ADA Tejas Mark-II/Medium Weight Fighter

[Suhaan]

From earlier commitment of 200 MWFs their holy commitment went down to 100
Yeah ,that is some "commitment"

 

[Bleh]

It has nothing to do with weight it's all to carve space for more rafale.

BTW keeping lca mk2 at 7ton empty is mamooth task. Gripen E weights upwards 8 ton empty . We should be very happy if they can keep it under 8 ton for mwf.

You have a little misconception bro,LCA MKII name will also be dropped soon in favour of a new name that has nothing to do with tejas...
...MWF was an unofficial name by ADA and LCA MK2 was the name when it was conceived,they both are going to be dropped in favor of new.

As @Bhurki pointed out, a simple renaming wont carve more space for anything, nor does IAF has such power over ADA to make themselves hurt their own project's future. It was totally own ADA's decision.

And renaming the model would be like how LCA was christened "Tejas"... But official project names like MWF (not unofficial at all) or LCA Mark2 indicate weight classification. Otherwise if you're gonna assign project name later anyway, then why rollback from medium to light designation?.. Unless you can call it light fighter again?
Now while 7ton-empty can never be reached again, but I think they did the renaming due to sone weight decrease. Our Mirage-2000 is world's lightest mig-weight fighter jet at 7.5t, so it will have to be lighter than that to be tagged LCA again. Thus my prediction of between wight being reduced by few quintals from 7.8ton to between 7-7.5 ton... Lets wait & see.

 

[Rajpal s]

As @Bhurki pointed out, a simple renaming wont carve more space for anything, nor does IAF has such power over ADA to make themselves hurt their own project's future. It was totally own ADA's decision.

And renaming the model would be like how LCA was christened "Tejas"... But official project names like MWF (not unofficial at all) or LCA Mark2 indicate weight classification. Otherwise if you're gonna assign project name later anyway, then why rollback from medium to light designation?.. Unless you can call it light fighter again?
Now while 7ton-empty can never be reached again, but I think they did the renaming due to sone weight decrease. Our Mirage-2000 is world's lightest mig-weight fighter jet at 7.5t, so it will have to be lighter than that to be tagged LCA again. Thus my prediction of between wight being reduced by few quintals from 7.8ton to between 7-7.5 ton... Lets wait & see.
I think they deliberately renamed it so they can pitch it in the competition of grippen in coming year for international competition .

 

[Bleh]

I think they deliberately renamed it so they can pitch it in the competition of grippen in coming year for international competition .

No m8. Note how same Gripen has participated in both the Malaysian Light fighter deal against LCA Tejas, as well as our MMRCA. Specs matter in those, not nomenclature.

Nor was it done by IAF influence to make room for Rafale, due to the exact same reason.

So, that leaves an actual weight decrease as only logical cause this name retrograde (..or they did it for no reason, just fuckall).

 

[Bhurki]

200 was talked initially now they are saying 100!!

From earlier commitment of 200 MWFs their holy commitment went down to 100
Yeah ,that is some "commitment"

I dont think you should worry about that right now.
Its the performance of the first 100 (or whatever lot size is ordered in the first go) planes that'll decide whether its worth it to buy more jets.
Even if IAF stipulates 100 units, if the jet performs as they intend it to, at a reasonable cost, then obvio they'll order more.
On the other hand, even if the Chief assures to buy 200 today, and if the jet underperforms, then the quantity may not even touch triple digits.
You shouldn't take these numbers at their face value and rather appreciate the confidence displayed in the not-yet-flying design by the Chief in the fundamentals like HAL being able to execute this program at a reasonable pace.

 

[indiatester]

The vesta space news is highly suspicious. I don't trust that one bit.

 

[Rajpal s]

The vesta space news is highly suspicious. I don't trust that one bit.

I think 100 jets is good number to begin with,the fact is lca mk2 metal cutting is yet to start .i hope they will be more genourous in placing order for mk2 not like tejas which is still standing in line .

 

[IndianHawk]

I dont think you should worry about that right now.
Its the performance of the first 100 (or whatever lot size is ordered in the first go) planes that'll decide whether its worth it to buy more jets.
Even if IAF stipulates 100 units, if the jet performs as they intend it to, at a reasonable cost, then obvio they'll order more.
On the other hand, even if the Chief assures to buy 200 today, and if the jet underperforms, then the quantity may not even touch triple digits.
You shouldn't take these numbers at their face value and rather appreciate the confidence displayed in the not-yet-flying design by the Chief in the fundamentals like HAL being able to execute this program at a reasonable pace.

It affects building speed. If they order just 100 they will be build 16 per year from 6 years.
If they order 200 they will be build 24 -30 per year for 7-8 years.

It also affects price. If they source components together for 200 they save a lot of money and each plane comes cheaper.

 

[Bleh]

It affects building speed. If they order just 100 they will be build 16 per year from 6 years.
If they order 200 they will be build 24 -30 per year for 7-8 years.

It also affects price. If they source components together for 200 they save a lot of money and each plane comes cheaper.

We cant afford to place a single order of 200, nor will we ever again. HVT made some comments on how in future everything will come in smaller batches of <100. Lessons learnt from buying 270 Su-30 with no upgradation for 20 years!.. Check out how much tweakings & updating China did in the meantime. They upgraded just the engine AL-31 alone from 123kN to 134kN to 145kN!!!  And look at us.

I fully support IAF/MOD on this decision. Order a batch & reoder when it is near complete, giving time to update tech & fix shortcomings.

 

[Bhurki]

It affects building speed. If they order just 100 they will be build 16 per year from 6 years.
If they order 200 they will be build 24 -30 per year for 7-8 years.

It also affects price. If they source components together for 200 they save a lot of money and each plane comes cheaper.

It doesnt work like that..
There are numerous kinds of contracts signed for procurement.
Two out of a myriad of these concerned with this discussion will be 'Long lead procurement'/Unfixed quantity Fixed price contract used to initiate procurement of materials for aircraft in the earlier stages, while the other one 'direct procurement contract' pays for the jets to be delivered within the current construction cycle (whatever that may be, for eg 30 months for F35).
If you dont like the product once Batch 1 is procured, you cancel the long lead procurement. This saves the company executing the program from taking on the brunt while also reduces total load of failure on the contracter (govt) by only parting it with a fraction of cost of total production.
Obvio, there's losses, but no aircraft is ordered in a large quantity such as 200 aircraft.
Even the F35 contract for 478 jets signed this year is made up of 3 Lots with a few more 'sub'-Lots that lets the Congress adjust the procurement number every year, or halt the procurement if deemed necessary.

 

[IndianHawk]

It doesnt work like that..
There are numerous kinds of contracts signed for procurement.
Two out of a myriad of these concerned with this discussion will be 'Long lead procurement'/Unfixed quantity Fixed price contract used to initiate procurement of materials for aircraft in the earlier stages, while the other one 'direct procurement contract' pays for the jets to be delivered within the current construction cycle (whatever that may be, for eg 30 months for F35).
If you dont like the product once Batch 1 is procured, you cancel the long lead procurement. This saves the company executing the program from taking on the brunt while also reduces total load of failure on the contracter (govt) by only parting it with a fraction of cost of total production.
Obvio, there's losses, but no aircraft is ordered in a large quantity such as 200 aircraft.
Even the F35 contract for 478 jets signed this year is made up of 3 Lots with a few more 'sub'-Lots that lets the Congress adjust the procurement number every year, or halt the procurement if deemed necessary.

Nope . There is a clear understanding of how many systems will be procured . Lots / batches are divided and ordered then according to that plan.
That's how f35 works.

Knowing how much systems will you eventually produce allows you to invest in building setup .

People are already complaining why mk1 building is slow it's because orders are low.
Same for mk1a for just 83 jets not much point in investing in new production lines.

 

[aerokan]

I dont think you should worry about that right now.
Its the performance of the first 100 (or whatever lot size is ordered in the first go) planes that'll decide whether its worth it to buy more jets.
Even if IAF stipulates 100 units, if the jet performs as they intend it to, at a reasonable cost, then obvio they'll order more.
On the other hand, even if the Chief assures to buy 200 today, and if the jet underperforms, then the quantity may not even touch triple digits.
You shouldn't take these numbers at their face value and rather appreciate the confidence displayed in the not-yet-flying design by the Chief in the fundamentals like HAL being able to execute this program at a reasonable pace.

If you have been on this for more than a decade observing this LCA space... you would know not to underestimate our IAF in screwing desi products (close second by Indian Army).

For LCA.. one term to remember "Air Vice Marshall"

 

[aerokan]

Nope . There is a clear understanding of how many systems will be procured . Lots / batches are divided and ordered then according to that plan.
That's how f35 works.

Knowing how much systems will you eventually produce allows you to invest in building setup .

People are already complaining why mk1 building is slow it's because orders are low.
Same for mk1a for just 83 jets not much point in investing in new production lines.

It doesnt work like that..
There are numerous kinds of contracts signed for procurement.
Two out of a myriad of these concerned with this discussion will be 'Long lead procurement'/Unfixed quantity Fixed price contract used to initiate procurement of materials for aircraft in the earlier stages, while the other one 'direct procurement contract' pays for the jets to be delivered within the current construction cycle (whatever that may be, for eg 30 months for F35).
If you dont like the product once Batch 1 is procured, you cancel the long lead procurement. This saves the company executing the program from taking on the brunt while also reduces total load of failure on the contracter (govt) by only parting it with a fraction of cost of total production.
Obvio, there's losses, but no aircraft is ordered in a large quantity such as 200 aircraft.
Even the F35 contract for 478 jets signed this year is made up of 3 Lots with a few more 'sub'-Lots that lets the Congress adjust the procurement number every year, or halt the procurement if deemed necessary.

Adding to the @IndianHawk post, it's always better to order 200 and cancel some if the performance is not upto the mark. That way, development/production agency will be on it's toes not to screw up on the quality. If for every 50 fighters, we take 4 years to get approvals from a big bureaucratic and political chains, we would end up delaying the availability of squadrons even further like it's happening now.

 

[Suhaan]

I dont think you should worry about that right now.
Its the performance of the first 100 (or whatever lot size is ordered in the first go) planes that'll decide whether its worth it to buy more jets.
Even if IAF stipulates 100 units, if the jet performs as they intend it to, at a reasonable cost, then obvio they'll order more.
On the other hand, even if the Chief assures to buy 200 today, and if the jet underperforms, then the quantity may not even touch triple digits.
You shouldn't take these numbers at their face value and rather appreciate the confidence displayed in the not-yet-flying design by the Chief in the fundamentals like HAL being able to execute this program at a reasonable pace.

Then why make heavy statements of committing for 200 in the first place,dont you think the whole affair is reduced to a circus ,where random quotes and commitment s are made in public,yeah i believe your rationale ,but i assume they got their lesson long back, should have refrained from making hyperbolic "commitments"

 

[Bhurki]

Then why make heavy statements of committing for 200 in the first place,dont you think the whole affair is reduced to a circus ,where random quotes and commitment s are made in public,yeah i believe your rationale ,but i assume they got their lesson long back, should have refrained from making hyperbolic "commitments"

The heavy statement thing kind of happens the world over. For eg USAF assuring to buy some 1763 F35a, but whereas in other countries it is understood as a general push to program and the force showing some confidence in the product, Indians usually tend to measure these statements at their face value, hence the circus situation arises.

Even though usaf has committed to buy some 1763 jets, it has only yet completely funded some 500+ of them and extended partial long lead funds for another 200+.
For all they care , they could cut down the 1763 numbers if problems with F35 are deemed insurmountable in given time/cost constraints.
What i mean to say is, money/contract award is all that matters.

Other than that, it doesnt really matter even if the IAF chief says they want 500 Mwf, because it'll only happen if the IAF releases funds/awards contracts. HAL wont manufacture or even buy long lead items on its own internal funds, even if assured by IAF chief to buy the jet, they need the money first.

These statements are indications only to the contracter (HAL) about the acceptance possibility of the product by the contractor(IAF) and as such shouldn't really be scrutinised in the public domain at their face value.

What should be scrutinised at its face value in the public domain is the contract award details since that is the only hard binding factor which has the capability to be properly enforced. As such the biggest problem for the people should be the fact that Mk Ia contract hasnt yet been signed,
even though over the last 24 months, i recount atleast 6 instances where people at secretary level have assured "it'll happen in a few months".

 

[Anandhu Krishna]

IAF doesn’t want to replace MWF in one to one replacement for this 3 fleet type but it will use MMRCA and Tejas Mk1A to make these numbers.

I've recently heard that the Mig21s will not be replaced on 1 to 1 basis. That I can understand but hat's with Mirage/Mig29..? Only 83 Mk1A is coming in. They currently quoting only 100 AMCA.

From earlier commitment of 200 MWFs their holy commitment went down to 100
Yeah ,that is some "commitment"

Now 200 MWF went down to 100. Are we reducing numbers..!?

 

[Anandhu Krishna]

We will do what we have always done. Go through Sanskrit to find some Wonderful name for our weaponry.

We have the most ancient vocabulary for weapons. Were you not watching ramayan and Mahabharata reruns. So many weapons name to choose from lol.

Let's be onest Tejas is a shitty name for a fighter. I'm sure they will come up with another shitty name for Mk2 &AMCA.

That will be copy of USA just like Chinese did .

France names it's jets differently . We could do the same .

Sanskrit name and numeric name both could work together once we have many jets .

There is nothing wrong with copying good things. HAL already uses letters or numbers or both to name it's products. This time it can be consistent and disciplined.

Continuing the HF designation would be awesome. HF5/HF10 or something. I recently saw in an interview somebody from ADA/HAL mentioning it but didn't say whether they are going to continue with it or not.

 

[Suhaan]

 

[IndianHawk]

Let's be onest Tejas is a shitty name for a fighter. I'm sure they will come up with another shitty name for Mk2 &AMCA.



There is nothing wrong with copying good things. HAL already uses letters or numbers or both to name it's products. This time it can be consistent and disciplined.

Continuing the HF designation would be awesome. HF5/HF10 or something. I recently saw in an interview somebody from ADA/HAL mentioning it but didn't say whether they are going to continue with it or not.

Tejas seems fine to me.

The image of aircraft that builds in your head is result of capabilities of aircraft.

Mirage and rafale sound good despite most indians don't know the meaning of rafale.

Jf17 fierce Dragon is a good name but it still gives an image of shitty plane well because it's shitty.

Let mk1a come with elta2052 and debry ER Tejas will start looking fearsome all over the world.

 

[Bleh]

Slightly off-topic.

Oh yes! That madlad was based on Mirage-3, which had specs very comparable to Tejas Mark1 (7t empty, 13. 5t MTOW) was itself of 14t empty weight... It could carry more than 3 times internal fuel as Mirage-2000 & 10t ordnance.
But not too large either;View attachment 41692

Not if the bomber flies above your fighter's service ceiling or faster than your SAM can climb (not the huge strategic bombers that can only work in completely dominated airspace).

Today the perfect bomber platform is some good aerodynamic platform that can supercruise at about 70,000ft... Sorta similar to Mig-25 that flew over Islamabad, but couldn't simply be intercepted. Ideally hypersonic, atleast Mach 3.

My prediction strikes again!!!
High endurance, high payload high-speed-high-altitude bomber coming up in futire... well maybe. Rumour is that Russkys have redone the whole Mig-41 concept.