LCA TEJAS MK1 & MK1A: News and Discussion

[Defcon 1]

It seems that you have read the article thoroughly. Now could you just make clear few of the points here?





So here by January 22 HAL had submitted a revised proposal where in the ferry range issue has been sorted out. But now IAF is approaching MoD for delivery schedule. That's fine. But could you kindly shed light on what took IAF its own sweet time of 6 months to evaluate 1 RFP? What was the evaluation committee doing in all these days? And at the end of of 6 months, they have just came out with one technical point of ferry range and that too got sorted out.



Now could you kindly enlighten the fact that when the DAC sanction in itself is valid for 6 months, why is IAF crying on the 12 month validity period by HAl? Its ok that it is a norm, but by going through single vendor approach IAF is deviating from norm. Then why on earth they are stuck with the validity point? The delivery schedule is a valid point and there is nothing to argue on it.

And for your kind information, in any kind of RFP, there is a provision for time extension on price validity. It could vary but the general term is of 90 to 120 days. Raising an issue on that point is simply absurd.

In my opinion IAF is simply dilly delaying the project.

So you are basically claiming that since this is a single vendor situation, 6 months weren't required for evaluation? Do you have anything to support this claim? Any best practices or actual examples from anywhere else in the World? Or have you evaluated single vendor tenders yourself?
Please note that this order is worth over 7 billion.

 

[no smoking]

Wasn't air 2 air refueling tested to close the deficiency of shorter ferry/combat range. What IAF is looking for is unclear in report (usual of defence related reporting standard).

Tejas itself is a short range fighter which means it has a very good chance to be deployed the airports close to the border if you want it to play a battle role in any future war. In other words, they may have to do the air-refueling work within the range of enemy fighters threat range that is unacceptable.

 

[Enquirer]

Anybody know about the status of supposed weight reduction of Mk1A's landing gear?

If I have to hazard a guess, there's nothing being done on this front.
Else, how could the RFP, price & contract be this close to closure without a prototype being built & tested with the new landing gear???

 

[patriots]

According to janes.....

Malaysia issued rfi..for kais ta-50
....so no chance for tejas

 

[WolfPack86]

I am very sad that Tejas Mk 1A is not soon inducted into Indian Air Force and HAL is slow delivering remaining LCA Tejas.

 

[uoftotaku]

According to janes.....

Malaysia issued rfi..for kais ta-50
....so no chance for tejas

When even the home country forces are not ready to accept it in service and keep speaking out in public about its various flaws / inadequacies / problems...then why would a foreign air force jump in to buy it?

Export prospects are only hot air drummed up by media to prop up HAL during recent political fracas over Rafale

 

[Chinmoy]

So you are basically claiming that since this is a single vendor situation, 6 months weren't required for evaluation? Do you have anything to support this claim? Any best practices or actual examples from anywhere else in the World? Or have you evaluated single vendor tenders yourself?
Please note that this order is worth over 7 billion.

To evaluate a plane, it takes a life time. But to evaluate written specs and to compare it with the RFP if someone is taking 4 months, then it shows sheer negligence on part of evaluation team.
The evaluation committee of MRCA had completed the RFP evaluation within 3 months. There were total 6 vendors in that and here in case of Tejas, they took 6 months for same and issue non compliance to HAL?

 

[Defcon 1]

The evaluation committee of MRCA had completed the RFP evaluation within 3 months.

Please prove this sentence before we discuss further.

 

[Chinmoy]

Please prove this sentence before we discuss further.

RFP released on August 2007 and all the RFP were submitted by 28 April 2008 after an extension of 1 month.

http://www.pib.nic.in/newsite/erelease.aspx?relid=30522

A request for proposal (RFP) for the 126 combat jets was floated in August 2007 and all those invited responded with their proposals by April 2008. Since then authorities have been studying the copious amount of documents submitted, which in the case of some bidders runs into as many as 10,000 pages.

https://web.archive.org/web/2013110...h=IAF-Conducts-Marathon-Race-for-Jet-Fighters

ACM F.H.Major in November 2008 reported that the techical evaluatio

He said the technical evaluation of the medium multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA) has been done.

https://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/report-iaf-s-flying-coffins-may-finally-rest-in-peace-1207417

Although there is another archive report where he reported that it was completed at end of August and 6 months from then i.e. February 2009 the flight tests would resume. But unfortunately that archive report link is not working.

 

[Defcon 1]

RFP released on August 2007 and all the RFP were submitted by 28 April 2008 after an extension of 1 month.

http://www.pib.nic.in/newsite/erelease.aspx?relid=30522



https://web.archive.org/web/2013110...h=IAF-Conducts-Marathon-Race-for-Jet-Fighters

ACM F.H.Major in November 2008 reported that the techical evaluatio



https://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/report-iaf-s-flying-coffins-may-finally-rest-in-peace-1207417

Although there is another archive report where he reported that it was completed at end of August and 6 months from then i.e. February 2009 the flight tests would resume. But unfortunately that archive report link is not working.

So even according to your wrong news report, MMRCA RFP evaluation took 6 months, not 3.

Actually, even your news report that MMRCA RFP evaluation was complete by November 2008 is actually missreporting.

The MMRCA RFP evaluation was complete by May 2009 as reported by multiple sources:

After completion of technical evaluation by end May 2009, the IAF carried out comprehensive technical evaluation of all the six contenders.

http://www.sps-aviation.com/story/?id=1222

The Indian Air Force said Wednesday it had completed the technical evaluation of six fighter jets from various companies around the world for a medium range multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA) contract estimated at more than $11 billion.

https://www.domain-b.com/aero/mil_avi/mil_aircraft/20090527_technical_evaluation.html

In August the same year, the then IAF chief, Fali H, Major, told reporters that the technical evaluation of the bids was under process and that the IAF would start field trials of all the participating aircraft later that year. In January 2009, Major said the evaluations were almost complete and the field trials would start by April-May. However, the IAF submitted its final technical evaluation report to the government only in May 2009.

https://m.dailyhunt.in/news/india/e...+nature+of+modi+s+rafale+deal-newsid-95789910

It takes time to approve huge RFPs. Had HAL submitted a proper response to RFP in the first place. Mk1A order would been placed by now

 

[Chinmoy]

So even according to your wrong news report, MMRCA RFP evaluation took 6 months, not 3.

Actually, even your news report that MMRCA RFP evaluation was complete by November 2008 is actually missreporting.

The MMRCA RFP evaluation was complete by May 2009 as reported by multiple sources:

http://www.sps-aviation.com/story/?id=1222


https://www.domain-b.com/aero/mil_avi/mil_aircraft/20090527_technical_evaluation.html


https://m.dailyhunt.in/news/india/e...+nature+of+modi+s+rafale+deal-newsid-95789910

It takes time to approve huge RFPs. Had HAL submitted a proper response to RFP in the first place. Mk1A order would been placed by now

Do you even know the meaning of technical evaluation? As per report Dassault was knocked out of contention after technical evaluation and only on January 2009 it has been allowed to participate in bid process, although Dassault refuted it. And here you are quoting report of technical evaluation report submission? Are you serious? I am quoting the serving ACM of the time where he said on November 2008 that technical evaluation is completed and you are quoting a news report by Rtd Air Marshall where is exact word is.

After completion of technical evaluation by end May 2009, the IAF carried out comprehensive technical evaluation of all the six contenders.

Did you even understood the meaning of the underlined part? In case of multiple vendor, only after individual evaluation, a comprehensive evaluation of all vendors takes place. And you are taking it to be the RFP evaluation of individual vendor?

Even if it had taken 6 months of evaluation, it was for 6 different platforms. Now if for one single platform you take the same amount of time, it clearly shows that IAF was sitting on the RFP for better time of the period.

 

[Defcon 1]

Do you even know the meaning of technical evaluation? As per report Dassault was knocked out of contention after technical evaluation and only on January 2009 it has been allowed to participate in bid process, although Dassault refuted it. And here you are quoting report of technical evaluation report submission? Are you serious? I am quoting the serving ACM of the time where he said on November 2008 that technical evaluation is completed and you are quoting a news report by Rtd Air Marshall where is exact word is.



Did you even understood the meaning of the underlined part? In case of multiple vendor, only after individual evaluation, a comprehensive evaluation of all vendors takes place. And you are taking it to be the RFP evaluation of individual vendor?

Even if it had taken 6 months of evaluation, it was for 6 different platforms. Now if for one single platform you take the same amount of time, it clearly shows that IAF was sitting on the RFP for better time of the period.

Dude, don't make up stories now when you have been proven wrong.

First of all, I clearly don't need to indulge you further. You have already been proven a liar when you said that
The evaluation committee of MRCA had completed the RFP evaluation within 3 months.
I asked you one source and you came to 6 months from 3.

Secondly, ,Its clearly written everywhere that MMRCA RFP technical evaluation was completed by May 2009. If it would have been completed by November 2008 as you are wrongly claiming, field trials would have started by 2008 end.

Even according to the part you quoted it is written "comprehensive technical evaluation of all the six contenders." took place after May 2009. So very clearly till from April 2008 to May 2009 only technical evaluation of RFP of all six contenders was going on.

If you are still hell bent on claiming that technical evaluation of RFP was completed by November 2008, please explain me the following:
1. Why did IAF submit submit their technical evaluation report in May 2009?
2. Why did field trials start in July 2009 instead of immediately after November 2008?

EDIT: found another gem. Since you were putting so much emphasis on the words of then serving air chief. This is from January 19, 2009. direct from the horse's mouth. Clearly the technical evaluations were not complete by then

The Indian Air Force (IAF) will commence trials of six competing medium range multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA) in contention for a massive $11 billion, 126-aircraft contract sometime in April-May. This was revealed by IAF chief Air Chief Marshal Fali Homi Major on Saturday.

"The technical evaluation of the MMRCA is almost complete. Hopefully, field trials should commence by April-May this year," the ACM said in his address at the annual Air Chief Marshal LM Katre Memorial Lecture here.

https://www.domain-b.com/defence/general/20090119_iaf.html

 

[Chinmoy]

Dude, don't make up stories now when you have been proven wrong.

First of all, I clearly don't need to indulge you further. You have already been proven a liar when you said that
The evaluation committee of MRCA had completed the RFP evaluation within 3 months.
I asked you one source and you came to 6 months from 3.

Secondly, ,Its clearly written everywhere that MMRCA RFP technical evaluation was completed by May 2009. If it would have been completed by November 2008 as you are wrongly claiming, field trials would have started by 2008 end.

Even according to the part you quoted it is written "comprehensive technical evaluation of all the six contenders." took place after May 2009. So very clearly till from April 2008 to May 2009 only technical evaluation of RFP of all six contenders was going on.

If you are still hell bent on claiming that technical evaluation of RFP was completed by November 2008, please explain me the following:
1. Why did IAF submit submit their technical evaluation report in May 2009?
2. Why did field trials start in July 2009 instead of immediately after November 2008?

EDIT: found another gem. Since you were putting so much emphasis on the words of then serving air chief. This is from January 19, 2009. direct from the horse's mouth. Clearly the technical evaluations were not complete by then

https://www.domain-b.com/defence/general/20090119_iaf.html

For you I could just say one thing. Ignorance is bliss. Have you ever seen the RFP of MMRCA? I think not. There was one condition in it regarding offset clause and those proposals are received long after the submission of RFP in August 2008. As of submitting the report on technical evaluation, it is done only after comprehensive analysis of all the vendors. For your kind information, individual analysis is done before comprehensive analysis and its a single team of evaluators who does all the evaluation. Its not like a team Dassault, team Boeing, team LM who does individual evaluation.

As far as field trials is concerned, it does takes a minimum of 3 to 6 months before starting the trials after technical evaluation id done. It is needed because we are talking of a plane here which means it would have accompanying technicians along with test pilots and intensive interactive sessions with Indian pilots on the system who would have to evaluate it after flight trial.

So, completion of evaluation, submission of reports and start of field trial is not a mathematical sum where 1+1 would always be 2. But whom I am talking with and trying to make understand?

And this is not what I have said.

He said the technical evaluation of the medium multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA) has been done. The IAF hoped to start its flight evaluation by February 2009.

 

[Defcon 1]

For you I could just say one thing. Ignorance is bliss. Have you ever seen the RFP of MMRCA? I think not. There was one condition in it regarding offset clause and those proposals are received long after the submission of RFP in August 2008. As of submitting the report on technical evaluation, it is done only after comprehensive analysis of all the vendors. For your kind information, individual analysis is done before comprehensive analysis and its a single team of evaluators who does all the evaluation. Its not like a team Dassault, team Boeing, team LM who does individual evaluation.

As far as field trials is concerned, it does takes a minimum of 3 to 6 months before starting the trials after technical evaluation id done. It is needed because we are talking of a plane here which means it would have accompanying technicians along with test pilots and intensive interactive sessions with Indian pilots on the system who would have to evaluate it after flight trial.

So, completion of evaluation, submission of reports and start of field trial is not a mathematical sum where 1+1 would always be 2. But whom I am talking with and trying to make understand?

And this is not what I have said.

So you are still replying?

Ok dude, please just tell me one thing, when according to you the technical evaluation in MMRCA was finished?

 

[patriots]

Guys...tejas mk2 ...is not a paper plane now..hal is designing jigs for mk2...

Update by ir from brf

 

[Enquirer]

Guys...tejas mk2 ...is not a paper plane now..hal is designing jigs for mk2...

Update by ir from brf

Any jigs for Mk1A?
I think Aero India'19 will answer a lot of questions....

 

[happylion]

Will there be separate jigs for Mk1A or will existing one be modified ? Apart from things like LRU placement optimization,AESA radar and some weight reduction are there sufficient changes to design entirely new jigs ?

 

[patriots]

Any jigs for Mk1A?
I think Aero India'19 will answer a lot of questions....

Bhai mk1a will be made from previous jigs present with hal....as both tejas mk1 and 1a has same structure

 

[Enquirer]

Bhai mk1a will be made from previous jigs present with hal....as both tejas mk1 and 1a has same structure

Sure.
Just lamenting that even a prototype of Mk1A hasn't been out yet (which clearly suggests that landing gear weight reduction/redesign was just wishful thinking with no concrete path to realization)

 

[patriots]

Sure.
Just lamenting that even a prototype of Mk1A hasn't been out yet (which clearly suggests that landing gear weight reduction/redesign was just wishful thinking with no concrete path to realization)

I think one of the lsp s will be modified......for mk1a...to test ..