ADA Tejas Mark-II/Medium Weight Fighter

Twinblade

New Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2011
Messages
1,578
Likes
3,231
Country flag
It will depend on the availability, Drdo one will be 100% of Tejas ..

But i have suspicion about HAL one, Is this AESA tech from dassault ( there is no news about Rafale deal recently ) but again working on AESA on sudden and that is too from a agency which have no experience of making even radars, HAL is know for nut & bolt work regarding jets ..

It is possible DRDO taking much info from HAL for Tejas AESA improvements..
HAL does not have any AESA technology currently, but a new manufacturing unit of HAL's Strategic Electronic Research Design Centre was set up in Kasargod, Kerala.
The new factory will make airborne special purpose systems, such as mission computers, display processors and radar computers for the Russian MiG-27 and Su-30 combat aircraft, and the Indian light combat aircraft (LCA). AIN has learned that a second-phase development of the new facility will start early next year. This will focus on indigenous projects such as the Software-defined radio and interrogate friend-or-foe (IFF) Mark XII. But it will also get involved in major defense acquisition projects, including the medium multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA); electronically scanned array (AESA) radar and electronic warfare suites; the fifth-generation fighter aircraft (FGFA); multi-role transport aircraft (MTA); light utility helicopter (LUH); light combat helicopter (LCH), medium-lift helicopter (MLH) and unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV).
HAL's Expansion into Avionics Offers New Indian Offset Options | Aviation International News

In my opinion, HAL will not be competing with DRDO, rather it will be competing with BEL. Currently most of the EW systems and radars are subcontracted to BEL. This makes HAL dependent on BEL when it comes to servicing and maintenance. Also, inter agency cooperation always ranks below intra agency cooperation. By bypassing BEL, HAL will manage to keep a lot of offsets to itself, increasing the profitability and service up time.
 

p2prada

New Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,017
HAL will build any radar system at its facility in Hyderabad.

The Kerala unit is not big enough. You can't push your top radar scientists and technicians outside a major city either.

Only some unlucky noobs may end up there. Ask Venkat.

The HAL units will offer direct competition to both DRDO (which designs) and BEL (which manufactures most DRDO equipment).

Anyway, the major manufacturing partner for a fighter AESA will be a private company by the name of Astra Microwave. So this company will also have to compete with HAL which will manufacture both Rafale's, MKI's and FGFA's radars. Astra will manufacture radars and components for LCA and AMCA.

Astra Microwave Products Ltd - Customers

CRISIL maintains fundamental grade of 4/5 for Astra Micro - Moneycontrol.com

The problem with our defence structure is that govt owned entities are far too powerful for others to compete in. Many private companies have shut down or reduced footprint because of direct HAL monopoly in most spheres. HAL's intention as it is for any company is to ensure competition is the bare minimum. Considering the kind of orders (size and volume) HAL receives vs any other company, there is no real competition.
 

Defcon 1

New Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2011
Messages
2,195
Likes
1,842
Country flag
HAL does not have any AESA technology currently, but a new manufacturing unit of HAL's Strategic Electronic Research Design Centre was set up in Kasargod, Kerala.

HAL's Expansion into Avionics Offers New Indian Offset Options | Aviation International News

In my opinion, HAL will not be competing with DRDO, rather it will be competing with BEL. Currently most of the EW systems and radars are subcontracted to BEL. This makes HAL dependent on BEL when it comes to servicing and maintenance. Also, inter agency cooperation always ranks below intra agency cooperation. By bypassing BEL, HAL will manage to keep a lot of offsets to itself, increasing the profitability and service up time.
HAL doesn't have money to manufacture LCA, LCH, LUH anything, and they are busy reinventing the wheel. How is cannibalizing into another PSU's business a positive move?
 

pmaitra

New Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,600
HAL doesn't have money to manufacture LCA, LCH, LUH anything, and they are busy reinventing the wheel. How is cannibalizing into another PSU's business a positive move?
It's not. It's called stepping onto others' toes, or to be brutally honest, trying to bite off more than it can chew. HAL should concentrate on its own problems first. It's not that they don't have stuff to do.
 

Twinblade

New Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2011
Messages
1,578
Likes
3,231
Country flag
HAL doesn't have money to manufacture LCA, LCH, LUH anything, and they are busy reinventing the wheel. How is cannibalizing into another PSU's business a positive move?
There are significant overlaps in HAL's and BEL's capabilities. For eg: Traditionally HAL makes IFFs, but the AEW&C will have L-Band AESA IFF embeded in the array, which will be a BEL product. Similarly P-8I carries a BEL made IFF. Currently BEL has the production rights for all EW suite designed by DARE because it jointly funded them, while HAL's support is necessary for testing and integration. Should HAL invest in future EW programs by DARE, it will have a better chance of customising its products (Dhruv, LCH) in-house. Overlaps in production capabilities and rivalries for production rights are hardly new. You have Keltron, BEL and ECIL competing over several products despite being PSUs. HAL has a large and competitive avionics division and a strategic electronics, and they have a right to compete over whatever comes in their purview.
 

Defcon 1

New Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2011
Messages
2,195
Likes
1,842
Country flag
There are significant overlaps in HAL's and BEL's capabilities. For eg: Traditionally HAL makes IFFs, but the AEW&C will have L-Band AESA IFF embeded in the array, which will be a BEL product. Similarly P-8I carries a BEL made IFF. Currently BEL has the production rights for all EW suite designed by DARE because it jointly funded them, while HAL's support is necessary for testing and integration. Should HAL invest in future EW programs by DARE, it will have a better chance of customising its products (Dhruv, LCH) in-house. Overlaps in production capabilities and rivalries for production rights are hardly new. You have Keltron, BEL and ECIL competing over several products despite being PSUs. HAL has a large and competitive avionics division and a strategic electronics, and they have a right to compete over whatever comes in their purview.
Yes an overlap is acceptable when resources are not in the short supply. But at one place we see HAL begging to mod for 1500 crores for tejas (which will come out of the defence budget, resulting in cuts for other products), the production line for LCH hasn't been setup even when only 1.5 years are left for IOC, production rate of Dhruv still not upto 32 units per annum after a decade of service. money will be required for setting up Rafale's production line as well. HAL's foray into subsystems for which indigenous producers already exist will take away business from them and kill the defence startups.

HAL has right to right to do whatever it wants, it is another matter that whether exercising those rights is in the interests of the country. If they have money invest it in Tejas production line, why on one hand HAL is asking mod for money and on the other hand expanding into new domains?
 

ersakthivel

Brilliance
New Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
7,029
Likes
8,764
Country flag
Yes an overlap is acceptable when resources are not in the short supply. But at one place we see HAL begging to mod for 1500 crores for tejas (which will come out of the defence budget, resulting in cuts for other products), the production line for LCH hasn't been setup even when only 1.5 years are left for IOC, production rate of Dhruv still not upto 32 units per annum after a decade of service. money will be required for setting up Rafale's production line as well. HAL's foray into subsystems for which indigenous producers already exist will take away business from them and kill the defence startups.

HAL has right to right to do whatever it wants, it is another matter that whether exercising those rights is in the interests of the country. If they have money invest it in Tejas production line, why on one hand HAL is asking mod for money and on the other hand expanding into new domains?
When we have resources of 20 billions and 30 billions for RAFALE and FGFA what is wrong in having a few overlaps?

it is always better to have two units working and delivering competing products.

try to google how American fighter contracts are awarded and Why China has both AVIC and Chengdu.

Then by the same scale Russians also have Migs and Sukhoi design entities ,

If they have money invest it in Tejas production line, why on one hand HAL is asking mod for money and on the other hand expanding into new domains?
HAL is not begging MOD for 1500 Cr.

HAL did not design tejas. ADA did

If IAF wants HAL to deliver 16 Tejas per year then MOD has to give 1500 cr to set up a modern production line.Why do you expect HAL to set aside this money from it's internal accruals? Why can't it ask the MOD?

Who is begging to whom here?

This 1500 cr asked by the HAL has nothing to do with it's expansion activities in other domains.

If the production lines are not set up for LCH and production rate of Dhurv is low then more resources need to be allocated thats all. It is the fault of the political leadership which delays funding approval for these facilities.

In the same vain if you ask the HAL to produce RAFALE , then MOD has to infuse money into HAL.

HAL is a govt firm under MOD control. It is not an entity which practices exorbitant profit oriented market operations so that instead of putting the pile of profit money it is sitting on for the production facilities ,it is asking for fresh funds.Surely it is not a Relaince or TATA motors or Apple type company which is expected to finance all its new production lines only from internal accruals.

That does not mean HAL should not foray into other sectors.

many aviation companies make many products simultaneously and there is nothing wrong in HAL doing it.

ISRO make GSLVs, Satelites all at the same time. In the same way different divisions of DRDO makes different products . So Why HAL should not get into other fields?
 
Last edited:

ersakthivel

Brilliance
New Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
7,029
Likes
8,764
Country flag
Before Tejas Mk II is brought in, experts should weigh all the pros and cons



These are: More powerful engine F-414-GE-INS6; New Flight Control Computer; Upgraded avionics; Retractable In Flight Refuelling probe; On Board Oxygen Generating system (OBOGS); AESA radar; Cockpit upgrade; New Electronic Warfare(EW) suite; and Ability to super cruise (fly supersonic in level flight in dry power).

These changes will lend value throughHigher thrust; More ordnance carrying capacity; Better avionics; Longer endurance with On Board Oxygen Generating System (OBOGS); State-of-the-art radar; Better man-machine interface and situational awareness through larger displays in the cockpit and easier management drills; and Better survivability through better EW suites. This factor will also enhance the operational performance.

ADA's contention that all this can be done within two years is based on the example of the Swedish Gripen NG (called Gripen E for in-service usage). ADA has also sought guidance through consultancy from Saab for the Mk II. Before proceeding further, we need to factor in some extremely relevant points, otherwise this comparison becomes rather odious.

"¢ The Gripen E is an off-shoot of the highly successful Gripen A/B/C/D. The Tejas Mk I is yet to enter service.

But doesn't the IAF know what are the capabilities of tejas mk-1 even now? If it has capabilities comparable with Grippen C/D(it seems to be) then years of operational service has no relevance when it comes to validating Tejas mk2
"¢ Saab has over 75-year-old history of design and development of fighter aircraft vis-a-vis ADA/HAL's nascent experience in producing fighter aircraft.
Still the First Grippen demo crashed and SAAB went to US firm for consultations on the all too crucial Fly by wire tech!!!!

By comparison the ADA seems to have done pretty well in this crucial field concerning the safety of the fighter with no external help!!!!!

So what use is SAAB's 65 year old experience if it can not get the Fly by wire flight control software correct even for testing phase?
"¢ ADA's record of non-adherence to consultants' recommendations, especially when it runs against their grain and involves redoing certain aspects of work, is well known.
It depends on many constraints, time utility and adverse effects on other areas also. People don't appoint consultants and pay them to simply over rule them. For example TATA appointed a high flying foreign consultant in the 1990s regarding streamlining of their complex business empires .The consultant gave many recommendations , which include selling off many non core business. TATA MOTORS was one among them if my memory is right. The consultants did not see TATA MOTORS surviving the onslaught of multi nationals. In fact many indians thought so. Now TATA MOTOR owns Jaguar and Land Rower and turned in a record profit last year . It is also one of the top 10 truck makers in the world.

But TATAs sold off many non core stuff like Hamam soap and many other units as per the recommendations, So not every one follows all the recommendations of consultants
"¢ Then there are consultants who merely review your work and either tell you that it is okay or withhold comments that may rock the boat. It is to be seen how much Saab would be involved; ADA should be absolutely clear that Saab will neither build/design this aircraft for them nor give them a blueprint to follow.
ADA never expects SAAB to build a fighter to compete with grippen NG!!!!!. They must be very naive if they think so,
Let us take a cursory glance at the summary of how Saab went about making the Gripen E, which has fairly similar improvements as envisaged for the Tejas MK II. The stated aims of the Gripen E were: Increased thrust; Decision support; Sensor fusion; Superior HMI; Improved communication; More weapon stations; Superior target acquisition; Airframe upgrades; External sensors; General systems upgrade; New avionics architecture; and Electronic Warfare

These changes led the demonstrator aircraft (the NGs) to achieve the following:Enhanced range; More payload; New sensor suite/weapons/electronic countermeasures; Engine with higher thrust; AESAradar; New avionics system; More internal fuel; and Super cruise ability. This also permitted reduced cost and lead time by 60 per cent, thanks to new processes and new supplier strategy (very significant in the Indian context).

The programme followed a time-bound schedule that went through the following steps:

Did the Sweedish airforce changed specs three times in between with lack of foresight like our beloved airforce? If it did so surely there would have been no time bound development in NG program.
"¢ Early 2006: Demonstrator development started in Saab with the aim to fly in 2008

"¢ 27 May 2008: Maiden flight of the Demonstrator(NG). This segment of the test programme was concluded in only 79 test flights with the new engine (414), larger internal fuel tank and more pylons (increased payload).

"¢ 27 October 2009: Introduced AESA (limited version), MAW and SATCOM. Flown and tested in 73 flights including flights with a larger drop tank. Next step planned was to introduce new avionics.

"¢ By 19 December 2012 the demo aircraft had accumulated over 250 hours.

"¢ 15 July 2013: Saab started the assembly of the Next Generation Gripen, the Gripen E. First to be constructed is the front fuselage of the first pre-production test aircraft 39-8.

"¢ 15 August 2013: Saab claimed they reduced cost and lead time by 60 per cent, thanks to new processes and new supplier strategy

"¢ 2018: Delivery of first Gripen E planned for the Swedish Air Force. Saab managed the weight issue rather cleverly through extensive use of aluminium alloys and composites for the airframe. The major lesson that this remarkable programme brought was that it is extremely important to work with the customer to achieve success in record time.
Whatever done or claimed by SAAB has no merit in this discussion. SAAB got all the help from all foreign partners with active support unlike India which was hobbled by tech denial regime till now. So it is not proper to compare the old time lines of Tejas to old time line of Grippen NG.

truth is if no future export orders are won there are no guarantees about Grippen NG time lines,

If ADA manages to come out with a much better fighter than tejas mk-1 , it is enough. A few year time over run can easily be overcome with more orders for Tejas mk-1. So it is no more the case of pilots dying because of the delays in tejas mk-1.
Challenges for the Tejas Mk II

ADA has certainly conducted some studies on this subject, but the extent to which they have proceeded and the results achieved are shrouded in secrecy. Educated guesses from within ADA vary from the 'let's see how it goes' to the more horrifying prospect that it may do 'less than the MK I'.
Why should the author place so much trust on the later views???!!!!!
How come he determined those later views were visionary and telling the truth?
The latter view seems to justify ADA's reluctance to even part with the projected improved performance figures. Remember, unlike the Gripen E, the Tejas Mk II will first have to contend with the shortcomings and flaws that it will inherit from the Mk I. These include:

"¢ Weight reduction;

"¢ New engine F414 fitment requirements;

"¢ Re-design of air intakes;

"¢ Better cooling of the avionics bay;

"¢ Estate management of ancillaries fitted around the engine to facilitate a swift engine change (Gripen engine change takes 33 minutes); and

"¢ Brakes
CEMILAC has already given many recommendations on weight reduction including changing the engine mounts to composites and ADA chief himself has said on record that composite content will be increased form 40 percent in mk-1 to 60 percent in mk-2

Length and diameter of fuselage will be is increased to cater to the needs of new engines

Air intake is enlarged to cater to the needs of bigger engine.

And since higher thrust is there a bigger power gen can be put up to cater to the increased cooling needs.

Naturally with more fuselage dia and length estate management will be better no doubt about it.
These are only representative and by no means, exhaustive. Corrective measures for all shortfalls will have to be addressed along with the challenges that the new design will throw up.

The new design features would include modification of the fuselage to accommodate the larger and heavier F414 engine. This would entail lengthening the fuselage, strengthening the fuselage and redesigning the contours. More thrust being produced by this engine (35 per cent more than the F404) means more fuel consumed and hence, the necessity for larger capacity fuel tanks. The obvious penalty would be in adding more weight, changing the area ruling (contours of the fuselage) which would increase the drag index, thereby negating some of the advantages of having a more powerful engine.

According to the CEMILAC report more lengthened fuselage will help in reducing the drag by 3.7 dbms . This recommendation which was not implemented in mk-1 because the extra weight will negate engine thrust , it fits hand in glove with the bigger thrust engine along with lengthened fuselage in mk-2

So trouble is expected from extra drag from lengthened fuselage. In fact it will benefit the mk-2 as per CEMILAC recommendations.

More fuel consuming more thrust engine will give more power so for the fuel consumed enabling the fighter to travel more distance is the general idea.
The addition of more weight would be counter-productive. However, some saving grace could be sought from redistribution of segments of the avionics components/LRUs and those of the new radar to get rid of the 200kg ballast that is carried in the nose bay to keep the centre of gravity within limits, an unheard of solution in good modern day fighters, only exception being Chinese fighters.

By replacing the 200 Kg ballast with On Board Oxygen Generating System (OBOGS); State-of-the-art radar; Better man-machine interface and situational awareness through larger displays in the cockpit and easier management drills; and Better survivability through better EW suites, IRST , and retractable fuel probe it can be ensured that Cg positioning needs are catered to along with improving the fighter performance many fold!!!!!!!!!!
The air intakes would have to be redesigned to ensure full benefit is derived from the new engine. This is one area that ADA has shied away from doing for decades. It is both understandable and acceptable that they lack expertise in this area, but it has to be addressed, so why not get specialist help for this.

LSP-7 and 8 have aux air intake and ADA propose to enlarge the air intakes in Tejas mk-2. SO I see no problem here. Considering the lifting of crippling tech denial regimes air intake redesign can be done with external consulatnts if needed
Fool-proof cooling of the avionics bay is a safety requirement, since this area houses much sensitive equipment, including the four channel cards for the quadruple fly-by-wire system of the Digital Flight Control Computer, which, if affected by thermal transfer due to inadequate cooling, can have disastrous consequences. The quadruple control system will come to naught if all four systems fail in quick succession. Other sensitive equipment can also get degraded and thereby, jeopardise mission accomplishment.
Higher power from bigger generator on board should essentially take care of this problem.
Maintenance practices in the Tejas are probably among the most primitive in this class of aircraft and certainly not conducive to operational efficiency. The Gripen requires all of 33 minutes to replace the engine. The Tejas takes a couple of days because of poor estate management of ancillary connections on the engine.

Did IAF specify 33 minutes engine change in it's 2004 ASR? Or is IAF specifying it now?
With a Hot Refuelling (engine running after landing) and rearming with air-to-air missiles, the Gripen is back in the air in 22 minutes. Hot refueling is not permitted by Indian Oil, who seems to dictate the Tejas operational efficiency. The IAF could circumvent this issue by getting their own refuellers that are manned by IAF personnel. (I wonder whether Indian Oil is aware that air to air refueling does not require the engines to be shut down in the air! So much for their safety practices).
Well precautions on test flights should not be construed to imply that in air to air refuelling Tejas will have to switch off the engine!!!!!!!!!!
There are a host of other issues that have been swept under the table ever since the first aircraft was designed and manufactured. Unless each one of them is addressed, their ghost will always return to haunt this programme.
Nothing is swept under the carpet , If IAF pus realistic demands along with some financial backing without revising ASR in between there will be no dirt under the carpet!!!!!!!!
So, how does this translate into time required and cost involved?ADA has no clue and that is a charitable observation.

Uncharitable a best!!!!!
Having been brought up for decades on self-delusion, delays and cost overruns, that have always been condoned, they no longer acknowledge the word 'accountability'.

There is no self delusion, and monumental delays and cost over runs compared to similar fighter programs abroad when their air forces did not revise their dump preliminary ASRs many times in between
HAL keenly aids and abets this philosophy. Before the 'go-ahead' is given to this project, a complete feasibility report must be produced by the two Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs), clearly stating the aim of this exercise, with details of changes planned, the improved performance that would accrue and realistic timelines, plus costs.
If it delays the program by four or five years, Is that acceptable to IAF. Did Sweedish airforce insist upon it? Or dos the author know ADA has not made any preliminary design study and doing it on happy go lucky philosophy?
It would not be out of place, based on past performance, to state that performance, costs and timelines will have to be critically examined and the casual figures bandied about by non-involved individuals/bodies must be totally ignored. If the Gripen E, with Saab's extensive experience, is realistically pitched at 12 years from conception to manufacture to delivery of first aircraft to the Swedish Air Force, it would behove ADA/HAL to add on a few more years to the Tejas Mk II. At a conservative estimate of 16 years (your guess is as good as mine), does this version of the aircraft really add value to the IAF, when it would have already inducted the fifth generation aircraft?
There were no financier for Grippen E full fledged development . ANd it's development was predicated on it winning a few export orders which will make the program viable. this is certainly not the case with Tejas mk-2
A Viable Alternative

The rationale of making the Tejas MK II is centred around the Indian Navy's requirement of having a greater initial acceleration for deck operations. Hence, the choice of a more powerful and bigger engine, the F414. The IAF has piggybacked on this solution since it promises a greater all round performance.
If IAf does not piggy back on Navy requirement , there will be howls of protests saying that IAf is saddled with lesser fighter while navy is getting a better fighter, and cris to replace this obsolete Tejas IAF mk-1 with some imported stuff will be very loud.
The navy's requirement is well focused on the engine, though they would not be reluctant to avail of any other benefit that this aircraft would bring as a bonus. The IAF's configuration for the MK II, though discussed internally, is still not frozen. Therefore, to consider a viable alternative is not too late.Give a serious thought to modifying the Mk I with all the changes envisaged for the Mk II, other than the engine change. The only major challenge is to redesign the air intakes to ensure optimum pressure recovery. The rest would entail only modifications and improvements.
If IAF gives 80 or so orders for tejas mk-1 , it will be a worth while alternative for ADA to tinker with the design.

But You can't expect ADA to spend all it's energies in fiddling with mk-1 design for just 40 orders from IAf, that too it was just 20 in the beginning!!!!!!
The question that comes up is whether a serious study has been done to explore this alternative. It would not need rocket science to presume that the time, effort and money required to do this would be far less than design and development of a 'new' aircraft. Whether this version is called theMK IAor Mk II is of no consequence, since such nomenclature is pure semantics.

The prime focus will have to be on ensuring that the rated thrust is allowed to be produced by the engine. The Swedish version of the F404 is the RM 12, made by Volvo. Some tweaking by Volvo has enhanced the dry thrust from 49.9 kN to 54kN and in the after burner regime, from 78.7kN to 80.5kN. It has also strengthened fan modules to withstand bird strikes. The F404-IN-20 also incorporates these modifications, but the Tejas Mk I intake design does not allow this full thrust to be built up. Hence, it is mandatory to redesign the intakes. Both the Gripen and the older version of the F-18 have air intakes that permit optimum pressure recovery. Can ADA not consult both Saab and Boeing to overcome this problem?
People attrbute the so called thrust shortfall to air intake design always, Has enough thought spared on thinking about , whether thrust shortfall is due t hot and arid indian climate?
The other unresolved issues that have defied a solution are not because of ADA's capability, but their reluctance to address them, since it is far easier to sweep them under the carpet, to be looked at later. 'Later' has arrived now and procrastination cannot be condoned any further. The work force, which is familiar with the MK I and is relatively unoccupied, can now be gainfully diverted to carrying out structural and other reviews to resolve pending issues, instead of waiting to tackle the MK II, as and when it emerges.

Will this avatar of the Tejas meet the requirements of the Indian Navy? Has ADA measured what the static thrust of the engine is in the MK I as of now and determined how short it falls of the manufacturer's figure? Unless that is known, how can we aim to achieve the latter? A comprehensive study would provide the answer. In the event that the enhanced initial thrust still falls short of the navy's requirement, the F 414 may be the only answer, but not in the form that ADA envisages the Tejas Mk II. Before giving a 'green light' to the Tejas Mk II, a transparent study of the enhanced performance, with specific facts and figures, along with a realistic timeframe and cost, must be scrutinised by a competent body of the users (IAF and IN) and financial wizards, lest the taxpayers money is again squandered away. Is anyone listening?

Did Sweedish airforce impose so many conditions before SAAB embarked on Grippen A/B?
Has IAF imposed such conditions before buying the MIG-21, 23, 29, and Su-30 MKI?
How did Jaguar with faulty nav attack system making it worthles for the primary DPSA task inended found it's way into IAF?
HAs IAF imposed such through studies on FGFA project before deciding to particiapte?
Or till date does IAF know what will be the final specs of FGFA?
Ultimate aim of such no holds barred no end in sight examinations mentioned above will only result in more delays.
More powerful engine will increase the close combat specs of tejas manifold. It is surprising that there is no mention of this in the article,

One simple question from the days of TD-1 flight , did Tejas capability increased step by step or decrease step by step? Why such tons of pessimism over a project about which no one knows?

Why should all the scientists in ADA are painted as betrayers of national interests like this?

The USAf backed F-22,and F-35 , and French did back RAFALE until it got to the F-3, Many airfoces are backing TYPHOON till tranche-III tht too with no ground attack capability worth the money being poured in,Compare it with the backing tejas gets!!!!!!

It was our good fortune that the missile program had no interference from the forces. If that is so till AGNI-V we would not have inducted a single missile saying this is wrong and that is wrong!!!!!!

Aim of the Tejas program is to translate national scientific talent into a viable fighting machine aimed at low 300 or 400 in the high-low mix.It is not aimed at satisfying every fancy and dream of IAf after seeing the specs of grippen NG from MMRCA contract!!!!!
So all fighters that can not change their engine within 30 minutes should be retired from service?
Only God knows!!!!!!!!!
 
Last edited:

sayareakd

New Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2009
Messages
17,734
Likes
18,953
Country flag
Supercruise for LCA MK-II, people in IAF are dreaming now a days.
 

ersakthivel

Brilliance
New Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
7,029
Likes
8,764
Country flag


The length increase in fuselage is not being done to increase fuel load. This si done to improve fineness ratio, by increasing the length by 0.5m over the Mk1.

The fuel is being increased because they can use the increased length.

In cross sectional area of the Tejas, between the 5mtr and 6mtr. There is sudden jump in cross sectional area.

According to CEMILAC report changing it to gradual increase with lengthened fuselage will reduce 3.7 dbsm drag and enable tejas to achieve better top speeds and trans sonic acceleration.

This crucial fact is not acknowledged by the author of the above report and worse he claims that this length increase will increase drag which is wrong.

Also SFC of GE 414 is better than GE404 at same levels of thrust.
The SFC is higher when you push the GE414 beyond the limits of 404.
So in normal operating speeds we can see an increased range for the same fuel on GE-414 not decreased range due to higher thrust.

So unlike the fears raised by the following article the changes in LCA mk-2 is far more beneficial,
http://www.forceindia.net/ABetterAlternative.aspx
because with increased fineness ratio Tejas mk-2 will encounter les wave drag while with increased fuselage width for fairings meant to house gear box under the wings Grippen NG will encounter more wave drag with the author is unaware of,
http://www.forceindia.net/ABetterAlternative.aspx
 
Last edited:

ersakthivel

Brilliance
New Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
7,029
Likes
8,764
Country flag
http://newindianexpress.com/opinion/Stop-wasteful-military-deals/2013/11/01/article1866740.ece

French and Israeli pilots who have unofficially flown the Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) have gone gaga over its flying attributes. The Tejas will come equipped with an indigenous AESA (Active Electronically Scanned Array) radar — the heart and the brains of any combat aircraft, enabling it to near-instantly switch from air-to-air to air-to-ground missions. The Flight Control System (FCS) of the Tejas is so advanced, it can deal with the sort of turbulence in flight that its counterpart onboard the Eurofighter — supposedly technologically superior to the Rafale, plainly cannot, as per an expert familiar with the FCS in both aircraft. This deficiency nearly ended in disaster for the Eurofighter on several occasions but was not disclosed by EADS to IAF during the jockeying for the MMRCA contract. The larger, heavier, longer range Mark-II variant of the near all-composite Tejas, in fact, fills the bill of "MMRCA". An LCA version of Tejas has already been flown weighted down with ballast to mimic the Mk-II plan-form. The fact that the Mk-II variant was coming along well, besides, was known to the IAF-MoD (ministry of defence) combo. So, how come the tender for MMRCA was not terminated midway?

The Mk-II's chances were scuppered by IAF-MoD on the ground that Tejas was not operational. But the LCA has been prevented from entering squadron service after it obtained the Initial Operational Clearance (IOC)-1 last year, because of their insistence that IOC-2 and subsequent clearances be done by HAL rather than permitting the clearances to be obtained by the designated Tejas squadron, flying the aircraft, at the Sulur base in Tamil Nadu. The latter procedure will allow our fighter pilots to test the plane's flight envelope and performance, and to provide feedback to designers — normal practice of advanced air forces inducting a new locally-produced aircraft
. Further, rather than restricting the initial off-take to just 46 aircraft, MoD should order the full complement of 7-8 squadrons worth of Tejas to facilitate economies of scale and the farming out of work by HAL to private industry, thereby growing it. In the interim, additional "super Sukhois" could have been procured for a total force of some 70-plus of these planes, inarguably the finest combat aircraft now flying.

The fact is the original price tag for the MMRCA deal of $12-15 billion is set to balloon to $26-30 billion. Why? For one thing, having won the MMRCA contest,

If tejas is flown with weight ballast to mimic mark_2 why is our airforce guys lambast the practice saying that they have not heard of the weight ballast arrangement anywhere? How many fighters they have test flighted to FOC ?

http://www.forceindia.net/ABetterAlternative.aspx

By Parvez Khokhar
Now that sounds coming from the ministry of defence (MoD) and Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) seem to be suggesting that the Tejas Mk I is just around the corner, the focus seems to be shifting to the Tejas Mk II. This variant appears to be gathering momentum in the eyes of clairvoyant chair-borne pundits, who profess that this will be the panacea for all the ills that beset the indigenous aircraft industry and will also address the desire of the Indian Air Force (IAF) to have a super-duper fighter.

ADA and Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) have even widely publicised a time schedule for the induction of this aircraft (too fictional to be mentioned). The granting of permission by the MoD to commence this project and its acceptance by the IAF by placing some initial orders, is not in the public domain. In order to take an educated decision on what the Mk II aims to be and the challenges involved therein, it is imperative to comprehend the facts, as they exist today.

ADA and HAL have made public statements that work on the airframe will begin by end 2013. Whilst it is apparent that the qualities envisaged in the Mk II are all commendable, they require a closer examination to comprehend the challenges involved in reaching this target without unacceptable time and cost overruns. So what are the major changes envisaged in the Mk II in order to be a quantum leap over the Mk I?

These are: More powerful engine F-414-GE-INS6; New Flight Control Computer; Upgraded avionics; Retractable In Flight Refuelling probe; On Board Oxygen Generating system (OBOGS); AESA radar; Cockpit upgrade; New Electronic Warfare(EW) suite; and Ability to super cruise (fly supersonic in level flight in dry power).

These changes will lend value throughHigher thrust; More ordnance carrying capacity; Better avionics; Longer endurance with On Board Oxygen Generating System (OBOGS); State-of-the-art radar; Better man-machine interface and situational awareness through larger displays in the cockpit and easier management drills; and Better survivability through better EW suites. This factor will also enhance the operational performance.

ADA's contention that all this can be done within two years is based on the example of the Swedish Gripen NG (called Gripen E for in-service usage). ADA has also sought guidance through consultancy from Saab for the Mk II. Before proceeding further, we need to factor in some extremely relevant points, otherwise this comparison becomes rather odious.

"¢ The Gripen E is an off-shoot of the highly successful Gripen A/B/C/D. The Tejas Mk I is yet to enter service.

"¢ Saab has over 75-year-old history of design and development of fighter aircraft vis-a-vis ADA/HAL's nascent experience in producing fighter aircraft.

"¢ ADA's record of non-adherence to consultants' recommendations, especially when it runs against their grain and involves redoing certain aspects of work, is well known.

"¢ Then there are consultants who merely review your work and either tell you that it is okay or withhold comments that may rock the boat. It is to be seen how much Saab would be involved; ADA should be absolutely clear that Saab will neither build/design this aircraft for them nor give them a blueprint to follow.
 
Last edited:

WMD

New Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2013
Messages
624
Likes
794
Blowing one's trumpet about the AESA (active electronically scanned array) radar is premature at this stage, as it is not even on the drawing board. In such a situation it is not even clear whether it would be on the LCA Mk II.
idrw.org/?p=29001#more-29001
Arjun Subramaniam is a serving Air Vice Marshal in the IAF and an air power analyst.
 

ersakthivel

Brilliance
New Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
7,029
Likes
8,764
Country flag
idrw.org/?p=29001#more-29001
Arjun Subramaniam is a serving Air Vice Marshal in the IAF and an air power analyst.
ADA has clearly said that ASEA will be ported on to Tejas mk-2 once its development is complete. IF the development is not complete before Tejas mk-2 induction it will be flown with Tejas mk-1 radar which is superior to most of the IAf fighter radars bar Su-30 MKI till mid life upgrade,

no one is blowing any trumpet about ASEA.
The airpower analyst has not understood the simple fact that sanction days are over for india and no one bars us from getting ASEA miniaturization tech from global vendors, as LRDE already has larger ASEA radars a s finished product it will not be so difficult. to fing partners in miniaturization
 

ersakthivel

Brilliance
New Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
7,029
Likes
8,764
Country flag
http://idrw.org/?p=29001#more-29001

Counter Article on "Stop Wasteful Military Deals"
Published November 7, 2013 | By admin

idrw.org/?p=29001#more-29001
Arjun Subramaniam is a serving Air Vice Marshal in the IAF and an air power analyst.


I want to know what type of brainstorming went on between IAF and HAL for decades which could not solve the fuel pump issues of HPT-32?


And why did Arjun Subramanium failed to mention about the HPT-35 which too was developed at the behest of IAf by HAL was not pursued with interest by IAF? it was shelved because IAF did not show any interest.

It was this decade long delay by IAF which did not approve the HPT-35 proposal from HAL which led to this sorry state pf importing pliatus while designing tejas!!!!!!!!!!

Ajai Shukla and many other writers have pointed this out in many blogs. It is not Bharath Karnard alone. In fact this sorry state of affair between HAl and IAF which led to the shut down of Marut (the GOI refused to pay a princely sum of Rs 5 Cr to bristol Siddley to develop a higher power engine for Marut , which latter led to the DPSA contract and induction of Jaguar)led to the creation of ADA to design tejas as a multi disciplinrry team of many labs across the country collborating and succeeding on Tejas.

In the DPSA contract many relatives of the first dynasty and a relatives of former air chiefs have fronted for many contenders like SAAB , Jaguar and Mirage as exposed by Wikileaks recently,

So we can understand the stalling of the efforts on MArut mk-2s engines for want of a princely sum of RS 5 Crs!!!

Also every one knows that corruption and acquisition of hardware goes hand in hand in indian defence purchases.So you just can not accuse Bharath Karnard of casting aspersions of the "sky high credibility of defence purchases" which were highlighted by TATRA truck scam, Agusta westland Scam and the recent scrapping of LUH purchase by Army

And the CLAWS of LCA is top class and conversation between test pilots of India , france and Israel could have highlighted this. this is what Bharath Karnard implied when foreign test pilots praised tejas handling abilities,

Kota harinarayna the designer of tejas has said that USAF test pilots remarked that the F-16 flies much better with tejas control laws. SO it is not uncommon for pilots to know a thing or two about Claws without even flying it from discussion with fellow pilots on few parameters based on the test flight points that were being opened up in flight envelope. SO it was no bunkum by Bharath Karnard.

Jaguar deal is one of the worst scams in IAF, if you wnat to know the details please go to the following link,

http://tkstales.wordpress.com/2010/03/07/the-darin-story/

The aircraft that came to be called the Jaguar was originally conceived in the early sixties as an advanced trainer. In the process of development, it became the vehicle for experimentation with a lot of emerging technologies. The fitment of gadgets like a laser ranger and marked target seeker, an integrated inertial navigation and weapon aiming system, a head up display, a moving map display etc. slowly transformed it into a tactical fighter

. In those days, the perceived non-nuclear threat scenario in NATO was a massive Soviet armoured thrust backed up by extensive radar controlled anti aircraft artillery and missilery. It was felt that any tactical attack aircraft that were to survive in that environment would have to fly very low, below the radar net and very fast.

In those heights and speeds, the navigation and weapon aiming tasks for the aircraft had to be done electronically. Normal human response was found to be just too slow. Since the days of the Second World War, the primary tool for aerial navigation and weapon aiming has been the radio and radar direction finding.

However, as the knowledgebase about radio and radar expanded, the electronic countermeasure capabilities became substantial. The need for an autonomous silent guiding system was felt and the inertial navigation system was born. For the technologically challenged reader let me explain that an inertial navigation system has four essential elements

. It has a set of linear acceleration sensors that measure its acceleration along the three axes. It has a gyro-stabilized reference platform that measures its rotational velocities around the three axes. It has an accurate clock to measure elapsed time between two readings of the sensors, and it has a computer to calculate the positional situations from the acceleration velocity and time information generated.

If the sensors are accurate enough then the system in a stationary condition can also sense the rotation of the earth and calculate its latitude and true north. With pre-measured information about longitude and height fed into it, it can initialize its initial position in three dimensions and can calculate any deviation there from.

The main source of inaccuracy in an inertial navigation system stems from the drift of the gyro reference platform due to unavoidable bearing friction and of course from manufacturing defects. Many technologies were tried out to reduce gyro drift. One of the techniques was to immerse the gyro assembly in a fluid bath reducing the apparent weight of the gyro and thus reduce friction and drift. This was known as a 'floating gyro' system. The Idea was good but its execution was difficult. Fluid leak from the container, especially in hot environment, was a constant headache.

The jaguar was accepted as a tactical fighter by the British Royal Air Force and the French Air Force in the middle seventies. The integrated Nav-Attack system fitted to these aircraft was the Marconi NAVWASS based on a floating gyro platform. A lot was expected from it.

Unfortunately, its performance on the field fell below the expected level. It was not accurate enough and it was very hard to maintain. When we became interested in the Jaguar as our potential DPSA, the performance of the NAVWASS was our main discouragement. Roughly about the same time, a new type of inertial navigation system was being tried out on the other side of the Atlantic. The F-18 was flying with a system based on a 'Flexible Hinge Dry Gyro'.

The concept of this gyro platform was developed in a British university, but its practical development, manufacture and application happened in the USA. The platform in its mature level outperformed the floating gyro platforms in all respects. In Britain, Ferranti had obtained the license to manufacture the dry gyro. In France, SAGEM was in the process of reverse-engineering of the system.

Gradually, it had become clear to the vendors that though we were impressed by the Jaguar, we were not so impressed by the NAVWASS. BAe's sales pitch therefore got modified and an impression was generated that if we wanted an upgraded inertial system incorporated into the Jaguar, it could and would be done easily. Ferranti was, at that time, developing an inertial system based on their version of the dry gyro. Their platform named DINS1084 was on the Tornado.


Our interest in NAVWASS upgrade gave them a lot of encouragement. They postured that their system was a candidate for the NAVWASS upgrade for the RAF fleet of Jaguars and our selection of the same upgrade would spread the cost of development to the benefit of both the users and all the vendors. Their marketing arm got active. They proposed to demonstrate their system, code names ANDAMAN, on an Indian aircraft free of charge.

This offer was accepted. The Ferranti / Smiths Instruments team came down to Bangalore. Initially, they offered only four sorties to ASTE. Naturally ASTE rejected this offer and asked for 25 sorties at a minimum. This was agreed to and they installed their system on a MiG21. The tests threw up a lot of bugs and Ferranti was obliged to ask for repeated extensions. Ultimately about 55 sorties were flown. The system performed only in the navigation mode. Some of the technical officers were impressed by the ease of installation and maintenance. Tactically it was a cleaver move by Ferranti. Impressing the ASTE was a good method of impressing the decision makers at the Air HQ responsible for new acquisitions, even though no weapon integration was tested or attempted. No formal request for installing the Ferranti system into the Jaguar as a part of the Jaguar package reached the GOI either from Ferranti or from BAE or from the IAF. With hind sight, I can assume a number of complex reasons at play for that situation. It is possible that in spite of demonstrating a workable model to the IAF on a MiG21, Ferranti was not fully ready to offer a concrete proposal for a Jaguar update. It is possible that it was in the business interest of BAe to sell their product in an "as is" state and then get the GOI to retrospectively modify all the aircraft as well as pay for the development of the system. (It must be remembered that India was at that time considered to be a backward third world country easily fooled by glittering toys!). It is possible that very few in the IAF appreciated the technological leap that was waiting to happen, and no one really pushed for the selection of a modern integrated INAS and its induction into the service as a standard requirement for all attack aircraft. It is possible that the administrators in the MoD were at that time under the threat of the 'Shah Commission' and were in no mood for the procurement of any system without an all out demand from the service along with a multiple vendor availability situation. At this distance of 25 years from that moment, it is not possible for me to determine what percentage of which factor was at play for the non-activity displayed.


Since no formal decision had been taken on the up gradation of the NAVWASS, it was decided that the old system would be fitted to the aircraft to be manufactured in the UK and also to a few initial aircraft to be manufactured at HAL. A special mention in the contract recorded that the NAVWASS was to be ultimately replaced by a new system to be chosen by the GOI and that BAe would assist GOI in selecting the system for the IAF, would integrate the chosen system into the Jaguar for an unspecified sum of money and would carryout all necessary modification for manufacture of the modified system in HAL
on how this substandard world war two trainer was dumped on IAF with piss poor Nav Attack avionics which make it unfit for its operational area of DPSA . It can not accurately bomb ground trgets with flawed nav attack system and in a complicated effort it was rectified by HAL along with competent local agencies,

So it is stupid for any one to call Jags as a shining example of first rate acquisition. Any country with lesser capability would have been saddled with a buy that could not meet the original need for which it was bought.

And this light , medium , heavy analogy of classifying the fighters based on weight category is not fit for the new multi role age. french are standardizing on the so called medium RAFALE with no light or heavy component and russians have only heavies called Su-35 and PAKFA with no medium or ligh component.

the US will have whole sale F-35 single engine fighter . So can any one classify it as medium or heavy or light?

The fuel fraction (percentage of weight of fuel divided by eight of the fully loaded fighter)is what determines the range of the fighter.

The ferry range of all fighters like Mig-29, RAFALE Mirage-Tejas which all have varying weights is more or less the same.So for normal combat loads with normal fuel config they will all have normal ranges. Also a fully indigenous produced Su-30 MKI is already available for long range bombing.

Then what is the need for medium range RAFALE which will have 10 or twenty percentage range advantage over tejas mk-2 at a huge forex outgo of 20 billion dollars?

Also FGFA is slated to come in in a decade. Then what role will RAFALE do which can not be performed by combination of tejas mk-2, SU-30 MKI(upgraded to super sukhoi status) and tejas mk-2?

So this medium class is totally unnecessary classification designed to fool the inexperienced political leadership (and aviation enthusiasts!!1)and push this hugely expensive deal with no effective TOT is what is being highlighted by Bharath karnard in his article.

if more weapon weight is needed we can use two tejas mk-2s in place of one RAFALE if both have the same range
 
Last edited:

ersakthivel

Brilliance
New Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
7,029
Likes
8,764
Country flag
The DARIN Story | TKS' Tales

As soon as I was able to officially confirm the chosen structure of the proposed INAS, I wrote a letter to BAe informing them of our choice and inviting them to begin the process of integration of the system on the Jaguar. There was an ominous silence from the BAe for a few days, and then a bombshell landed on my desk.

BAe said that they were supposed to have been involved in the process of selection of a replacement for the NAVWASS but we had kept them away from the process. As such they cannot take on the responsibility of integrating the chosen system with any guarantee. They would have to carry out a feasibility study to check out the system. That would need about six months of time and it would cost us about 125 Crores of Rupees. If at the end of this commitment they found the system good enough then they would incorporate the design changes for manufacture!


I had no budget for such expenditure. More importantly, I was not in a position of opening a Pandora's Box where by I would lose complete budgetary control over the project. It was just not acceptable. I spoke to the local BAe rep but he was evasive in his reply. He suggested that I'd better raise the matter directly with BAe at an official level.


The attempt to get BAe into a cooperative mood turned out to be nonproductive. BAe refused to budge from their stand. We got the feeling that they thought we had no option and were exploiting the situation mercilessly.

On the way back we halted in France for a couple of days. After we had finished our routine meeting with SAGEM about the contract on transfer of technology, which had not been tackled in Bangalore, we broached the subject of consultancy for integration with Daniel Dupey of SAGEM who was in charge of the INAS project from their side.


He was taken by surprise as he had expected BAe to do the integration. I explained to him that we were planning to take on the task ourselves but we needed some consultancy in some areas. He said that they also had had no experience in integration and had no expertise in aircraft structures.
 
Last edited:

ersakthivel

Brilliance
New Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
7,029
Likes
8,764
Country flag
idrw.org/?p=29001#more-29001
Arjun Subramaniam is a serving Air Vice Marshal in the IAF and an air power analyst.
Contrary to Arjun subramanium , bharath karnad has many contentious points covered in the article,
Also saying IAf will accept tejas with pride is a mere hogwash,

The real question is what does IAF gain by inducting so called 20 ton class RAFALE as a meium weight fighter ?

The french are standardizing on on all RAFALE fighter force with twin engined 20 ton RAFALEs

Meanwhile russians are standardizing on 30n ton twin engined PAKFA and Su-35,

The US is inducting single engined F-35 in large scale.

Unlike IAF the above mentioned airforces need to fly long distances to fight the enemy. It is not the case with IAF.Where most of the targets are well with in short range.

And when it comes to air defence of Indian airspace tejas mk-2 will have no shortfalls compared to RAFALE on account of range or weapon load. Also work is already going on ASEA radar miniaturization and LRDE has fair experience in it. And we are no longer under crippling western sanctions so we will find partners on that count with no restrictions. Even RFALE has just put on ASEA radar for trials. We don't how fully developed it really is

PAF is going for 120 light class Jf-17,

are all these airforces buy any light medium or heavy fighter that is missing from their fleet from any third country?

Certainly they won't do such a stupid thing .

Fuel fraction (weight of fuel/loaded weight for normal combat sorties in design weapon loads)determines the range not the fighter being named light or heavy.

if tejas mk-2 has same fuel fraction as RAFALE it will also have th same range. Most probably it will end up ten to twenty percent shortage in range nothing big,

Also we can employ three tejas mk-2 with 15 ton weapon loads with same radar diameter and long range BVR missiles of RAFALE for teh cost of one RAFLE . So no shortage when it comes to weapon load. Infact tejas mk-2s will deliver double the weapon load with three times more sensor capability if costs are taken into account

MMRCA contract originated as a proposal to buy 126 Mirage -2000 in the late 90s. To avoid the single vendor situation GOI asked it to be a global tender in 2004. Before that there was no long felt need in IAF for so called 20 ton medium weight fighter.

tejas mk-2 will have at the most a twenty percent shortage when it comes to weapon load and range requirements over RAFALE.

But ordering a few more squadrons of very low priced(because of the 100 percent indigenization) Su-30 MKIs in super Sukhoi versions or increasing the numbers of FGFA to by a few squadrons will be equal to having RAFALEs.

Certainly there is no such thing that Su-30 MKi, Tejas mk-2 and FGFA combine can't do that RAFALE can!!!

If you spend the same 20 to 30 billion (considering high maintanece cost)in the two coming decades on such tejas mk-2 and and a few extra squads of FGFA or Su-30 MKI IAF can improve its attcaking capability in a substantial manner.

We can have more than 300 fighters in such combo compared to just 126 RAFALEs for the same cost.

Also the MMRCA contract was changed form life cycle cost based buy to per unit fly away cost mid way.

And the winner Dassault which entered the competition knowing well that the HAL is to be its local partner is saying HAL is unfit for the job. if a a no experience private sector firm gets choosen by dassault as local partners then all the TOT norms go for a toss.

Hal wont't recievve any tech on this deal. Dasault will simply supply knocked down kits and assemble here with no TOT making a mockery of the provision.

Also A.K. Antony is walking on razor's edge. No reason he is taking his own sweet time.he won't do the silly thing like MMS did with coal gate and having visitations of tihar jail.Why?

The dal was changed from Lifecycle cost based one to flyaway cost based one saying MOD was unable to asses lifecycle costs!!!!!!!

If tomorrow some one digs the deal in new government as it bound to happen if you go by the questions raised by yashwant Sinha he has to answer why he did not approach the competent auditing authority like CAG for help in assesing lifecycle cost

What if the winner quotes a very low initial price and makes a killing on maintanece and upgradation?
The recent Mirage-2000 upgrade (with same lower powered old engine and lower range BVRs than the ones designed to go on Tejas mk-2) is costing 40 million dollars a piece , but it will still lack the 12 Km range BVR misslie like Akash mk-2 or meteor any one of which is slated to go on tejas mk-2.
 
Last edited:

Abhi9

New Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2012
Messages
562
Likes
1,582
Country flag
The Money pours and the mouth starts dripping. Everything is justified as long as the title says" We have to protect our national interest". National interest does not mean that the borders are protected .It should be in interest off every Indian civilian or military that development of the nation is never hampered.

In this regard only navy has shown the way. HAl or DRDO are not to be blamed entirely. How is at fault for making HAL a screw driver company. It did not happen over night. You chose imported warplanes and machinery and let indigenous projects die a silent death. Why? There is no alternative for R&D which was never successfully backed by the brass. Marut, GNAT HTT-35 all died.

Then say big words like " We fight with what we have". You fight with what you have because you have no vision of how technology is developed and patience is required. Its a refinement a product after product. Same is with army. we cannot operate Arjun because pakistanis have canals and bridges. Like pakistanis wont blow there own bridges if they see indian columns advancing,. T-90s fording depth is less than that of Arjun but they still give these idiotic comments.
Arjun tank: It can ford 1.4m without preparation and wade through a depth of up to 2.15 m.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/indi...ons_information_description_intelligence.html

Everything that glitters is not gold. and i am sorry to say the brass has the same pre-indpendence slaved imperialistic mind set that Indian Technology is not good enough.They have penchant for finished glittery products which the white men will sell you.

First they give excuses of fill in measures and then after bring in the Rain.
Continously changing requirements upsets every R&D work or is prolonged because you want more things in the same product. That's how not things work but how would they know they don't have to spend hours in the lab.

Protecting country is a Noble and brave but please everything is not justified. But you are still flying Coffins and outdated 3rd generation plane because of lack of transparency and vision not because you have too. You cannot expect LCA to be a SU-30 MKI. It was designed for a job and it can do this job better than Mig-21 Bison any day.

Every soldier chooses to be a fighter and likes wise scientist also give the life for the development of the country. You cannot undermine the other and ridicule them.

http://idrw.org/?p=29001
Counter Article on "Stop Wasteful Military Deals"
To be fair to Karnad — yes, the flight control system of the LCA is top class, but to claim that the Mark II will be significantly superior to the MMRCA is far-fetched and devoid of any research strength. Blowing one's trumpet about the AESA (active electronically scanned array) radar is premature at this stage, as it is not even on the drawing board
Arjun Subramaniam is a serving Air Vice Marshal in the IAF and an air power analyst.

Dr. Saraswat himself stated that they are testing 1/4th model of aesa radar lab in the lab then how come its not on drawing board. How come ASQR are always relaxed for foreign products and you demand better than the best attitude for indian products.

I am sorry to say the brass will always be charged of scuttling indian products
 
Last edited:

Articles

Top