What's new

HAL Tejas | Updates, News & Discussions

Status
Not open for further replies.
ok let me be more specific, is that an aircraft?

nope,thats an model/picture of aircraft..do you ever saw an aircraft on standard wooden table generally used for reading???or did you ever saw an real aircraft standing in poster???its just an "Image" or what we call an "Model"(might be proposed or already applied) of an aircraft..
 
.
India And The Tejas Tragedy


April 30, 2013: Despite enormous political pressure in India to get the locally made LCA (Light Combat Aircraft or "Tejas") jet fighter into production, the government has quietly delayed that for at least two more years. Production was supposed to begin at the end of 2012, but the number of technical problems with the LCA was too great to clear up in time for production to start then. Many essential electronic items are not functioning properly or reliably. The prototypes that are flying are maintenance nightmares, and after each test flight it takes several days to get the aircraft in shape to fly again. The managers of this government financed project tried to keep the problems quiet while they were quickly and quietly fixed but failed at both these tasks.

This was not the first major failure for the LCA. Earlier this year India admitted defeat and dropped plans to use the locally developed Kaveri engine in the LCA. After 24 years and over $600 million the Kaveri was unable to achieve the necessary performance or reliability goals required. The government plans to see if the Kaveri can be used in a combat UAV that is being developed locally but that aircraft is not expected to fly for another five years or more.

The LCA developers saw this coming and several years ago ordered 99 American F414 jet engines for $8.1 million each. These were to be used for the first LCAs being mass produced. At that point it was still believed that eventually most of the LCAs were to be powered by the Kaveri engine, which has been in development hell for over two decades. The F414s were to substitute only until the Kaveri was ready.

The failure of the Kaveri project is just one of many examples of how the Indian defense procurement bureaucracy misfires. Efforts to fix the mess even led to calling in foreign experts (from the U.S., Israel, and other Western nations). For example, three years ago India made arrangements with French engine manufacturer Snecma to provide technical assistance for the Kaveri design and manufacturing problems. Critics in the Indian air force asserted that help from Snecma would not save the ill-fated Kaveri program. But the government apparently believed that it was necessary for India to acquire the ability to design and build world class jet engines, whatever the cost. Only a few nations can do this and India wants to be one of them, soon, no matter what obstacles are encountered. Despite decades of effort, the Kaveri never quite made it to mass production. Now the government will continue funding development of jet engine design and manufacturing capability, but with some unspecified changes.

There is much to be learned from the Kaveri debacle. When work began on the Kaveri, in the mid-1980s, it was believed that the LCA would be ready for flight testing by 1990. A long list of technical delays put off that first flight until 2001. Corners had to be cut to make this happen, for the LCA was originally designed to use the Indian built Kaveri engine and the engine was never ready.

For all this, India only plans to buy 200-300 LCAs, mainly to replace its aging MiG-21s, plus more if the navy finds the LCA works on carriers. Export prospects are dim, given all the competition out there (especially for cheap, second-hand F-16s). The delays have led the air force to look around for a hundred or so new aircraft (or even used F-16s) to fill the gap between elderly MiG-21s falling apart and the arrival of the new LCAs. However, two decades down the road the replacement for the LCA will probably be a more competitive and timely aircraft.
 
. .
It's very old image. About 1/2 years old. Anybody got new one ???

That is just the Ramp part. We'll get to see the pictures when the SBTF is commissioned in June.

It's very old image. About 1/2 years old. Anybody got new one ???

That is just the Ramp part. We'll get to see the pictures when the SBTF is commissioned in June.

It's very old image. About 1/2 years old. Anybody got new one ???

That is just the Ramp part. We'll get to see the pictures when the SBTF is commissioned in June.
 
.
Light Combat Aircraft MK1 brings no new technology to IAF that it doesnt have and that's the main reason behind the delay. LCA MK2 on the other hand has a few technologies like OBOGS and AESA which IAF seeks to add in it future fleet. if LCA Mk2 is delivered before MMRCA and FGFA, it will play a major role in IAF.
 
.
One good thread spoiled.
@mods. Why dont we close it? as we already have a sticky thread on LCA going, or merge it after a cleanup. Lets not allow Tejas to go out of the milky way, as it has already reached pluto.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
Light Combat Aircraft MK1 brings no new technology to IAF that it doesnt have and that's the main reason behind the delay. LCA MK2 on the other hand has a few technologies like OBOGS and AESA which IAF seeks to add in it future fleet. if LCA Mk2 is delivered before MMRCA and FGFA, it will play a major role in IAF.

Even if it doesn't bring in new technology, it can bring in NUMBERS, can it not?

The IAF doesnt have the required 39 squadrons, and complains about falling squadron levels everyday. So why belittle the Mk1, which by the way has many capabilities that half the IAF fleet doesn't have? (mig 21, mig 27, jaguar).

By that logic, IAF wouldn't buy any LCA or further Indian stuff, because they will be available from elsewhere. The Rafales, and most probably the upgraded MKIs would both have AESA, so why purchase Mk2?

From the LCA program, was the IAF hoping to induct new technologies that did not exist, or was it trying to replace all it's old platforms which were nearing the end of their lifespans?

IAF should induct the Mk1 for numbers, not for any game changing technology. They will do most jobs marvellously, at a far lower cost than the heavies.
 
.
Even if it doesn't bring in new technology, it can bring in NUMBERS, can it not?

The IAF doesnt have the required 39 squadrons, and complains about falling squadron levels everyday. So why belittle the Mk1, which by the way has many capabilities that half the IAF fleet doesn't have? (mig 21, mig 27, jaguar).

By that logic, IAF wouldn't buy any LCA or further Indian stuff, because they will be available from elsewhere. The Rafales, and most probably the upgraded MKIs would both have AESA, so why purchase Mk2?

From the LCA program, was the IAF hoping to induct new technologies that did not exist, or was it trying to replace all it's old platforms which were nearing the end of their lifespans?

IAF should induct the Mk1 for numbers, not for any game changing technology. They will do most jobs marvellously, at a far lower cost than the heavies.

yes and it'll be easier to manufacutre mk2 when theres already a line for mk1 is running.just need some minor changes in the production line
 
.
Even if it doesn't bring in new technology, it can bring in NUMBERS, can it not?

The IAF doesnt have the required 39 squadrons, and complains about falling squadron levels everyday. So why belittle the Mk1, which by the way has many capabilities that half the IAF fleet doesn't have? (mig 21, mig 27, jaguar).

By that logic, IAF wouldn't buy any LCA or further Indian stuff, because they will be available from elsewhere. The Rafales, and most probably the upgraded MKIs would both have AESA, so why purchase Mk2?

From the LCA program, was the IAF hoping to induct new technologies that did not exist, or was it trying to replace all it's old platforms which were nearing the end of their lifespans?

IAF should induct the Mk1 for numbers, not for any game changing technology. They will do most jobs marvellously, at a far lower cost than the heavies.

I agree to most of your arguments. The Initial requirements have changed drastically. Inducting LCA is not our priority as India has otherways like the ongoing production of Su-30 MKI to increase the count. IAF is not keen to order much with IOC standards hardly 20 which is good while it may not pave way for manufacturing in the country but will certainly train the industry to keep the quality levels high.

A 4.5 gen aircraft is being built in a 3rd generation facility. had IAF accepted the day it received its first IOC we would probably see AMCA being built in such a facility too. IAF has forced the HAL to improve its facilities and has also made it clear to DRDO that anything and everything it produces will not be inducted until its meets the desired specifications of the forces.
 
.
Confirmed features and upgrades on MK-2.
1) On-board oxygen generating system(OBOGS).
2) fuselage is streched by .5m nad intakes are widened by 10mm.
3) Bubble canopy.
4) AESA-MMR.
5) Full glass cockpit with AMLCD screens.
6) Tarang mk-3 RWR.
7) Improved FCS and FBW.
If something is missing in the list,feel free to add and correvt it.
 
.
I agree to most of your arguments. The Initial requirements have changed drastically. Inducting LCA is not our priority as India has otherways like the ongoing production of Su-30 MKI to increase the count. IAF is not keen to order much with IOC standards hardly 20 which is good while it may not pave way for manufacturing in the country but will certainly train the industry to keep the quality levels high.

A 4.5 gen aircraft is being built in a 3rd generation facility. had IAF accepted the day it received its first IOC we would probably see AMCA being built in such a facility. IAF has forced the HAL to improve its facilities and has also made it clear to DRDO that anything and everything it produces will not be inducted until its meets the desired specifications of the forces.

None of it seems to be working, because we are still low on numbers, and as per envisaged policy, we will not meet even the sanctioned strength for several years. HAL has NOT been able to increase the production rate of MKIs, and no further order have been made for those anyway.

Besides, ordering more MKIs might make sense for the next few years, but in the long run, over the entire lifetime of those aircrafts, they would cost so much more to operate and maintain. We DO need a small, light, cheap multirole platform to balance the force structure. Getting a hundred Mk1 and 200 Mk2 when they arrive makes more sense, does it not, than increasing the orders for MKIs? (Anyway HAL has not been producing MKIs at an impressive rate.)

I understand that IAF doesn't want to order LCAs that don't meet their requirements. But should they set their requirements that high for the first iteration, when a second iteration is planned anyway? The Mk1 will be MUCH more capable than the 400 aircrafts that are facing imminent retirement. They will also be better than most aircrafts fielded by our adversaries for the near future. Why not order more of those (after they get full IOC), say a 100+, instead of the 20+20 they have ordered?
 
.
None of it seems to be working, because we are still low on numbers, and as per envisaged policy, we will not meet even the sanctioned strength for several years. HAL has NOT been able to increase the production rate of MKIs, and no further order have been made for those anyway.

Besides, ordering more MKIs might make sense for the next few years, but in the long run, over the entire lifetime of those aircrafts, they would cost so much more to operate and maintain. We DO need a small, light, cheap multirole platform to balance the force structure. Getting a hundred Mk1 and 200 Mk2 when they arrive makes more sense, does it not, than increasing the orders for MKIs? (Anyway HAL has not been producing MKIs at an impressive rate.)

I understand that IAF doesn't want to order LCAs that don't meet their requirements. But should they set their requirements that high for the first iteration, when a second iteration is planned anyway? The Mk1 will be MUCH more capable than the 400 aircrafts that are facing imminent retirement. They will also be better than most aircrafts fielded by our adversaries for the near future. Why not order more of those (after they get full IOC), say a 100+, instead of the 20+20 they have ordered?


Its the responsibility of the Manufacturer and the designers to take a quick initiative to meet all the parameters put forth by the IAF before it is even thought of being Inducted. It might not look sensible now, but in the long run, we would not only have variety of products in the suppliers inventory to offer but also at par with the contemporary.

IAF is helping PSU's to upgrade their facilities. If LCA was limited to its initial requirement, we would never see our Pvt sector growing.

I can understand the frustration Indian Members go through in PDF because of LCA and its time frame, but let me remind you that reality is far different and distant.
 
.
I know all these things.

Every kid knows it here.

I was wishing it to be more lethal looking.

May be as a senior member you know everything. but as a new member and also as a professioner i am trying to learn about it and am expecting proposed MK2 variant with its proposed specifications and not more than that currently. That's enough for me to secure my nation.
 
.
Confirmed features and upgrades on MK-2.
1) On-board oxygen generating system(OBOGS).
2) fuselage is streched by .5m nad intakes are widened by 10mm.
3) Bubble canopy.
4) AESA-MMR.
5) Full glass cockpit with AMLCD screens.
6) Tarang mk-3 RWR.
7) Improved FCS and FBW.
If something is missing in the list,feel free to add and correvt it.

8) IFR probe (fixed or retractable it is still unclear).
9) increased internal fuel capacity.
 
. .
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom