LCA Tejas Mk1 & Mk1A - News and discussions
- Thread starter Ashwin
- Start date
-
- Tags
- indian defence forum
I guess this is for updated and upgraded mission systems , ADA about to bgin the work and tendered out the job.
That's the good news. The bad news is it'd take GE upto a year to deliver 12 nos F 404 TFs. That's not all.
Since we aren't the only customers & GE production capacities are limited to some 30-40 a year it'd take them another 3 years to increase their quota of 12 nos F 404 TFs to 26 nos which is our target
It gets better . There's no confirmation they're planning to supply us with 26 nos to begin with . Right now it's under "serious" consideration.
What're the implications of this ? Our 83 Mk-1a delivery schedule definitely gets impacted . Further it also impacts the deliveries of the proposed 97 nos Mk-1a . At this rate we'd probably be still getting them off the assembly line in 2035 which in turn further delays the deliveries of the Mk-2.
Apparently the only silver lining is that separate lines are planned for AMCA & TEDBF.
All this means when the balloons go up vis a vis China whereas we were supposed to have the 83 Mk-1a in-hand by the end of this decade , the IAF will be holding on to its d!cks .
I think you ought to consult RST immediately. Only he can provide some succour.
And they have no Plan B as a retired ACM announced during an AF Day press conference a couple of years ago.
I think it'd be easier to stick the M88 core into the Kaveri as a hybrid solution, like we did with the Mk1s MMR (local antenna+ Elta 2032 backend). I'm not suggesting it's going to be easy but better than preparing RFPs upon RFPs and kicking the can down the road.
I think it'd be easier to stick the M88 core into the Kaveri as a hybrid solution, like we did with the Mk1s MMR (local antenna+ Elta 2032 backend). I'm not suggesting it's going to be easy but better than preparing RFPs upon RFPs and kicking the can down the road.
Uses of Indian mission computer in SU 30 MKI, which is talking to indigenous and Israeli weapons and electronic systems.
MKI ASTRA Integration RIG
Netcentric warfare in LCA using indigenous SDR
Awacs and Netcentric warfare, Those who claim that Indian systems from various OEMs don't communicate with one another should understand.
MKI ASTRA Integration RIG
Netcentric warfare in LCA using indigenous SDR
Awacs and Netcentric warfare, Those who claim that Indian systems from various OEMs don't communicate with one another should understand.
He's a CCP bot but truth be told if you paint a target on your back , people will take potshots at you.
That's true.
Thought he couldn't himself because of testfiring of network centric Astra missile. ..
Otherwise he wouldn't bother about silly things right?
But alas to think that we had that capability since 2006.
Mk1 or mk1a was not conceived as a replacement for mirage 2000 or mig 29. It is conceived as replacement of mig21 class which is protecting the sky within country from adversary encroachment plus some limited ground attack role. Hence the light combat class. Mk2 mwf is the proper mirage fighter class replacement both engine thrust and performance wise. So apart from more modern missile firing ability, better radar etc aside, general performance difference would be at par between comparison of mig21 vs mirage 2000.
ps: do not get swayed by HAL overpromising on capability front ie presenting mk1a as true multirole. It may fire modern aam and several standoff weapons but is also limited by its engine thrust class. Mk1a is good for the job it is made for, that should be it.
ps: do not get swayed by HAL overpromising on capability front ie presenting mk1a as true multirole. It may fire modern aam and several standoff weapons but is also limited by its engine thrust class. Mk1a is good for the job it is made for, that should be it.
There is not much difference in thrust class. What is the difference in thrust? Less than 10% to 15%. It is basically design and internal fuel which makes the difference. Tejas MK1A could have been a batter plane had been a bit longer and had batter fuel with 4,5 ton payload. It was quite possible but we had no experience at that time. Tejas is a good Multirole fighter so far as Pakistan is concern but not good enough for China. This is purely because of Geographical proximity. Tejas can easily go 100 to 150 KM inside Pakistan and hit 200 to 250 KM target inside Pakistan with Stand off weapon which covers almost all high value target inside Pakistan. However when you say that it lacks it lacks the capability like Mirage 2000, you are very correct. It is batter than Mig 21 in interception and miles ahead in ground attack. It is somewhere in between.
Well its upto the user and designers to decide that tbh. I have read that a fighter class jet needs to be powered by at least 100kn class engine ie thrust in between 95-100kn. So there must be very specific reason from use perspective. This issue was strong enough to necessitate multiple design changes in mk2 mwf project. Otherwise the original drdo plan of sticking F404 onto mk1 airframe would have prevailed. Light fighter like mk1 has its use case which is somewhat limited by range, thrust, payload etc as do more robust Mk2 mwf class which is the war dog.
GE 414 with 56/98 KN is good enough for 17500 kg MTOW for Mach 1.8, why GE 404 with 51/89 was not good enough for 14000 KG MTOW. The reason is simple. Design competency level in in late eighties 2 decade later. While DRDO was thinking to modify MK1 initially, they had designed a modified MK1 with some 2800 KG internal fuel, 0.5 meter longer fuselage and 0.5 meter longer nosecone with 61500 empty weight. It was a very promising design of MK1 which was an improvement of MK1. However, they decided to go for MK2 which was a right choice. What I want to say is that a better Tejas MK1 was possible with same engine.
Last edited:
It was our mistake to choose GE 404 over EJ200. EJ 200 is far superior to GE404 and GE 414. We made a wrong choice. We should shift to EJ 200 which delivers batter power and batter delivery assurance. It can certainly make MWF a batter plane with higher dry thrust.
EJ200 did not exist when F404 was chosen for the LCA program in 1985. You are confusing it with F414.
HAL believes they will meet the deadline for the first 83.
The contract states 3 by Feb/Mar 24 and 16 more before Mar 25. Only these two have been delayed. GE will be able to deliver only 8 engines by Mar 25. In the meantime some jets, including trainers, will be delivered with old engines. India currently has 75 engines, including the ones delivered under the Mk1 program.
It's 3 + 16x5. So the current deadline is Mar 29. HAL can produce more than 16 jets but keep them parked until the engines are delivered. The IAF will only have to manage spare engines for a year or two.
The only good news is tests pending post operationalization will happen before delivery instead.
The bad news is while early hiccups are manageable, any export potential has been reduced for now. I won't be surprised if some of the delay was deliberate because SoKo will have a single-seat F-50 ready by then, a direct competitor to the Mk1A.
The contract states 3 by Feb/Mar 24 and 16 more before Mar 25. Only these two have been delayed. GE will be able to deliver only 8 engines by Mar 25. In the meantime some jets, including trainers, will be delivered with old engines. India currently has 75 engines, including the ones delivered under the Mk1 program.
It's 3 + 16x5. So the current deadline is Mar 29. HAL can produce more than 16 jets but keep them parked until the engines are delivered. The IAF will only have to manage spare engines for a year or two.
The only good news is tests pending post operationalization will happen before delivery instead.
The bad news is while early hiccups are manageable, any export potential has been reduced for now. I won't be surprised if some of the delay was deliberate because SoKo will have a single-seat F-50 ready by then, a direct competitor to the Mk1A.
India may well have 70 nos GE F-404 TFs but how many numbers of Mk-1s have we produced ? Add the trainers ( haven't kept count of it ) to it , the various TDs & prototypes including Naval prototypes & we can see how most of it would have been consumed .
A figure of 10-15% is kept in reserve for emergencies which is what we're utilising now .
Please note that GE Production Plan of ALL the TFs it manufactures doesn't exceed 100 nos per annum. As far as our production plan goes in sync with the agreement we've with GE they were contracted to deliver 12 nos GE F-404 per annum.
We could stretch that figure but it wouldn't be by much. In any case we can't do so for another couple of years as GE like most of the aerospace industry in the west is dependant on its supply chains which has still not recovered fully from the after effects of the COVID pandemic.
The 24 nos production plan by HAL was its way of demonstrating their mfg prowess & commitment to the project. Was it fake news generated by HAL ? No . Was it posturing on their part ? Yes , to an extent , given the bad blood prevailing between HAL & IAF due to historical reasons especially production planning & schedules.
HAL can now turn around & tell everyone from IAF to the MoD that they've created facilities for the mfg of upto 24 FAs within 2 years from date which can also cater to export if need be , but if the production plans of GE doesn't exceed 12 or say 16 ( which should be the maximum they can deliver us ) how's it the fault of HAL ?
These corporate games are played all the time by senior management of all major corporations which anybody with experience of it in the Corporate World will immediately recognise.
Ideally we should have gone in for local production of the F 404s too. Probably we will after inking the agreement with GE for the F 414 TFs , if we want yo stabilise the production of the 2nd tranche of 97 nos Mk-1a to avoid nasty surprises like what we're receiving now.
RoK has localised the production of the F 404s . Apart from some vital parts which is sourced directly from GE supply chain they're not dependent on GE for the TFs. Comparing our situation to theirs for the F 404 is chalk & cheese , really.
There's also the GE investor call report which @marich01 could probably help us out with. All their production plans for their various TFs are clearly given out there . Whatever I've posted above can be corroborated there . Ezsasa shared these details on D F I some time back. The forum being defunct , I couldn't trace it as a lot of data has disappeared.
A figure of 10-15% is kept in reserve for emergencies which is what we're utilising now .
Please note that GE Production Plan of ALL the TFs it manufactures doesn't exceed 100 nos per annum. As far as our production plan goes in sync with the agreement we've with GE they were contracted to deliver 12 nos GE F-404 per annum.
We could stretch that figure but it wouldn't be by much. In any case we can't do so for another couple of years as GE like most of the aerospace industry in the west is dependant on its supply chains which has still not recovered fully from the after effects of the COVID pandemic.
The 24 nos production plan by HAL was its way of demonstrating their mfg prowess & commitment to the project. Was it fake news generated by HAL ? No . Was it posturing on their part ? Yes , to an extent , given the bad blood prevailing between HAL & IAF due to historical reasons especially production planning & schedules.
HAL can now turn around & tell everyone from IAF to the MoD that they've created facilities for the mfg of upto 24 FAs within 2 years from date which can also cater to export if need be , but if the production plans of GE doesn't exceed 12 or say 16 ( which should be the maximum they can deliver us ) how's it the fault of HAL ?
These corporate games are played all the time by senior management of all major corporations which anybody with experience of it in the Corporate World will immediately recognise.
Ideally we should have gone in for local production of the F 404s too. Probably we will after inking the agreement with GE for the F 414 TFs , if we want yo stabilise the production of the 2nd tranche of 97 nos Mk-1a to avoid nasty surprises like what we're receiving now.
RoK has localised the production of the F 404s . Apart from some vital parts which is sourced directly from GE supply chain they're not dependent on GE for the TFs. Comparing our situation to theirs for the F 404 is chalk & cheese , really.
There's also the GE investor call report which @marich01 could probably help us out with. All their production plans for their various TFs are clearly given out there . Whatever I've posted above can be corroborated there . Ezsasa shared these details on D F I some time back. The forum being defunct , I couldn't trace it as a lot of data has disappeared.
The LCA was conceived as a one-for-one replacement of the MiG-21. It was designed to fit the same footprint to be compatible with HAS and other infra at airbases. The result was a densely packed ac with little space for new gear.
ADA was considering a delta canard design initially, which would have path-breaking for the time, but eventually chose the compound delta config that we have today.