What's new

HAL Tejas | Updates, News & Discussions-[Thread 2]

@Bossman
We have GPUs for each Tejas because we can afford it. Simple as that. And don't you worry about its deployment, every airbase in India has enough GPUs. Thanks to our defence budget which does not depend upon foreign aid.

And for technical knowledge, GPUs are not necessary to start up the aircraft, it provides power to the aircraft when the main power Plant is not being used and one wants to save the APUs so that they can start the aircraft power Plant without any other constraints .
Its just being cautious on our part.

Don't try to read between the lines and create a image which does not exist in reality.
 
. . . .
... the conclusion that the Tejas cannot operate without its GPUs and hence it is a logistics nightmare and a maintenance hog.

That's not sustainable logic, Bossman!
I know guys who have wives but those missus are never on the pictures with them.
Sometimes it's because the photos are from work and sometimes the bloke is ashamed
but in either case, the wifey does exist?
And I highly doubt that the Thunder maintenance can be done entirely with 2 laptops, no
matter how rugged as that would make it the easiest fighter to care for worldwide.

Even if we were to assume that the Tejas requires more maintenance ( without saying hog ),
it likely is due to its genesis. I'm no big fan of the LCA myself mate but as I explained to the
less sensitive Indians, the value of it may not be in the product but in the process.

Let's be critical and start by saying that the LCA is barely enough to replace MiG 21s. Fine!
We'll suppose a couple hundreds to be made and used in that role. We'll suppose further that
the naval version never comes. Tejas serves 25 years-ish and is then phased out.

If all the lessons are learned and serve as a basis to build a much better successor, it's OK.
By comparison, Pakistan was less ambitious, with a second role in the JF_17 under China's lead.
Assuming the plane to be as useful to the PAF as Tejas for its own, ( Thunder has a bigger role
but smaller planned numbers ), it would seem fair to expect that ToT returns will be lesser.
So better aircraft with less knowledge gained vs outdated air scooter but lots of empirical gains?
How would each justify their choices?

In a nutshell, jet fighter programs do not exist in a vacuum!

If your citizens are cavemen but for some reason you feel the need to protect them with jet fighters,
you'll need to buy the plane since you can't build even the cockpit ashtray on your own, right?
Yeah, well, not only the plane, bro! The plane and the maintenance guys and the pilots and so on
will all have to come from the outside.
Some African countries are famous for having bought simple enough MiGs and Sukhois and having
those flown by Russian or South African "military advisors/mercenaries". The moment cash dwindled,
they were left with unusable ACs and thus virtually no AF to speak of.

In reverse, if you have all it takes to build Deathstars, you do that then slap on a hefty dose of propag ...
huh, say publicity to convince the whole planet your stuff can't be beaten and sell it either for profit or
as a way to infeudate them to you, sometimes both!
That would cover extremes like Palau and the US ( no offense to either ) but what of the rest of the gang?

India has enough cash, few trustworthy friends and loads of patience ( born out of their strange relation to
time ) : they go for the drawn out solution that should pay in a couple decades.
Pakistan has a helpful friend or two but little cash and a sense of clear and present danger : it goes for what
will serve ASAP and accepts that local production of star fighters can wait.
It's that simple!

Of course, at the moment, Thunder is more useful but that is a snap pic out of a timeline my man!
The ultimate goal, let's not forget, would be to manufacture the fighter you need from inception to
retirement which darn few countries can do alone.
In order to judge how well each approach worked, we'll have to wait.

Plus, how do you measure success? Two friends decide to become runners : one aims for 10K while
the other contends in the 5k race. The former falls short of the finish line or time limit while the latter
comes in with a last place but completion attained. One did the job but the other ran longer; who won?
They can discuss it acrimoniously for eons without conclusion ... but if you ask the peeps on the podium,
it really doesn't matter as they celebrate and show off their medals?

If India faceplants partially with the LCA but gets up, dusts itself off and succeeds on their next attempt,
it will have been worthwhile. That's what training is all about, buddy!

The presence or size or colour of their GPUs, as funny as you may find it, is not a proof of anything, really.

Have a great day, Tay.
 
Last edited:
. .
That's not sustainable logic, Bossman!
I know guys who have wives but those missus are never on the pictures with them.
Sometimes it's because the photos are from work and sometimes the bloke is ashamed
but in either case, the wifey does exist?
And I highly doubt that the Thunder maintenance can be done entirely with 2 laptops, no
matter how rugged as that would make it the easiest fighter to care for worldwide.

Even if we were to assume that the Tejas requires more maintenance ( without saying hog ),
it likely is due to its genesis. I'm no big fan of the LCA myself mate but as I explained to the
less sensitive Indians, the value of it may not be in the product but in the process.

Let's be critical and start by saying that the LCA is barely enough to replace MiG 21s. Fine!
We'll suppose a couple hundreds to be made and used in that role. We'll suppose further that
the naval version never comes. Tejas serves 25 years-ish and is then phased out.

If all the lessons are learned and serve as a basis to build a much better successor, it's OK.
By comparison, Pakistan was less ambitious, with a second role in the JF_17 under China's lead.
Assuming the plane to be as useful to the PAF as Tejas for its own, ( Thunder has a bigger role
but smaller planned numbers ), it would seem fair to expect that ToT returns will be lesser.
So better aircraft with less knowledge gained vs outdated air scooter but lots of empirical gains?
How would each justify their choices?

In a nutshell, jet fighter programs do not exist in a vacuum!

If your citizens are cavemen but for some reason you feel the need to protect them with jet fighters,
you'll need to buy the plane since you can't build even the cockpit ashtray on your own, right?
Yeah, well, not only the plane, bro! The plane and the maintenance guys and the pilots and so on
will all have to come from the outside.
Some African countries are famous for having bought simple enough MiGs and Sukhois and having
those flown by Russian or South African "military advisors/mercenaries". The moment cash dwindled,
they were left with unusable ACs and thus virtually no AF to speak of.

In reverse, if you have all it takes to build Deathstars, you do that then slap on a hefty does of propag ...
huh, say publicity to convince the whole planet your stuff can't be beaten and sell it either for profit or
as a way to infeudate them to you, sometimes both!
That would cover extremes like Palau and the US ( no offense to either ) but what of the rest of the gang?

India has enough cash, few trustworthy friends and loads of patience ( born out of their strange relation to
time ) : they go for the drawn out solution that should pay in a couple decades.
Pakistan has a helpful friend or two but little cash and a sense of clear and present danger : it goes for what
will serve ASAP and accepts that local production of star fighters can wait.
It's that simple!

Of course, at the moment, Thunder is more useful but that is a snap pic out of a timeline my man!
The ultimate goal, let's not forget, would be to manufacture the fighter you need from inception to
retirement which darn few countries can do alone.
In order to judge how well each approach worked, we'll have to wait.

Plus, how do you measure success? Two friends decide to become runners : one aims for 10K while
the other contends in the 5k race. The former falls short of the finish line or time limit while the latter
comes in with a last place but completion attained. One did the job but the other ran longer; who won?
They can discuss it acrimoniously for eons without conclusion ... but if you ask the peeps on the podium,
it really doesn't matter as they celebrate and show off their medals?

If India faceplants partially with the LCA but gets up, dust itself off and succeeds on their next attempt,
it will have been worthwhile. That's what training is all about, buddy!

The presence or size or colour other GPUs, as funny as you may find it, is not a proof of anything, really.

Have a great day, Tay.

very well written. Loved the analogy of the two runners who ran an unfinished 10k race and a last placed 5k run. and also very well explained why the two thought processes behind the two aircraft cannot be compared!
 
.
Thank you for that comment, Sliver! I try to rely on simple logic as a crutch deluxe, ;)
to compensate for an innate ability of humans to make complex stories out of too few elements.
Making things out is easy, making sense is difficult. Handling synchronicity is for geniuses only.

:azn:

Good evening to you, Tay.
 
.
Any news on the FOC anyone?? Is it delayed further then march??
Any news on the Naval version?
 
. . .
106 upgraded Tejas jets to replace MiGs
  • 1_img11216044132.jpg

The Ministry of Defence has decided to locally produce 106 upgraded Light Combat Aircraft “Tejas” jets to replace the ageing fleet of MiG fighter aircraft of the Indian Air Force.

The “Tejas Mark 1-A” will have 43 improvements over the existing Tejas currently being test-flown by the IAF for various
parameters and slated for final operation clearance in March. The existing project is running years behind schedule.

Sources told The Tribune that a decision has been taken to produce 106 “Tejas Mark 1-A” jets and the same has been conveyed to the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), besides the manufacturer — Bangalore-based Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL), a public sector undertaking owned by MoD.

The MoD has set a 2018 deadline for the first aircraft to be ready with a target to complete its production by 2022-2023. In September, new specifications were agreed upon and the IAF accepted 43 modifications that could be carried out without changing the existing design.

On the list of modifications are five major improvements, including an AESA (active electronically scanned array) radar, which the HAL will co-develop with Israel firm Elta; air-to-air refuelling facility; externally fitted self-protection jammer to prevent incoming enemy missiles from homing in using radar signature; and a new layout, involving 27 modifications, of internal systems to iron out maintenance issues.

The plane will be 1,000 kg lighter than the existing version, which currently weighs 6,500 kg, but will use the same engine — General Electric’s 404. “The power of the engine is more than enough,” said a senior functionary. Fitting the newer and more powerful GE-414 engine would entail fresh design and airframe studies.

The HAL has been asked to produce 16 jets annually and a Rs 1,252-crore modernisation plan has been okayed to ramp up capacities from the present six-seven planes annually.

The decision will go a long way in keeping the IAF battle-ready. The upgraded jets will fill the void created by MiG-21s and MiG-27s that will be phased out by 2022.

There are 260 Soviet-era single-engine MiG-21 and MiG-27 jets in the IAF fleet. The air force needs 400 jets over the next 10 years.
 
. . . .
Back
Top Bottom