RD-33 is a decent engine, just not suitable for LCA. There was enough time to reengine the Mk1A with F414 instead.
What's the IAF got to do with this?
LCA Tejas Mk1 & Mk1A - News and discussions
- Thread starter Ashwin
- Start date
-
- Tags
- indian defence forum
RD-33 is a decent engine, just not suitable for LCA. There was enough time to reengine the Mk1A with F414 instead.
What's the IAF got to do with this?
Engines are no longer a problem but the Israeli components, right?
Because I remember the no45 was raised with just 2 airframes. So with 6 engines, we can easily set up a full fledged training and operational conversion unit for Mk1A.
Because I remember the no45 was raised with just 2 airframes. So with 6 engines, we can easily set up a full fledged training and operational conversion unit for Mk1A.
Going for the ge-404 instead of the rd-33
How is it not? It has the same wet thrust as the ge-404-in20 (88kN-90kN)
Approx the same size is produced in India and we have the MRO facilities for it in India.
Why aren't we building tedbf based on it is equally ironic. We already have a engine we can use that fulfills the same role as the Kaveri.
If there was Ever a Himalayan Blunder , related to Tejas , it was NOT selecting the AL 31 engine from Russia on which J 10 is
Powered
A small engine like 404 means an overall small airframe and then we WANT TO FIT in everything
The lack of internal space to work around has caused all the problems , from Radar ,Radome , IFR probe , EW suite , weapon stations , limited internal fuel etc etc
Either AL 31 or M53 ie Mirage 2000 engine should have been chosen
By the way GE 414 was offered to India in 2003
But ADA didn't want to redesign the LCA ,.so they persisted with 404
The whole LSP.series ie LSP 1 to LSP 8 happened because they were not sure how far they can " expand the envelope " with respect to the airframe
And then Mr Parrikar forced MK1A on IAF in 2016
Where as IAF wanted ADA to focus on a larger MK 2 with more load carrying capacity
AL 31 could have been used
F 16 also has ONE big Engine generating 130 KN
That is why F 16 is so successful,.more fuel ,.more weapons , EW pods , AESA radar
Even J 10 earlier versions were powered by AL 31
It is only now that WS 10 has been installed on J 10
The F404 was a far superior engine in the 80s. I'm talking about 10 years ago.
The IAF doesn't want Mk1A deliveries without achieving FOC.
Very low service life. No FADEC. Dependency on Russians. Back then we should have chosen the Mirage 2000's M53.
F414 is better than RD-33.
Mig-21 was the reference design for LCA in terms of weight and dimensions.
Tejas could have been the f-16 XL but I understand the su-30 had not joined the service when the Tejas program began.
But we had the mig 29 since the 80's someone should have talked with the Russians for the rd-33 uprating.
Trusting western (I'm no one to say this considering I shill for American hardware) supply has been hugely disappointing. Considering Kinematics is no more a serious deal in this era of bvr combat. It would make sense for taking the rd-33.
What's the point of having a better engine when you can't produce it. Plus present rd-33 mk has fadec and gives the same performance as the ge-404 in20
F-16 & J-10 are supposed to be Medium-Weight Single-Engined fighter. Tejas was supposed to be Mig-21 replacent so there was absolutely no question of putting AL-31F into it. For Tejas MK1/A GE404 was the best choice.
However, going for GE414 when we could have chosen a derivative of M-88 from France or EJ-200 from UK would have been the far smarter option. Anyways, don't think GOI anticipated such level of hostility and backstabbing by the Americans post skirmish with Pak.
Anyways, both engines are locked now for Tejas MK1A & MK2 and for now there is no plan B. However, once we develop AMCA's final engine with French collaboration, that engine will go into MK2 MLU.
For now though, we are stuck with Uncle Sam's whims and mercy
Any particular reason for elta rada selection over uttam ,why has been uttam pushed further down the order on mk1a ,was it not certified,every now and then we hear how it's superior to elta then what's stopping the certification?
What will happen if we are unable to solve interference issues ,using israeli radar i think one of the major blunder apart from usa's engine .
@randomradio@rajputlion etc
What will happen if we are unable to solve interference issues ,using israeli radar i think one of the major blunder apart from usa's engine .
@randomradio@rajputlion etc
After F404 was chosen in the 80s, they was no going back. RD-33 back then wasn't a good engine, it was extremely basic. We got the Americans to develop our own version.
Things could have changed after IOC had they replaced it directly with F414. But LCA Mk1 was always just around the corner. Had they known back then they would take 10 years to deliver Mk1A, it would have given them enough time to reengine it. It would have taken the same amount of time. HAL was capable of doing it on their own too.
GE 414 was offered to India in 2003
ADA rejected it
They were busy with their LSP Science project series
And even when LSP 4 was flying in 2010, ADA had selected 414 for MK 2
So they were aware of the problems ,limitations and complications arising out of a SMALL AIRFRAME powered by 404
GRIPEN had selected 414 in 2005 for NG variant
May be that is the time ADA realised the Limitations of 404
Last edited:
When we were deciding the configuration of Jaguar upgrade the Israelis couldn't offer the 2052 'cause of American export controls so we selected 2032. Once they allowed it, the Israelis offered to replace the Jaguar's radar at the same cost as the 2032 without changes in contract as long as HAL ordered more radars for a second aircraft. So HAL chose to equip LCA with it and that's how Mk1A got the AESA. The AESA offer was the primary enabler for IAF to choose the remaining 73 in Mk1A configuration. This happened well before Uttam was ready.
Mk1A wouldn't have happened without the Israeli radar, so it was an important choice to keep the program alive. Without it, the IAF had fully transitioned to an earlier form of LCA Mk2 and we would have imported either the Gripen E or F-16 in the process.
Yeah, they can fix the issues with the radar. What's really happening is Mk1A deliveries were supposed to begin with initial capabilities, but due to the engine delays, the IAF allowed HAL to continue pushing towards FOC while waiting for engine deliveries. But HAL has missed the FOC delivery by a year, more or less 'cause the IAF was expecting to be flying a few jets by now.
That was too early for an engine change.
The right time was after F414 won the tender. But ADA was chasing after the next big thing by then with Mk2 and semi-stealth AMCA to bother about Mk1. Plus Mk2 was supposed to be Mk1-done-right, so there was no need to pursue new modifications for it.
And when HAL got its hands on the Israeli AESA, they probably assumed they will only need 3 years to get it ready. SAP-2018 they called it. But took 7 years to actually develop it and still going on after 4 more years. Effectively 11 years to date.
Lots of missed opportunities in LCA, but that's been happening consistently since 1987. A more humble approach would have seen us operating LCAs before the 2000s.
Do you also buy the supply chain theory ,or is propulsion being weaponised by the usa?
Any logic to delay the weapon from 31st/41st to second tranche itself.
Can you elaborate ioc/foc for mk1a in terms of capabilities,cause i was aware of mk1 ,but not with mk1a.
Overall it's a depressing situation,no urgency towards acquiring another propulsion agreement with france or Britain,or kaveri . airforce wasted years haggling about the price , resulting in this situation,delayed decision making and lack of awareness has forced us in this pit.
We could have cleared mk1a years ago .mk2 ,amca all were waiting for fund ,we are perfect example of chasing the mirage of excellence with pennies ,lack of coordination and internal sabotage ,you name it and we have it .
Any logic to delay the weapon from 31st/41st to second tranche itself.
Can you elaborate ioc/foc for mk1a in terms of capabilities,cause i was aware of mk1 ,but not with mk1a.
Overall it's a depressing situation,no urgency towards acquiring another propulsion agreement with france or Britain,or kaveri . airforce wasted years haggling about the price , resulting in this situation,delayed decision making and lack of awareness has forced us in this pit.
We could have cleared mk1a years ago .mk2 ,amca all were waiting for fund ,we are perfect example of chasing the mirage of excellence with pennies ,lack of coordination and internal sabotage ,you name it and we have it .
