapons like Astra, LGB are developed, design is decent enough but outdated as initial specification was different. UTTAM is almost ready and will most likely be fitted to MK2 or even Mk1A. Kaveri also has been tested already. What is the problem you have exactly?

81kN was the development goal for wet thrust, which wasn't achieved and why DRDO asked for Snecmas help for years. But even Snecma only prejected 90kN thrust so far, which IAF considered as not enough either and prefered EJ 200 or GE414 instead and the latter won the competition.
Kaveri/Snecma engine might be able to replace GE 404, in all MK1s someday, but is not enough for a heavier MK2, let alone an AMCA with around 110kN requirements.

Do you understand the meaning of flat rating? Flat rated thrust is not full peak thrust. Also, the peak of 81kN, bypass of 0.16 etc are impractical and contradictory to the specification which states that Kaveri is a flat rated variabe cycle engine. Variable cycle means that bypass can change as per requirement and flat rated means that the peak thrust is controlled to a flat rated thrust to ensure stable peak thrust with altitude.