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

[ziaulislam]

I think you've confused what I said- I said that the N-LCA Mk2 was re-designed by widening the fuselage and pushing the wings out.

N-LCA Mk2 was to use the F-414-INS6. And with 98 kN of thrust, it should've been able to meet the payload requirements of the IN, for a single engine fighter.

Carrier trials were not just out of curiosity. It required a lot of effort and quite a bit of money to be spent on it. It is genuine data gathering and a wealth of experience, which nobody can get without doing it themselves. The carrier trials of the N-LCA Mk1 have now convinced the Indian Navy that a twin engine TEDBF is genuinely do-able and not just another science project.



If anyone or anything is milking money it is foreign imports that cost thousands of crores of rupees and provide employment and business to some foreign firm with not much attendant technology gain for India.

Providing money of a few hundred crores to design and develop a local fighter is not called milking money- it is an investment in a local aerospace eco-system without which India would forever be importing fighters from abroad. That is how ALL nations that are self-sufficient in aerospace work- their govt. spends money on local programs.

BTW, ADA is designing a twin engine TEDBF naval fighter for the Navy around 2 F-414-INS6 engines. And no, the 2 carriers the Navy has are still going to be STOBAR and the TEDBF will also be a STOBAR fighter, like the MiG-29K.

Definitions of miliking money is to ask for undue high charges
LCA costs more than gripen and f16s...even though labour cost is 20x more

(F16 b70 ~70 million for better performance)

 

[Dash]

Definitions of miliking money is to ask for undue high charges
LCA costs more than gripen and f16s...even though labour cost is 20x more

(F16 b70 ~70 million for better performance)

First you said milking money is spending on mediocre designs. Now you are saying high cost. Stay on a post please.

The cost of LCA is now @ $65 million an that too, with sub optimum economy of scale. That cost I said includes support cost as well. And for a home grown fighter this is a price we need to pay and eventually bring it down and it will come down when more fighter orders take place.

 

[MirageBlue]

Definitions of miliking money is to ask for undue high charges
LCA costs more than gripen and f16s...even though labour cost is 20x more

(F16 b70 ~70 million for better performance)

LCA Mk1 cost - first 20 IOC batch -~ $25 million per unit
LCA Mk1 cost - second 20 FOC batch - ~$25 million per unit
LCA Mk1A cost - 73 single seaters and 10 trainers - ~$45 million per unit

I cannot see how you arrived at this understanding that the Tejas costs more than F-16 or Gripen. Gripen C/D unit cost is in the region of $55-60 million. F-16 Block 50/52 cost $60+ million as well.

F-16 Block 70 is in the region of $75-80 million per unit.

Again, these are just fly-away prices and the total acquisition costs (infrastructure, training, manuals, ground support equipment, simulators, spares, etc.) is MUCH MUCH higher for any Western jet.

As far as India is concerned, the cheapest option is the Tejas. Besides, most of the money for the Tejas goes to HAL and it's suppliers, both public sector and private. When we import, almost all the money goes out of the country. No wonder the GoI now wants to prioritize indigenous programs and imports will get last priority.

 

[ziaulislam]

LCA Mk1 cost - first 20 IOC batch -~ $25 million per unit
LCA Mk1 cost - second 20 FOC batch - ~$25 million per unit
LCA Mk1A cost - 73 single seaters and 10 trainers - ~$45 million per unit

I cannot see how you arrived at this understanding that the Tejas costs more than F-16 or Gripen. Gripen C/D unit cost is in the region of $55-60 million. F-16 Block 50/52 cost $60+ million as well.

F-16 Block 70 is in the region of $75-80 million per unit.

Again, these are just fly-away prices and the total acquisition costs (infrastructure, training, manuals, ground support equipment, simulators, spares, etc.) is MUCH MUCH higher for any Western jet.

As far as India is concerned, the cheapest option is the Tejas. Besides, most of the money for the Tejas goes to HAL and it's suppliers, both public sector and private. When we import, almost all the money goes out of the country. No wonder the GoI now wants to prioritize indigenous programs and imports will get last priority.

Flyaway cost of gripen/f16 <45 million
For foreign customers its 60-70m..this will be lower if locally produced not much different than LCA with VASTLY superior plateform performance wise

 

[MirageBlue]

Flyaway cost of gripen/f16 <45 million
For foreign customers its 60-70m..this will be lower if locally produced not much different than LCA with VASTLY superior plateform performance wise

No it is not.

The acquisition cost of Gripen C/D is ~$80 million per unit.

In 2008, Thailand bought 6 Gripen C/D fighters for $570 million acquisition cost. That works out to $95 million per Gripen C/D acquisition cost.

article link

BANGKOK, Oct 17 (Reuters) - Thailand’s Air Force will buy six JAS-39 Gripen fighter jets from Sweden’s Saab (SAABb.ST) for 19.5 billion baht ($574 million) to replace ageing F-5E fighters, Air Force chief Chalit Pukphasuk said on Wednesday.

A member of the selection panel had said on Tuesday the Air Force would buy 12 Gripens in two batches, but Chalit told a news conference approval of the second batch would have to wait until a new government took office after a December general election.

The first six would be bought between 2008 and 2012 and the second batch “as soon as possible”, Chalit said.

$454 million was set aside to buy 6 more Gripen C/Ds. Cheaper than batch 1 because the infrastructure costs would have been spent in the first batch. That worked out to $75 million for each Gripen C/D of the second batch acquisition cost.

The Air Force said in a statement 15.4 billion baht was set aside for the second phase of the purchase between 2013 and 2017.

Fly-away cost would have been ~$60 million back in 2008 itself. 12 years later, add inflation and increase in labour and material costs, and the fly-away cost of the Gripen C/D at today's rates will be closer to $65-70 million at least. Acquisition costs will be in the range of ~$100-105 million per unit.

And the latest F-16V/Block 70 will be in the region of $70-75 million fly-away and acquisition costs will be nearly $120 million range, going by the Bulgarian and Slovak deals.

Back in 2016, the Gripen C/D was estimated to cost $69 million per unit, fly-away cost.

Thailand mulls buying 4 additional Gripen fighters

 

[MirageBlue]

Anantha Krishnan- updates on Tejas production. Mind you, SP-21 serial number was changed to SP-17 and SP-22 as SP-18 and so on.
SP-17 to carry out 2 more sorties and then 3 to 4 Customer Acceptance Flights and then off to AFS Sulur to be handed over to the newly resurrected No.18 'Flying Bullets' squadron. They may wait for SP-18 also be handed over before No.18 Squadron is resurrected. That was how No.45 Squadron was resurrected as well; 2 new fighters, SP-1 and SP-2 were handed over and a ceremony was conducted to officially restart operations of No.45 Squadron.

@writetake

#TejasUpdate

* SP21 to have 2 more sorties followed by 3/4 CAFs, then to AFS Sulur.
* SP22 couple of tests + LSTT + HSTT-cum-1st flight. Now getting the painting done.
* SP23/SP24 got into #Covid delays, awaiting some components.
* SP25/SP26 on coupling stage.

 

[Lord Of Gondor]

IAF to buy 83 more Tejas fighters from HAL instead of foreign jets, CDS Rawat says
https://theprint.in/defence/iaf-to-...ad-of-foreign-jets-cds-rawat-says/421827/?amp

 

[MirageBlue]

IAF to buy 83 more Tejas fighters from HAL instead of foreign jets, CDS Rawat says
https://theprint.in/defence/iaf-to-...ad-of-foreign-jets-cds-rawat-says/421827/?amp

I don't know why they're harping on this as a replacement for the MRCA. It is not.

The deal for the 83 Tejas Mk1A has been in the works for more than 2 years. It was wrapped up, with the only thing remaining being CDS approval and contract signature.

The 40 Tejas Mk1 + 83 Tejas Mk1A = 123 Tejas Mk1 and Mk1A fighters. That is the replacement for the MiG-21 Bison fleet. That was always the plan. Light fighter to replace a light fighter.

However, now that there is no way that the 114 MRCA RFP will progress any further, the most prudent solution is this:

- 36 to 48 more Rafale fighters
- Additional orders for the MWF to fill the gap of 114 minus 36 Rafale fighters

Currently the IAF wants the MWF to replace Mirage-2000, Jaguar and MiG-29 fighters. IAF's stated intent was to order 12 squadrons worth (viz. ~240 MWF fighters @ 18 per squadron + 2 reserves). If 36 Rafale are ordered, that leaves another 4 squadrons gap, which MWF could fill.

HAL and it's private suppliers will need to step up big time. Maybe there'll need to be a separate assembly line run by one of the bigger private suppliers like L&T or Tata. They have the scale of manufacturing where with HAL hand-holding, they can set up MWF assembly line if the Govt. wants them to.

Just FYI, Tata's are now supplying Apache fuselages back to Boeing in the US. All Apache fuselages will be built at the Tata Boeing Aerospace Ltd.

 

[MirageBlue]

LCA fighter aircraft projects to be finalised in next few months- IAF Chief

NEW DELHI: In a big boost for defence under the Make in India initiative, Air Force Chief RKS Bhadauria on
Monday said that the second squadron of Light Combat Aircraft (LCAs) worth over Rs 8,000 crore would be operationalised by the end of May.

Speaking to ANI, the Air Force Chief said the Air Force is also expecting to finalise a contract worth around Rs 39,000 crore for 83 LCA Mark 1A Aircraft in the next quarter.

"The first squadron is already operationalised. We were to operationalise the second squadron in April, we have resurrected the squadron. But due to COVID-19, it got delayed. Some work at HAL had stopped which has restarted. Hopefully, before the end of this month we will inaugurate the second squadron of LCA. It's worth
just in terms of aircraft and ground assets, will be upwards of Rs 8,000 crore," Bhadauria said here.

Speaking about the future programs on LCA, he added, "We are pushing hard for 83 LCA Mark 1A, that's our immediate focus area. Within the next quarter, we should be able to sign it. Most of the negotiations have been completed and I think the Ministry is going to move it in a month or so."
He said that this project would range around Rs 39,000 crore.

 

[Nilgiri]

@MirageBlue et al. Do you have source or estimate to what the operating costs of LCA will be compared to (Current state) Mig-21s?

 

[MirageBlue]

@MirageBlue et al. Do you have source or estimate to what the operating costs of LCA will be compared to (Current state) Mig-21s?

hi Nilgiri,

Operating costs are generally broken down on the basis of :

1) Number of hours of line maintenance between sorties - that will define how many people are needed and then based on labour costs, one can estimate how much it'll cost to maintain the jet between sorties
2) Failure rates or MTBF (Mean Time Before Failure)
3) Fuel costs per sortie
4) Ground infrastructure requirements
5) Overhaul schedules
6) Spares requirements

In terms of maintenance between sorties, the LCA will most likely be better than the MiG-21. The MiG-21 was 2 generation older, had no computer systems on board to help diagnose issues. So if some system fails, the technicians have to diagnose it based on experience or spend lots of time figuring it out. Whereas the Tejas has onboard computerised BITE (Built In Test Equipment) that help maintainers diagnose issues with systems very quickly. It is like the new generation of cars that allow the onboard computer to quickly give a error code and the technician can tell what system failed and why.

The MTBF of Tejas components will be far higher than that of the MiG-21. Again, the MiG-21 was 2 generations older, with equipment designed mostly in the 1970s and 1980s. Newer gen equipment tend to have higher MTBF, especially when compared to Russian equipment that tended to have lower MTBF. Even for the Kopyo radar on the MiG-21 Bison, the MTBF was much lower than what brochure specs were. Whereas, the Elta 2032 is far more reliable. As per sources, it is the best radar in the IAF currently, even when compared to the RDY-3 on the Mirage-2000I.

Fuel costs will be either equivalent or lower for the Tejas for the same sortie duration (say 30 minutes sortie). As ACM Dhanoa had mentioned, the Tejas' F-414 is far more fuel efficient than the turbojet Tumansky R-25 on the MiG-21. Lower Specific Fuel Consumption means lower fuel usage.

Ground infrastructure requirements- the Tejas was designed to fit the ground footprint of the MiG-21. That included using the same hangars, hardened shelters as the MiG-21. No new infrastructure required there. And for ground equipment, IAF would have to buy new sets for the Tejas since it's a new type with no commonality with the MiG-21. So higher costs for the Tejas since it's a new type. Once it is in service in large numbers, that figure will be less relevant.

Overhaul- the MTBO (Mean Time Between Overhauls) of the Tejas will definitely be higher than the MiG-21. The reason again being higher usage of composites, onboard Health Usage Monitoring System (HUMS) that gives the maintainers and designers a LOT of data on the health of onboard systems and fatigue. F-414 MTBO will be several hundred hours better than the R-25 turbojets that were designed 40-50 years ago. Higher intervals between overhaul would mean lower overhaul costs in total.

Tejas service life is now estimated to be 9,000 hours based on a new report in DDR. This is as per sources and the data is based on the HUMS data from the in-service Tejas jets flying. Compare that to the MiG-21bis, which had an original fatigue life of 2400 hours and after NAL fatigue analysis was found to be 3400 hours and no more.

10 year breather- MiG-21 can fly 1000 hours extra

With the entire MiG-21 Bis fleet of 150 aircraft approaching its maximum life-span of 2,400 hours as
per original certification by Russia, IAF went for the life-enhancement test at NAL

It flew in a MiG-21 that had completed 2400 hours and had no fatigue cracks. The question before IAF was - how much longer could the aircraft fly?

IAF requisitioned NAL to extend MiG-21 Bis life from 2,400 hours to 4,000 hours - an additional 1,600 hours. The aircraft, however, experienced cracks and break-up after around 1,000 hours of flying.

"There was no question of further testing as the aircraft had reached its limits. But it became evident that its life could be extended by 1000 flying hours," said NAL official P K Dash.
...

 

[MirageBlue]

Excellent article that demolishes the myths that paid media spreads in India to turn public opinion in favor of imported jets. Deliberate lies are spread both pulling down the Tejas and pushing up comparable jets like the Gripen C/D.

This is where it was revealed that based on fatigue analysis of the data from HUMS, the Tejas is now estimated to have a 9,000 hour service life and by the time more analysis is done, the figure is expected to be higher.

Removing some fallacies about the capabilities of the LCA Tejas fighter

....

Fallacy 3. The lifespan of the Tejas is 20 years against the 40 years of the Gripen and the F-16.

Truth: First of all, the lifespan of aircraft is not measured in years, but flight hours. The most critical aspect on which the lifespan of a modern fighter aircraft depends is the durability of the engine that powers it. Over the course of its service life, a modern jet-powered single-engined fighter aircraft typically ends up using about 3.5 engines. Once again, the Tejas employs the same engine as that the Gripen C/D whose life is comparable (slightly better) than the engine employed by the F-16! In terms of structure, the Tejas, using contemporary manufacturing techniques, employs one of the highest amount of composites by weight (See Fig 1.). It is unclear how the same material and composites used by the Tejas are structurally half as good as that of the Gripen C/D’s or F-16’s. The truth is that the in-service fatigue life of the Tejas is yet to be ascertained. As per sources, an initial conservative estimate of 9000 flying hours has been arrived at. Each of the in-service Tejas units are fitted with a Health Up Monitoring System (HUMS) to measure airframe fatigue and come up with revised estimates for service life. By all indicators this estimation of 9000 hours is going to be revised upwards! This is nothing new. The F-16’s and the Gripen’s lifespan also saw such revisions over the course of their time in service. When the F-16 first flew, its service life was estimated to be 6,000 hours. It was revised upwards to 8,000 hours subsequently and this has only recently been further pushed up to about 12,000 hours. One can expect the Tejas to also see similar upward revisions in its estimated service life over the years.

....

 

[maniac@666]

hi Nilgiri,

Operating costs are generally broken down on the basis of :

1) Number of hours of line maintenance between sorties - that will define how many people are needed and then based on labour costs, one can estimate how much it'll cost to maintain the jet between sorties
2) Failure rates or MTBF (Mean Time Before Failure)
3) Fuel costs per sortie
4) Ground infrastructure requirements
5) Overhaul schedules
6) Spares requirements

In terms of maintenance between sorties, the LCA will most likely be better than the MiG-21. The MiG-21 was 2 generation older, had no computer systems on board to help diagnose issues. So if some system fails, the technicians have to diagnose it based on experience or spend lots of time figuring it out. Whereas the Tejas has onboard computerised BITE (Built In Test Equipment) that help maintainers diagnose issues with systems very quickly. It is like the new generation of cars that allow the onboard computer to quickly give a error code and the technician can tell what system failed and why.

The MTBF of Tejas components will be far higher than that of the MiG-21. Again, the MiG-21 was 2 generations older, with equipment designed mostly in the 1970s and 1980s. Newer gen equipment tend to have higher MTBF, especially when compared to Russian equipment that tended to have lower MTBF. Even for the Kopyo radar on the MiG-21 Bison, the MTBF was much lower than what brochure specs were. Whereas, the Elta 2032 is far more reliable. As per sources, it is the best radar in the IAF currently, even when compared to the RDY-3 on the Mirage-2000I.

Fuel costs will be either equivalent or lower for the Tejas for the same sortie duration (say 30 minutes sortie). As ACM Dhanoa had mentioned, the Tejas' F-414 is far more fuel efficient than the turbojet Tumansky R-25 on the MiG-21. Lower Specific Fuel Consumption means lower fuel usage.

Ground infrastructure requirements- the Tejas was designed to fit the ground footprint of the MiG-21. That included using the same hangars, hardened shelters as the MiG-21. No new infrastructure required there. And for ground equipment, IAF would have to buy new sets for the Tejas since it's a new type with no commonality with the MiG-21. So higher costs for the Tejas since it's a new type. Once it is in service in large numbers, that figure will be less relevant.

Overhaul- the MTBO (Mean Time Between Overhauls) of the Tejas will definitely be higher than the MiG-21. The reason again being higher usage of composites, onboard Health Usage Monitoring System (HUMS) that gives the maintainers and designers a LOT of data on the health of onboard systems and fatigue. F-414 MTBO will be several hundred hours better than the R-25 turbojets that were designed 40-50 years ago. Higher intervals between overhaul would mean lower overhaul costs in total.

Tejas service life is now estimated to be 9,000 hours based on a new report in DDR. This is as per sources and the data is based on the HUMS data from the in-service Tejas jets flying. Compare that to the MiG-21bis, which had an original fatigue life of 2400 hours and after NAL fatigue analysis was found to be 3400 hours and no more.

10 year breather- MiG-21 can fly 1000 hours extra

Indian mirages use RDY-2 radar after the upgrade.RDY-3 is a lighter version of the RDY-2.Tejas uses GE F-404.

 

[MirageBlue]

Indian mirages use RDY-2 radar after the upgrade.RDY-3 is a lighter version of the RDY-2.Tejas uses GE F-404.

No, they use the RDY-3. Even UAE's Mirage-2000 upgrades are supposed to get the RDY-3 which is considered the latest iteration of the RDY.

link

The RDY-3 radar is the latest iteration of the RDM/RDY series of radars that have equipped Mirage fighters throughout their life. Notably selected by the Indian Air Force for its Mirage 2000 upgrade program, the X-band radar has been popular in recent Mirage upgrades. It represents the technological pinnacle of Thales’ current radar offerings for the Mirage.

link

Thales recently won a contract from India to upgrade 49 Mirage 2000s (two were lost recently) to bring them to the full Mirage 2000v5 Mk 2 standard. The deal includes an RDY-3 radar with greater air-to-air and air-to-ground capability, a new night-vision-compatible all-digital cockpit, and improved electronic warfare systems. While it is not yet clear whether the joint venture will manufacture components for the RDY-3, Thales is most likely to tap its offsets commitment with this venture.

 

[xeuss]

Overhaul- the MTBO (Mean Time Between Overhauls) of the Tejas will definitely be higher than the MiG-21. The reason again being higher usage of composites, onboard Health Usage Monitoring System (HUMS) that gives the maintainers and designers a LOT of data on the health of onboard systems and fatigue. F-414 MTBO will be several hundred hours better than the R-25 turbojets that were designed 40-50 years ago. Higher intervals between overhaul would mean lower overhaul costs in total.

Is there a noted MX interval for this aircraft listed at the moment?

Also, is the life limit for the structure listed at the moment?