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.
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!!!!!!!!!
