HAL developing new varaint LCA-1P

HariPrasad-1

New Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2016
Messages
9,645
Likes
21,138
Country flag
We must push MK2 very hard. We must not hesitate to hire consultency. In MK1 program we should have given russian a contract to integrate gun and Cobham to integrate nosecone and israel to integrate EW. Proper management of the program would have us few birds in our hand now. DO that with MK2. Drop dumb HAL and give the design to TATAs to make this plane. Set time line for each task. Ask ADA to complete final design very soon. Ask private player to start producing the parts whose designs are freezed. Provide all latest tools and software. spend more on R & D. Build an team with more financial and decision autonomy.
 

Certified Gipsy

New Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2016
Messages
93
Likes
116
Iron dome is nowhere comparable to s400 different categories.
Of course they are not comparable, but incase the Russians delay the S400 deal, we need an alternative air defense system and Iron dome would probably be the choice for that. I am merely speculating here and in a couple of days, we would know of this expression of interest is raised by the touring EAM.

Also, read this report.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...-counter-Pak-puppets/articleshow/17329499.cms

http://swarajyamag.com/ideas/missile-defence-erecting-an-iron-dome-over-india/
 

Ved

New Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2015
Messages
37
Likes
17
Does IAF really need Tejas MK2?
I do not think so. What would be significant improvement over MK1A apart from thrust.
Why would IAF order 100 MK1A if MK2 would be significantly superior to MK1A?
 

Bornubus

Chodi Bhakt & BJPig Hunter
New Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2015
Messages
7,494
Likes
17,197
Some interesting snippets from Tejas FB page all in Jan 2016.. They do answer questions !!!
Address: Tejas - LCA

Q: Whats MK1A
A: Tejas - LCA MK1A will primarily address the maintenance issues plus the gun integration, AESA radar integration, BVR integration (whenever IAF gives a clear indication on the kind of BVR) etc..

Q: what are the potential BVR missiles under consideration? Derby + Astra?
A: Tejas - LCA ASTRA for sure. LCA Derby will be for the naval version.

Q: how the new quartz radome frm cobham test is going on. Any timeline for SP-2 in coming days.
A: Tejas - LCA SP 2 will come up soon. Cobham radome ground integration checks are over. The actual flight testing will commence soon.

Q: question related to CG. Is Mk1 still flying around with a 300kg ballast. Or is this a modern myth.
A: Tejas - LCA Flies with ballast but the no is not this big in number.

Q: And this is expected to come down after the IFR probe is bolted on? Is it likely that this ballast is completely done away with restructuring and reorganizing the LRUs/MLG on the Mk1A. Reports claim so. I have learnt not to believe reports. Of course. I just meant ballast commiserate to the weight of just the probe to be added will come off
A: Tejas - LCA You are absolutely right, Sir. The IFR probe will reduce the ballast weight. As currently, only the prototypes are flying, the ballast is a variable. Once, the final version, rather the frozen SOP starts flying, things will streamline. Sir, the last of the LSPs are getting modified for the IFR probe.

Q: Your gun integration on Mk1A has fluttered some feathers. Won't Mk1 have a gun?
A: Tejas - LCA The gun integration was initially part of mark1. However, will be done post FOC thereby appropriately for mark 1A.
All other programs, gun is the first store to be integrated onto a fighter simply because the uncertain modifications it demands post testing. The other program houses will never reveal the experiences which they have earned in a harder way. Same is applied to us too.
However, the initial integration activity shows promise. It is only a matter of when will the prototype be offered to carry out the modifications.


Q: what is the reason for the slow integration of the sp series aircraft been waiting for the sp 2 and 3...also are we moving closer wrt to naval lca LG weight issue
A:Tejas - LCA You are right. The undercarriage issue has been creating sort of delay in everything. The sp1 not flying is one of them. However, the issue has been left behind and things will be better in the days to come.

Q: Is it true that there are issues with the landing gear..there were some news reports about this..(dint believe the reports..)
A :Tejas - LCA Please understand that any design bound to have problems and remains to be seen how do we solve it. All the aircraft programs all over the world have undergone this process. Yes, there were problems and got sorted out too. Please be assured that the correct picture can be seen only when it is seen and understood from close quartet. Reports are always exaggerated or according to the convince to the reporting agency.

Q: There are press reports that LSP-4/7 that're off to Bahrain Air show, would perform the BVR firing (Derby) tests for FOC after they have returned from it (i.e. post 23-Jan). Question is, does this mean that LSP-4/7 are already retrofitted with Cobham built quartz radomes - or are they going to go ahead with BVR testing with the old ASLs Kevlar based radome?
A: Tejas - LCA Lsp4 and lsp7 are heading for bahrain and on the return leg, lsp7 will fire bvr. Cobham radome ground testing is on. Flight test will commence soon. BVR firing is without this.

Q: why are we experiencing delay in SP manufacturing.By now we should have 4 SP flying.Is there change in plan as to Whether these SP will IOC or FOC standard or are these modified to SOP-18 fighter.Please clarify ,i hope its the latter.
A: Tejas - LCA The directive as of now is that the first 20 ac will be with present configuration. The rest no is with SOP-18. This is,a wise decision looking at the time line HAL is seeking. The mark 1A needs all heavy gun's interference and an honest dedicated effort from all to realize.
And coming to delay in SP is because there are still grey areas in getting the finalized production version of all the components. The no runs to couple of thousands. All said done, delay is primarily because of lack of a clear cut directive. If you look at mirage 2000 induction, the integration of sensors was a continuous process whereas it is expected from tejas to have everything in the beginning itself, which is a tough ask.


Q: Will 4 SPs be produced by end of this financial year as per the target?
A: Tejas - LCA That's the target. 3 is a possible no.

Q: sir, regarding sop18 or mk1a is it really true we are looking to reduce weight of aircraft by 800kgs??
A: Tejas - LCA I doubt this figure, sir.

Q: What are issues with LCA for integration of gun ? As it is very important for any fighter jet.
A: Tejas - LCA Priorities. As of now, proving the capabilities to fire a BVR has taken the attention. Air Force is not much keen on GSH-23.

Q: In earlier post you mentioned integration of Gsh 23 is deferred. I thought ground runs of gun firing from Tejas has been already done? So what has been deferred, is it in flight test firing of gun or actual gsh 23 has been removed all together from LCA, for now?
>Are private companies being roped in for commercial production of numerous components?
>Last what missile the Tejas is carrying on outboard pylons? Doesnt seem r73 or even python, are they smoke generator pods?
A: Tejas - LCA Answer to q1 - you are right. The ground integration checks called butt firing tests have been done. The required structural mod also have been done. The prototype has been identified. It is the directive of IAF towards FOC requirement has been under discussion.
Answer to q2 will be political from our side, hence would like to avoid. Hope, you excuse us..
Answer to Q3 - yes, they are smoke winders normally uninstalled to produce smoke during demonstrations and specific flight testing task.




@Abhijat @A chauhan @Alien @alphacentury @Ancient Indian @anupamsurey @blueblood @brational @Bangalorean @Blackwater @Bornubus @bose @cobra commando @DingDong @DFI_COAS @ersakthivel @gpawar @hit&run @Indx TechStyle @jackprince @Kharavela @Illusive @I_PLAY_BAD @LETHALFORCE @Lions Of Punjab @maomao @Mad Indian @OneGrimPilgrim @Peter @pmaitra @Razor @raja696 @Rowdy @Sakal Gharelu Ustad @saty @sydsnyper @Srinivas_K @Screambowl @sorcerer @Simple_Guy @Sylex21 @wickedone @tarunraju @TrueSpirit2 @thethinker @VIP @Vishwarupa @Varahamihira @roma
What about BVR ?

JF 17 already has superior SD 10A,which Tejas can only dream of.
 

ezsasa

Designated Cynic
New Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2014
Messages
32,663
Likes
151,106
Country flag
Does IAF really need Tejas MK2?
I do not think so. What would be significant improvement over MK1A apart from thrust.
Why would IAF order 100 MK1A if MK2 would be significantly superior to MK1A?
I believe this is wrong way of looking at things..

Many people did not know in 2007, that they will be addicted to iPhone as a product.

It is a movement forward.... Good or bad only time will decide..

We all know what happened to blackberry, simply because they did not plan ahead for smartphone onslaught...

Entities which do not plan forward have a tendency to fade away..
 

Chinmoy

New Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2015
Messages
8,930
Likes
23,094
Country flag
Some interesting snippets from Tejas FB page all in Jan 2016.. They do answer questions !!!
Address: Tejas - LCA

Q: Whats MK1A
A: Tejas - LCA MK1A will primarily address the maintenance issues plus the gun integration, AESA radar integration, BVR integration (whenever IAF gives a clear indication on the kind of BVR) etc..

Q: what are the potential BVR missiles under consideration? Derby + Astra?
A: Tejas - LCA ASTRA for sure. LCA Derby will be for the naval version.

Q: how the new quartz radome frm cobham test is going on. Any timeline for SP-2 in coming days.
A: Tejas - LCA SP 2 will come up soon. Cobham radome ground integration checks are over. The actual flight testing will commence soon.

Q: question related to CG. Is Mk1 still flying around with a 300kg ballast. Or is this a modern myth.
A: Tejas - LCA Flies with ballast but the no is not this big in number.

Q: And this is expected to come down after the IFR probe is bolted on? Is it likely that this ballast is completely done away with restructuring and reorganizing the LRUs/MLG on the Mk1A. Reports claim so. I have learnt not to believe reports. Of course. I just meant ballast commiserate to the weight of just the probe to be added will come off
A: Tejas - LCA You are absolutely right, Sir. The IFR probe will reduce the ballast weight. As currently, only the prototypes are flying, the ballast is a variable. Once, the final version, rather the frozen SOP starts flying, things will streamline. Sir, the last of the LSPs are getting modified for the IFR probe.

Q: Your gun integration on Mk1A has fluttered some feathers. Won't Mk1 have a gun?
A: Tejas - LCA The gun integration was initially part of mark1. However, will be done post FOC thereby appropriately for mark 1A.
All other programs, gun is the first store to be integrated onto a fighter simply because the uncertain modifications it demands post testing. The other program houses will never reveal the experiences which they have earned in a harder way. Same is applied to us too.
However, the initial integration activity shows promise. It is only a matter of when will the prototype be offered to carry out the modifications.


Q: what is the reason for the slow integration of the sp series aircraft been waiting for the sp 2 and 3...also are we moving closer wrt to naval lca LG weight issue
A:Tejas - LCA You are right. The undercarriage issue has been creating sort of delay in everything. The sp1 not flying is one of them. However, the issue has been left behind and things will be better in the days to come.

Q: Is it true that there are issues with the landing gear..there were some news reports about this..(dint believe the reports..)
A :Tejas - LCA Please understand that any design bound to have problems and remains to be seen how do we solve it. All the aircraft programs all over the world have undergone this process. Yes, there were problems and got sorted out too. Please be assured that the correct picture can be seen only when it is seen and understood from close quartet. Reports are always exaggerated or according to the convince to the reporting agency.

Q: There are press reports that LSP-4/7 that're off to Bahrain Air show, would perform the BVR firing (Derby) tests for FOC after they have returned from it (i.e. post 23-Jan). Question is, does this mean that LSP-4/7 are already retrofitted with Cobham built quartz radomes - or are they going to go ahead with BVR testing with the old ASLs Kevlar based radome?
A: Tejas - LCA Lsp4 and lsp7 are heading for bahrain and on the return leg, lsp7 will fire bvr. Cobham radome ground testing is on. Flight test will commence soon. BVR firing is without this.

Q: why are we experiencing delay in SP manufacturing.By now we should have 4 SP flying.Is there change in plan as to Whether these SP will IOC or FOC standard or are these modified to SOP-18 fighter.Please clarify ,i hope its the latter.
A: Tejas - LCA The directive as of now is that the first 20 ac will be with present configuration. The rest no is with SOP-18. This is,a wise decision looking at the time line HAL is seeking. The mark 1A needs all heavy gun's interference and an honest dedicated effort from all to realize.
And coming to delay in SP is because there are still grey areas in getting the finalized production version of all the components. The no runs to couple of thousands. All said done, delay is primarily because of lack of a clear cut directive. If you look at mirage 2000 induction, the integration of sensors was a continuous process whereas it is expected from tejas to have everything in the beginning itself, which is a tough ask.


Q: Will 4 SPs be produced by end of this financial year as per the target?
A: Tejas - LCA That's the target. 3 is a possible no.

Q: sir, regarding sop18 or mk1a is it really true we are looking to reduce weight of aircraft by 800kgs??
A: Tejas - LCA I doubt this figure, sir.

Q: What are issues with LCA for integration of gun ? As it is very important for any fighter jet.
A: Tejas - LCA Priorities. As of now, proving the capabilities to fire a BVR has taken the attention. Air Force is not much keen on GSH-23.

Q: In earlier post you mentioned integration of Gsh 23 is deferred. I thought ground runs of gun firing from Tejas has been already done? So what has been deferred, is it in flight test firing of gun or actual gsh 23 has been removed all together from LCA, for now?
>Are private companies being roped in for commercial production of numerous components?
>Last what missile the Tejas is carrying on outboard pylons? Doesnt seem r73 or even python, are they smoke generator pods?
A: Tejas - LCA Answer to q1 - you are right. The ground integration checks called butt firing tests have been done. The required structural mod also have been done. The prototype has been identified. It is the directive of IAF towards FOC requirement has been under discussion.
Answer to q2 will be political from our side, hence would like to avoid. Hope, you excuse us..
Answer to Q3 - yes, they are smoke winders normally uninstalled to produce smoke during demonstrations and specific flight testing task.




@Abhijat @A chauhan @Alien @alphacentury @Ancient Indian @anupamsurey @blueblood @brational @Bangalorean @Blackwater @Bornubus @bose @cobra commando @DingDong @DFI_COAS @ersakthivel @gpawar @hit&run @Indx TechStyle @jackprince @Kharavela @Illusive @I_PLAY_BAD @LETHALFORCE @Lions Of Punjab @maomao @Mad Indian @OneGrimPilgrim @Peter @pmaitra @Razor @raja696 @Rowdy @Sakal Gharelu Ustad @saty @sydsnyper @Srinivas_K @Screambowl @sorcerer @Simple_Guy @Sylex21 @wickedone @tarunraju @TrueSpirit2 @thethinker @VIP @Vishwarupa @Varahamihira @roma
Q: What are issues with LCA for integration of gun ? As it is very important for any fighter jet.
A: Tejas - LCA Priorities. As of now, proving the capabilities to fire a BVR has taken the attention. Air Force is not much keen on GSH-23.
I think we should be ready for some more tantrums from IAF in clearing Tejas for FOC on basis of this point. Air Force not keen on canon? This is fishy and absurd.
 

indiandefencefan

New Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2015
Messages
437
Likes
345
Country flag
@indiandefencefan I beg to disagree with your opinions on LCA MK2. F414 engines are already being delivered and Mark 2 will be a reality if not for the IAF, atleast for the navy in the initial stage. With the negotiations on Rafale still not completed, there is a greater chance that India will walk out of Rafale, in which case it needs a MMRCA alternative. Tejas MK2 will almost be similar to Saab Gripen which was also one of the jets that took part in the MMRCA competition. What I believe could probably happen is that the Defense ministry would force HAL & ADA to outsource their designs to Indian private companies, most probably Mahindra or Reliance who would then have the license to manufacture LCA MK2, sell in India and export to friendly nations. Or it could also be possible that a new company would be floated out of ADA & HAL, with a new production facility to specifically focus on AMCA, while the existing facilities focus on MK1a and MK2.

Regarding FGFA, it has been reported that the Russians have told India that they would sell S400, only when we commit to the FGFA joint development. India has already decided that it needs S400 and hence, I believe they will soon renegotiate a package consisting of S400 and T-50. May be they are analyzing possible alternatives of S400 now. I will wait and watch if Ms. Sushma Swaraj who is going to Israel today would initiate a negotiation for the Iron dome.
@Certified Gipsy while you do post some valuable points, I will stick to my argument due to the following reasons listed below.

The Rafale talks have been going on for four years now and while I agree this is an insanely long amount of time for negotiations, IAF have been very suppotive towards the induction of Rafale in IAF and it is because of this insistence I believe that the Rafale deal will pull through albeit very delayed.

What worries me is that the IAF top brass is not showing the same level of support towards the FGFA.
They have reportedly called it under performing and too expensive even after Russia's latest offer to deliver to India full TOT and 2 tech. demonstrators for about 3.7 billion $ instead of the previously quoted 6 billion $ for co-development.
Even the Russians now have stopped pushing for co-development,

https://www.ibcworldnews.com/2015/12/23/russia-offers-india-new-pak-fa-deal/

http://www.defenseworld.net/news/14...till_Too_Expensive__Media_Claims#.VpvCpFV97IU

Quoting from the 2nd article, "The Indian Air Force however remains opposed to the idea. A senior IAF official was quoted as saying by Indian Express news daily last week that, “We are not in favour of the FGFA. The PAK FA fighter is too expensive at even this rate, and we are not sure of its capabilities.”
Doesn't this lack of support sound ominous?

So while I am not against the FGFA an would in fact very much like to see it inducted, I am just admitting to the reality that the FGFA might not pull through.

regards.
 

guru-dutt

New Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2015
Messages
475
Likes
356
What about BVR ?

JF 17 already has superior SD 10A,which Tejas can only dream of.
dear are you mocking me well tell me is SD10A better than I Derby ER , Derby and python5 ? + astra is also on the cards most likely i see IAF again asking for all the missiles oprational on LCA MK1A and with EL-2052 from the word go .. tall order i say
 

Bornubus

Chodi Bhakt & BJPig Hunter
New Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2015
Messages
7,494
Likes
17,197
dear are you mocking me well tell me is SD10A better than I Derby ER , Derby and python5 ? + astra is also on the cards most likely i see IAF again asking for all the missiles oprational on LCA MK1A and with EL-2052 from the word go .. tall order i say
Because of weight category, Derby (120 kg) and Python vis a vis SD 10A (180 kg) akin to R 77.

Derby ER is not even operational, will've the range of 100 ~ km.I don't know how many variants SD 10 Chinese already develop which is already a 70 - 100 km class.
 

Articles

Top