Which 'proposal' ? All 83 of them will be operational aircrafts.
IAF didnt pay dues of already delivered products and delaying impending orders. At the end of the day all blame on HAL.
LCA Tejas Mk1 & Mk1A - News and discussions
- Thread starter Ashwin
- Start date
-
- Tags
- indian defence forum
IAF didnt pay dues of already delivered products and delaying impending orders. At the end of the day all blame on HAL.
MK1A is a proposal of HAL. Nothing more as of now.
And i think its upto the MoD to clear the dues. I don't see a IAF fault here.
And where's there is a fault, there will be blame.
Proposal made based on changes requested by IAF.
And when did it say anything about additional prototype?
Also, with your logic. Rafale H is a modified version based on IAF requirement. why did IAF agree to pay advance without prototype? Why are they gonna accept downgraded version?
Obviously IAF has a say in it. To pay advance to dassault or dues to HAL.
Last edited:
This document does state that the AESA will have to be first tested and certified on 2 airframes provided by HAL.
And on the second part, if I am IAF, i will see myself in great danger from rapidly depleating numbers. I have two options, pay for Rafale so that i can have them starting 2 years from now, or pay to HAL for aircraft delivered(reportedly) .
I will obviously choose the former.
Attachments
This is a tender document between radar OEM and HAL. Its to get accountability from them. This exact tender was delayed for too long because IAF sat on the TEC report.
IAF doesn't have CAPX to fill the number using rafale (Read MMRCA). Thus your argument is in favor of faster clearance and additional number of LCA.
50,000 crore is a big amount, and no Airforce will sign a contract for this amount with a organization like HAL for a aircraft on paper. And requisite operational clearances will be needed for Tejas MK1A before IAF sign production contract.
And on funds, if i (IAF) give it to Dassault, i get
36 Rafale + remaining Su30MKI and maybe 6-8 LCA
If i give it to HAL , i will still get
Remaining Su30MKI and maybe 6-8 LCA.
There, you see the difference of 36 aircraft?
No one saying skip anything.
Which is unacceptable.
Irrelevant. IAF need both rafale and LCA as soon as they can.
Well if true then MoD needs to intervene, else the IAF should ensure that HAL gets the reasons why it has yet not cleared it.
Rest, i will say that HAL, ADA and MoD are to be blamed for the LCA mess we see today. And i do wish that things improve.
But as time passes and as LCA projects drags on even slower, i would wish that we simply order 110 Rafales and go for 110 Single Engine fighters with private production and then a partnership to develop a 5th generation air superority fighter. Ofcourse money will be a problem, but we need planes.
Don't know what Sengupta said (any links?), my concern is, that they didn't do it at all till what, 2017/18? They blamed delays of FOC on delays of Cobham producing the radome and IFR probe, but whom can they blame for the gun?
Also sjha posted some infos on the integration
Not sure what Gagan Shakti has to do with that, but IAF is not going for more than the 83 MK1s, since the aim was MK2 all along. ACM Dhanoa already stated, that 6 x MK2 squads are planned, to bring the total to 12 squads and 231 LCAs.
Also any integration of new systems to the MK1As, will only happen as part of the 1st upgrade, usually after 10 to 15 years in service (see MKIs for example). The first chance for Uttam therefore will be MK2, or an upgrade for IOC/FOC.
After gaganshakti IAF viewpoint changed so i believe they could order more since the contract isn't signed yet though if IAF believes MCA will be ready in time then they won't have to.
Mk-1A will start producing in 2021, HAL could incorporate indigenous systems on remaining orders just before switching to MCA.
Btw will SP-21 have SDR, DRDO's or Israeli? Its more logical to think mk-1A will have Israeli as PKS said but what about FOC?
The exercise has nothing to do with the upgrade, since no capabilities of that were shown or included in it. We know that IOC versions participated in the strike missions and it's likely that an FOC prototype has launched Derby in a detected test. But that has no meaning for MK1A, nor will MK1A solve the underperformance problem. It's just a stop gap.
HALs priority is, to get all parts available to directly switch from FOC to MK1A without any delay. The last that they need, are more delays caused by DRDOs failures. HAL is suffering already, because too many people confuse LCA as a HAL product.
I don't give much about PKS's conclusions, they often turn out to be wrong. But he has access to very informative OEM infos and specs.
Rubbish. You are talking about minimal criteria approach. I am talking about percentile approach. There are areas where you can use the minimal criterion approach. R&D is not one of them.
Percentile approach will make recruitment even worse, like it's the case with IITs. At least now an SC/ST with no skills will never make it past personal interview round where marks are given on a whim.
Personal interview in a R&D posting should anyways be the least important.
One query, have you ever worked in an environment (non-college) which is engaged in R&D?
Now, IAF wants new canopy for LCA
Now, IAF wants new canopy for LCA - Times of India
Now, IAF wants new canopy for LCA - Times of India
@randomradio @_Anonymous_ @suryakiran @Parthu @Paro @Ashwin
For context F16's
- The innermost layer is 0.5 inch (12.7)thick polycarbonate and drape-molded into the compound curvature shape.
- The center layer is 0.05 inch (1.27mm) polyurethane to bond the inner to the outer layer.
- The outer layer is a 0.125 inch (3.175mm) layer of acrylic (PMMA)
F/A 18 redesigned canopy is about 0.94 inches, 23.876 mm.
Here IAF wants 40mm. nice.
