LCA TEJAS MK1 & MK1A: News and Discussion

[Defcon 1]

Anyways pathetic trolling by some members aside, who are really interested in understanding the manufacturing problem, can read this post by Tsarkar on BRF:

Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019 - Page 90 - Bharat Rakshak

forums.bharat-rakshak.com

Aircraft parts if not built to ICY standards, then every time it needs a pipe or panel, a standalone one will need to be manufactured. It will cause serious maintenance headache.

The video showing first forward fuselage built to ICY standards indicates aircraft built and inducted before are not to ICY standards. They will either require stand alone maintenance or need retrofit with ICY standard parts at a later date.

Achieving ICY was a gradual process

 

[Rajaraja Chola]

Which changes has the user demanded?

IAF hasn't asked for any changes, you are simply making baseless assumptions. IAF has been very clear from way back in 2016 that they want all aircraft in a single squadron to have interchangable parts to reduce maintenance.

I said it's an different issue if IAF had requested changes. The final BOM is decided by ADA and not HAL. If the said part to be used is given n approved by ADA, what can hal do.

Some members can't differentiate btw an design and an manufacturing house. It's not my concern.

 

[no smoking]

This is ridiculous. If the IAF has agreed to a particular design configuration, how can aircraft of the same configuration be different. The components are machine made and not hand crafted.

Firstly, Design configuration is the responsibility of the designers, standardized production is not their concern, but manufacturing's.
Secondly, The components are machine made, but machine is controlled by man. Even with those processing machines working with pre-programming, they have different precision based on suppliers and manufacturing year (the latest one generally have highest precision). Even for the assembling stage, with the same components, products of different workers have different quality.

 

[Bleh]

Invisible landing gears...

Yaar ye thread padhne me bada maja aa raha hai lage raho saab

Many random comments tho, with next to nil understanding of the situation & misinforming already confused members (..hell, some guy even dragged in Su-30 manufacturing line as if a depeloped & exported platform need design tweaks!) DFI thread are pulled down to shits once every few days.

What happened is apparently that, after IAF requested minor enhancements in FOC that should have been done in IOC (original plan was FOCs would all be standardised) some changes were made in the 1st 2-3 jets out of the assembly line for the user to try & confirm.

Here's an example, look at the canopy base in both below... You'll note, that they incorporated different bubbled canopies for user to test & choose.

Sp-17

SP-18

Then the IOCs before & after SP-9 had another canopy, while SP-9 itself had a completely different one (check Lima19 photos). Until FOC, that auxiliary air intake on the spine used to vary too.

These are the type of stuff they're standardising now. That means changing this & that in accordance to feedback from the Jets that are being flown...

 

[Tridev123]

Firstly, Design configuration is the responsibility of the designers, standardized production is not their concern, but manufacturing's.
Secondly, The components are machine made, but machine is controlled by man. Even with those processing machines working with pre-programming, they have different precision based on suppliers and manufacturing year (the latest one generally have highest precision). Even for the assembling stage, with the same components, products of different workers have edifferent quality.

You probably did not understand the direction of the debate. There was speculation that the IAF wanted changes frequently which means that the configuration was not kept frozen. Some tug of war is taking place. If suddenly for example the Air Force wants all aircraft to have retractable refuelling probes then redesigning will have to be done. The production process will slow down. I believe the Mk1 design should be and is frozen.

As far as manufacturing is concerned allowance is made for acceptable deviation in the process and tolerances are set. So within the accepted limits very small deviations are OK. This is common knowledge. Here we are talking of large deviations where in two Tejas Mk1 aircraft cannot interchange their parts which is unacceptable.

Anyway until we have official statements from HAL and the IAF everything is based on conjecture.

 

[Tridev123]

Invisible landing gears...
View attachment 72540



Many random comments tho, with next to nil understanding of the situation & misinforming already confused members (..hell, some guy even dragged in Su-30 manufacturing line as if a depeloped & exported platform need design tweaks!) DFI thread are pulled down to shits once every few days.

What happened is apparently that, after IAF requested minor enhancements in FOC that should have been done in IOC (original plan was FOCs would all be standardised) some changes were made in the 1st 2-3 jets out of the assembly line for the user to try & confirm.

Here's an example, look at the canopy base in both below... You'll note, that they incorporated different bubbled canopies for user to test & choose.

Sp-17View attachment 72538
SP-18View attachment 72539
Then the IOCs before & after SP-9 had another canopy, while SP-9 itself had a completely different one (check Lima19 photos). Until FOC, that auxiliary air intake on the spine used to vary too.

These are the type of stuff they're standardising now. That means changing this & that in accordance to feedback from the Jets that are being flown...

Some statements were made that implied that HAL had a recurring and chronic problem of being unable to produce standardised aircraft and components. Now it cannot be the case that they succeeded in avoiding such problems in the Mig21 and Su30 mki cases but failed in the Tejas manufacture.

The reference to the Su30 mki was made in that context. There is no need to get upset. Everybody wishes that the Tejas production goes on smoothly without glitches whether it is the Mk1, Mk1A or the MWF.

 

[Defcon 1]

Invisible landing gears...
View attachment 72540



Many random comments tho, with next to nil understanding of the situation & misinforming already confused members (..hell, some guy even dragged in Su-30 manufacturing line as if a depeloped & exported platform need design tweaks!) DFI thread are pulled down to shits once every few days.

What happened is apparently that, after IAF requested minor enhancements in FOC that should have been done in IOC (original plan was FOCs would all be standardised) some changes were made in the 1st 2-3 jets out of the assembly line for the user to try & confirm.

Here's an example, look at the canopy base in both below... You'll note, that they incorporated different bubbled canopies for user to test & choose.

Sp-17View attachment 72538
SP-18View attachment 72539
Then the IOCs before & after SP-9 had another canopy, while SP-9 itself had a completely different one (check Lima19 photos). Until FOC, that auxiliary air intake on the spine used to vary too.

These are the type of stuff they're standardising now. That means changing this & that in accordance to feedback from the Jets that are being flown...

Tejas doesn't uses bubble canopy. Rest is ok

 

[shiphone]

Here's an example, look at the canopy base in both below... You'll note, that they incorporated different bubbled canopies for user to test & choose.

Sp-17
View attachment 72538

errrr...........that is the shadow of the canopy

--------
BTW, I had a close watch during the LIMA19 and just rechecked the loads of pix...I don't think LA-5009 has some unique canopy. LA-5010 was also there...

 

[patriots]

Ok happy Tejas day guys
Ada is integrating avionics and radar on rig for testing....for mk1a
Ada is very much involved in the project
Project timeline is 15 months
And. Don't worry about the mk1a deal ....
It's a formality now......
And guys hope hal will not fumble to deliver

 

[Tuco]

Ok happy Tejas day guys
Ada is integrating avionics and radar on rig for testing....for mk1a
Ada is very much involved in the project
Project timeline is 15 months
And. Don't worry about the mk1a deal ....
It's a formality now......
And guys hope hal will not fumble to deliver

Which radar? 2052 or UTTAM?

Edit: sorry I didn't see Mk1a so 2052.

 

[Narasimh]

errrr...........that is the shadow of the canopy

--------
BTW, I had a close watch during the LIMA19 and just rechecked the loads of pix...I don't think LA-5009 has some unique canopy. LA-5010 was also there...

Compare the shape of the canopies where it joins with the dorsal spine

 

[Bleh]

Tejas doesn't uses bubble canopy. Rest is ok

"Bubbled" camopy... Sorta like this Bison's.

errrr...........that is the shadow of the canopy

--------
BTW, I had a close watch during the LIMA19 and just rechecked the loads of pix...I don't think LA-5009 has some unique canopy. LA-5010 was also there...

*bulge, not base. Autocorrect typo.
It's more clear to people more skilled at observation than you. Might as well reshare the set I have & elaborate for everyone.

Original canopy from prototypes.

And the slightly bulged version of that canopy on some IOC & SP-17 FOC.

The other FOC SP-18 & an IOC SP-13 has a smoother canopy.

The one on SP-9 at Lima last year... bulged more at the rear, but flat at top.

Then there minor aerodynamic flow improvements like this fairing extentions at the wing end, beside nozzles.

 

[hit&run]

I wonder why thread on technical and military topics slowly become high on angry personal exchanges?

Please keep these threads clean.

Readers like me learn a lot from your valuable inputs. Disagreement actually help bringing the best out of you.

Thanks for your cooperation.

 

[BON PLAN]

May be modified for Brahmos..

Brahmos is probably far too heavy and big to fit under a so small bird.
Tejas is a point defense jet, with secondary CAS capacity. Nothing more. A mouse can't do the cat job.

 

[Flying Dagger]

Brahmos is probably far too heavy and big to fit under a so small bird.
Tejas is a point defense jet, with secondary CAS capacity. Nothing more. A mouse can't do the cat job.

May be not for Mk1/1a but an NG version is being planned for Mk2 with half the weight and reduce size.

 

[Bleh]

Atleast he's posting again...

 

[WarriorIndian]

May be modified for Brahmos..

I seriously dont understand the logic behind why an aicraft like Tejas would be required to carry Brahmos when its area of action is strictly going to within the areal limits of its base. Tejas would but be the last option for a Balakot like venture.

 

[shuvo@y2k10]

I seriously dont understand the logic behind why an aicraft like Tejas would be required to carry Brahmos when its area of action is strictly going to within the areal limits of its base. Tejas would but be the last option for a Balakot like venture.

Tejas MK1 combat radius is around 500 km. This will increase with MK1A and MK2 versions. Now a Brahmos-NG, with even a 300 km range (will be greater than that), will allow Tejas to strike targets at a minimum of 800 km. That covers entire Pakistan and Ttibet region if Tejas takes off from forward bases. A low RCS small and nimble aircraft like Tejas, will be a nightmare for enemy forward ADS.

 

[shuvo@y2k10]

 

[Bleh]

Interesting screengrab...