HAL Tejas | Updates, News & Discussions

[IND151]

^^agree with first paragraph of your post

 

[MilSpec]

Take the Brahmos co-development for example, without Russian tot especially on the propulsion and seeker, we wouldn't have such a weapon in our inventory today. We have it, because we used the co-development to include what we was able to do so far and got the part that we couldn't do from the Russians. Now we are at a level to further develop the missile to new varients, applications and even with NG versions in mind.
Same goes for the Maitri SAM, which also is developed according to Indian requirements with the techs that we can't provide and is meant to add French parts and capabilities that we don't have yet.
FGFA, we include materials, coatings, avionics, while we get ToT of the most powerful AESA radar, NG engines and other techs that we aren't able to develop on our own...
...
...

On the other side we have LCA, that sadly was developed with waaay too many indigenous parts in fields where we wasn't realistically able to provide something and that's why the project suffered all the delays and problems and why it will be inducted only decades behind schedule.

Also the Kaveri engine, developed alone, failed completetly and not ready to power an operational fighter anytime soon if we keep doing it alone. So all the money and time was wasted and now we search for a co-development or JV to fix the problems.

LCA and Kaveri as programs were still important, but overestimating your capabilities with the wrong idea that you have to develop anything on your own will lead us nowhere as these developments sadly proved. As I said, times have changed and today we can demand way more than we could in the past and why co-developments and JVs under our requirements are so important for India, if we don't want to remain a generation behind China, Russia or the West and want to catch up faster.

Why dont we see indigenous ram jet missiles anti shipping, or longer range super sonic cruise missiles, if we learned a hell lot from Brahmos. From brahmos you learnt to make brahmos, that's it. I am not denying you haven't learned making brahmos and adding that capability in your arsenal.

The faile kaveri project will teach every engineer and manager involved more than serial production of AL31F ever will.

In the end it boils down to what your aim is? to have advanced weaponry in your arsenal by co-production or to become a world leader in innovation and design of the weapon systems.

Russians, americans, Israelis, french, all of them can design weapon systems at their will, they got this capability from, product development culture, not reverse engineering or license production regime. There are no shortcuts to success dear.

 

[IND151]

Aesa not on First Batch of Tejas MK-2? | idrw.org

 

[turbo charged]

Tejas Fighter Jet: India scraps domestic jet engine plan citing lack of technical know how.

 

[sancho]

Russians, americans, Israelis, french, all of them can design weapon systems at their will, they got this capability from, product development culture, not reverse engineering or license production regime. There are no shortcuts to success dear.

Not really, especially the Russians and Americans benefitted after the world wars, by re-engineering German technologies, be it for rockets, jet fighters and jet engines, even stealth design, coatings and materials. Not to mention all the German scientiests that were hired by them later, to gain from their knowledge. China did similar things with Russian techs, designs or even Russian scientists. So there are shortcuts to develop things painfully alone with high costs, at long timeframes and only minimum effect for the forces. And when you live in the most dangeours neighborhood in the world, you can't afford to waste time and money and compromise on national defence, only for the sake of pride and the industry, especially not the privat one!
The defence of the country must always come first, that's why FGFA is the most important project for the security of the country and why LCA is the most important project for the aero industry.

Btw, a failed Kaveri project might have gained us some experience, but caused major delays in LCA, which then resulted in Mig 21 not being replaced in time and loss of lives. If we had used a foreign licence produced engine, the fighter would be successfully in service yet and we could have saved these lifes, while the Kaveri project could had been done seperately as a Tech Demo project. Even if that had failed, it wouldn't had any effect on the LCA project, so licence producing things, even with minimum benefit of ToT is sometimes better than trying it alone, which is why we need A MIX OF BOTH and not the one OR the other!

Tejas Fighter Jet: India scraps domestic jet engine plan citing lack of technical know how.

The article is from 2012.

 

[IND151]

^^ I think you are right. We should have delinked Kaveri from Tejas

But I don't agree with first paragraph. Despite gaining german know how, US and Russia poured in vast amount of money and talent to build world class weapons

Where their weapons stand today is the result of R&D they undertook for decades,reverse-engineering alone cant make a nation a tech superpower

Incase of China, they are under arms embargo, leaving them only one supplier. Same is not the case with India

 

[shree835]

Aesa not on First Batch of Tejas MK-2?

Sources close to idrw.org have confirmed that development of AESA for Tejas MK-2 is under way with foreign assistance in the program, but sources are hinting that AESA radar might not be ready for integration on first prototype of Tejas MK-2 which will be rolled out by mid of next year and will have it first flight by year end.

HAL plans to put Tejas MK-2 in production by 2016 but New Aesa radar will require more time in integration’s of weapons and separate validation test on each weapons , it is likely that first batch of Tejas MK-2 will come with older MMR radar developed for Tejas MK-1 and it seems IAF is ok with that .

Sources have also informed that AESA radar is still under development stage and will enter Ground based testing stage and then aircraft integration’s with Test bed aircraft so entering in first batch of Tejas MK-2 is highly unlikely .

 

[cirr]

Aesa not on First Batch of Tejas MK-2?

Sources close to idrw.org have confirmed that development of AESA for Tejas MK-2 is under way with foreign assistance in the program, but sources are hinting that AESA radar might not be ready for integration on first prototype of Tejas MK-2 which will be rolled out by mid of next year and will have it first flight by year end.

HAL plans to put Tejas MK-2 in production by 2016 but New Aesa radar will require more time in integration’s of weapons and separate validation test on each weapons , it is likely that first batch of Tejas MK-2 will come with older MMR radar developed for Tejas MK-1 and it seems IAF is ok with that .

Sources have also informed that AESA radar is still under development stage and will enter Ground based testing stage and then aircraft integration’s with Test bed aircraft so entering in first batch of Tejas MK-2 is highly unlikely .

which basically means that the AESA，even with foreign design and imported parts and software，won't be ready before year 2020 ends。

In the meantime，China's J-16 multi-role fighter bomber，seen here carrying a pair of PL10Cs and with China's own AESA，is near IOC：

 

[kurup]

which basically means that the AESA，even with foreign design and imported parts and software，won't be ready before year 2020 ends。

In the meantime，China's J-16 multi-role fighter bomber，seen here carrying a pair of PL10Cs and with China's own AESA，is near IOC：

Well for your information , nobody gives a $hit.

 

[Echo_419]

which basically means that the AESA，even with foreign design and imported parts and software，won't be ready before year 2020 ends。

In the meantime，China's J-16 multi-role fighter bomber，seen here carrying a pair of PL10Cs and with China's own AESA，is near IOC：

Oh really

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOBDY CARES

 

[MilSpec]

Not really, especially the Russians and Americans benefitted after the world wars, by re-engineering German technologies, be it for rockets, jet fighters and jet engines, even stealth design, coatings and materials. Not to mention all the German scientiests that were hired by them later, to gain from their knowledge. China did similar things with Russian techs, designs or even Russian scientists. So there are shortcuts to develop things painfully alone with high costs, at long timeframes and only minimum effect for the forces. And when you live in the most dangeours neighborhood in the world, you can't afford to waste time and money and compromise on national defence, only for the sake of pride and the industry, especially not the privat one!

German re-engineering is not as huge as you think. The first patent for using a gas turbine on an aircraft M. Guillaum, a french national, way before the germans, RAF had started developmental work on a jet engine back in the late 20's, Sergey Korolev's GIRD-6 project in 1932 shows russia's developmental work in ramjet and rocket work in the 1932. These exploratory work is nothing but product development. Russian a2a missiles, A2G weaponry, ICBM,s SAM's, Radars, Electronics, Welding technology, metrology has nothing to do with German re-engineering, they owe it to product development and product management.

I dont disagree with delivery time for projects, but then again that has nothing to do with product development, If you undertake a 4th gen aircraft project, with indigenous engine, you need to have a project outlined in correct phases, and give you an optimistic and pessimistic timeline for it's delivery based on your capability. If you claim you will deliver the project that takes 25 years in 10 years, it is not the fault of the design or product developmental cycle, it is faulty project management. You need to understand your technical strengths, provide the right forecasts for delivery of projects so that the procurement services can establish the right interim solutions untill your indigenous capabilities are ready. Axing product development because of faulty project management doesn't make any sense to any good manager.

The defence of the country must always come first, that's why FGFA is the most important project for the security of the country and why LCA is the most important project for the aero industry.

I dont disagree with that at all.

Btw, a failed Kaveri project might have gained us some experience, but caused major delays in LCA, which then resulted in Mig 21 not being replaced in time and loss of lives. If we had used a foreign licence produced engine, the fighter would be successfully in service yet and we could have saved these lifes, while the Kaveri project could had been done seperately as a Tech Demo project. Even if that had failed, it wouldn't had any effect on the LCA project, so licence producing things, even with minimum benefit of ToT is sometimes better than trying it alone, which is why we need A MIX OF BOTH and not the one OR the other!

That is very inaccurate, and you are the last person I could think of buying into this one. First if your aircrafts vintage is affecting your safety, there is not excuse in flying it. Secondly most of the mig 21 and mig 27 incidents can be traced back to sub-par equipment imported from Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Ukraine after collapse of the soviet union by the MoD, and guess why there has been no investigation on that. Next major cause is the lack of lead in jet trainer, guess who delayed the AJT by 15 years, it sure as hell wasn't HAL or DRDO, but then no will will blame the MoD or BAE, in the totally fair media of India. HAL and DRDO bashing is common becuase neither of them have any lobbyist paying large sums to the shuklla's and other hacks in the media to sing praises of wonders of imports. As far as learning goes, tell me how many indegenious projects have cropped out of brahmos. Next we have been making turmansky, kataruchevs, al31f's, rolls royce adour, does our kaveri gtrx derrive any tooling from any of the projects? the answer is a big big NO. I again repeat, co-development projects are great for developing capabilities, and having state of the art equipment, it is great to get technical insight and leaning about newer technologies, but untill you have your own product development protocols set in stone, foreign dependencies will always haunt you. There are no short cuts and you have to do the hard work, every thing from design to delivery and service to be in the market as a world leader.

 

[sancho]

German re-engineering is not as huge as you think. The first patent for using a gas turbine on an aircraft M. Guillaum, a french national, way before the germans, RAF had started developmental work on a jet engine back in the late 20's, Sergey Korolev's GIRD-6 project in 1932 shows russia's developmental work in ramjet and rocket work in the 1932. These exploratory work is nothing but product development. Russian a2a missiles, A2G weaponry, ICBM,s SAM's, Radars, Electronics, Welding technology, metrology has nothing to do with German re-engineering, they owe it to product development and product management.

Having a patent is one thing, having developed it to serial production standard a whole different story and that's why the US, Russians, Brits... was so eager to get as many German techs and scientists as possible in their hand. Even today, Germany is one of the key countries when it comes to innovation, but it's often the US that do something with the knowledge.
So when these countries benefited a lot from foreign technology, when we see the US with their big defence budget getting Israeli help for avionics, or missiles techs, when we see the Israelis getting German missiles techs, when we see the Russian getting Israeli UAV techs, the Russians going for French and Italian arms... ... ...

If you claim you will deliver the project that takes 25 years in 10 years, it is not the fault of the design or product developmental cycle, it is faulty project management. You need to understand your technical strengths, provide the right forecasts for delivery of projects so that the procurement services can establish the right interim solutions untill your indigenous capabilities are ready.

Exactly, but that's where we have a huuuuge problem, our pride!!! How do you expect a realistic assessment of your strenght, when you start a project with the idea in mind, that we have to do it alone to be self reliant? That leads automatically to the idea that we have to develop and produce every nut and bolt alone and that exactly is the starting point for a faulty project managment, since it's based on complete wrong facts!
Not to mention that it also explains why Indian developments are roughly as costly as western counterparts, be it Arjun that is not really cheap, the LCA that has gone over budget, or even the HTT 40, that might have been cheaper if we HAL had added more foreign parts, that are produced in larger numbers for other foreign trainern. Infact, if they had tried to get more commonality to the PC7, they could have at least shown some benefits wrt operational costs, based on commen spares, but again, the goal of as much Indian parts as possible is counter-productive, that a benefit. That's why I always say we should focus on more commonality between LCA and Rafale, to get common weapon packs, avionics and spares, to reduce the operational costs again. Or to speed up LCA MK2s induction, by simply taking the RBE 2 AESA, instead of waiting for either a pre-mature Indian puls-doppler radar, or a pre-mature Indian AESA radar. It's good that we develop such things, but we have to let them go at a certain point, for the sake of the whole development, just like we had to do with Kaveri engine and hope to fit it in other platforms as soon as they are mature enough.

First if your aircrafts vintage is affecting your safety, there is not excuse in flying it.

When you don't have an alternative? LCA was meant to be the alternative and operational years ago, so it's not the Mig that is the actual issue, because it's not surprising that these fighter gets problems when they are operated more than a decade longer, than initially planned. The problem is, why we needed that long to replace them and that is largly caused by the delays of LCA and secondly by the decision of MoD to go to M-MRCA and not decide for M2K-5s, which might have replaced a good part of the Migs by now.

Next major cause is the lack of lead in jet trainer, guess who delayed the AJT by 15 years, it sure as hell wasn't HAL or DRDO

Possible, but who is responsible for the delays of IJT now and who didn't get the problems of the basic trainer in control, which lead to the grounding of the whole fleet and no basic training at all? HAL, so it's not that simple and I am well aware that there are many sides to blame, but the fact is, this focusing on indigenous only has made things worse and not better and in certain fields we lost even the edge that we had over Pakistani forces, because of these delays (take the AWACS project delays as an example).

As far as learning goes, tell me how many indegenious projects have cropped out of brahmos.

Can't tell you that, because I don't know how much relation it has to the Nirbhay development for example. What I know is, that we now jointly develop more capable versions of Brahmos, with more indigenous participation, so we must have learned something and at a level that we wouldn't have in decades, if we would have tried it alone.
But take our SSBN developments for example, do you think we did it alone? Don't you think we had Russian, possibly even French help?
Dhruv, developed with foreign help, which lead us to a level where we could replace more and more parts and now re-design it into different versions on our own. Would had never been possible without German, French or Israeli help.

As I said, I agree with you that we didn't benefited a lot in the past, but you can't deny that we still did benefited. Similarly, we are in a totaly different position today, than we were in the past, which makes ToT to a whole different thing as well. That's why DRDO/GTRE wants the Snecma JV for Kaveri K10, under ToT, why we want to co-develop Maitri SAM under ToT..., because we can demant way more than in the past, since we have many options today, to get what we want.

Next we have been making turmansky, kataruchevs, al31f's, rolls royce adour, does our kaveri gtrx derrive any tooling from any of the projects? the answer is a big big NO.

How could it? Did DRDO made these engines or did HAL made them? So why didn't HAL developed the engine based on the knowledge they gained? But again, those were licence production from the past, where the foreign countries said what we can have and we had to take it, today we can open an engine competition and they have to offer us as much as possible, to get the deal. I would have loved to see us getting the EJ 200 engine and 3D TVC for LCA, with cristal blade and TVN ToT, do you really believe that wouldn't have benefited us wrt Kaveri? If yes, our engine industry must be even worse then I thought, but I guess you have the better inside view.

I again repeat, co-development projects are great for developing capabilities, and having state of the art equipment, it is great to get technical insight and leaning about newer technologies, but untill you have your own product development protocols set in stone, foreign dependencies will always haunt you. There are no short cuts and you have to do the hard work, every thing from design to delivery and service to be in the market as a world leader.

Out of interest, lets say you would have been in charge for the LCA program, would you had made the fighter development as a whole dependent on indigenous radar and engine developments as well? Do you think, we had the necessary know how, or technical strengths like you said it back then and what would you had made differently?

 

[sudhir007]

Hindustan Aeronautics Sets Five-Year Goal for Fighter, Trainer Production | idrw.org

A target for criticism over delays in projects in the past, India’s largest defense manufacturer, government-owned Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. (HAL) is undergoing a transformation of its human resource through training and innovative programs. This is focusing on two urgent requirements–the overdue Light Combat Aircraft (LCA); and the Intermediate Jet Trainer (IJT). HAL (Chalet A 124) has confirmed that the projects will go into production in the next five years.

Even as India opens up to procuring more Western military aircraft and its civil fleet grows, HAL’s inclination to establish partnerships is becoming increasingly apparent. For example drawing on its inherent strengths and an established infrastructure, the company is now “shaping plans” to enter the maintenance repair and overhaul (MRO) sector along with a (private) partner, a senior Minister of Defence told AIN.

On paper, while HAL has narrowed down its choices for its MRO facility to Bangalore, where it has its head office, and Kanpur, the site for the series production of the Multi-Role Transport aircraft under co-design and development with Russian partners, it is Nashik that is the most likely choice given its proximity to commercial capital, Mumbai (106 miles) and HAL’s center for its aircraft division.

An expression of interest (EOI) was invited late last year “from a renowned establishment in the world having proven track record and experience for establishing a comprehensive independent world class maintenance, repair and overhaul (MRO) facility.” This would be in Nashik on the HAL Airport area, and would undertake maintenance of business jets and commercial aircraft such as Airbus 320s, Boeing 737s and ATR turboprops. The MRO facility would use “a public private partnership model in the form of joint Venture (JV) with OEMs,” according to the EOI.

Services planned for the MRO will include major checks, repair and overhaul of jet engines, turboprops and APUs fitted on commercial aircraft and helicopters, landing gear repair and overhaul, painting, refurbishing, repair of components/parts warehousing and modifications including freighter conversions. In February, the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) permitted HAL to operate its airport at Nashik, where the company has already established a passenger-cum-cargo terminal. “As part of our foray into the civilian sector, we are developing the Ozar airport at Nashik, which is being used [presently] for flying only military aircraft,” R.K. Tyagi, chairman of HAL, said.

HAL also has an interest in building a 90-seater regional aircraft with private participation under a joint venture model. “We have made a humble beginning with Dhruv civil variant (helicopter) as an offshoot of the military program. We now propose to play a leading role in India’s national civil aircraft development program as we have dedicated facilities at our transport division in Kanpur,” Tyagi said.

Challenges remain, such as the need to overcome dependence on raw material and access to critical technologies, admitted Tyagi. The supply chain, both from India and abroad, also poses issues: “Supplies from abroad have long lead-times coupled with irritants like unjustified price escalation and obsolescence,” he added. “There is also a need to augment development and production of equipment and spares. This is an area where our sourcing from abroad is the maximum with associated difficult supply chains.”

As the lead integrator for the 126 Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA), for which Dassault’s Rafale was chosen, HAL–with 2,400 private vendors–could also be working with industrial giant Reliance Industries Ltd. (RIL) as its major supplier. RILis looking to invest around $1 billion on its new aerospace division at Nashik to “design, develop and manufacture equipment and components, including airframe, engine, radars, avionics and accessories for military and civilian aircraft, helicopters, unmanned airborne vehicles and aerostats.” It is likely that the company will also manufacture parts for the Dassault Falcon business jet.

An MoD official said HAL needed to define a partner for the MMRCA that will facilitate Tier-2 and -3 suppliers, or assume that responsibility itself. Proponents ofHALsay that the government-owned company has far more experience in selecting suppliers for high-technology defense projects than private companies.

In the first four months of 2013 HAL applied for 127 patents related to aeronautical products and systems, including metal treatment, and spent $312 million on design and development, yet it still continues to lag in the challenging arena of engine design. “The present state of engine technology [in India] is not up to the mark and the aerospace industry is at crossroads,” said V.K Saraswat, scientific advisor to the defense minister. “We have achieved partial success with the Kaveri [for the LCA]… [but] we don’t even have state-of-the art indigenous systems worth mentioning. Even simple fuel-injection systems are not on a par with international standards,” Saraswat continued, while pointing out that even Indian-manufactured tanks had to rely on imported engines.

There are some who doubt HAL’s confidence about the transfer of technology (TOT) from Rafale’s M88-2 engines from Snecma, each providing a thrust of 75kN and incorporating the latest technologies such as single-piece bladed compressor disks (blisks), a low-NOx combustion chamber, single-crystal high-pressure turbine blades, powder metallurgy disks and ceramic coatings, which could enable India to become self-sufficient in engine technology. “The Kaveri developed by the Gas Turbine Research Establishment(GTRE) is now planned for use for the unmanned combat air vehicle,” said one OEM executive. “That’s not saying much about its capability…engines involve a lot of intellectual property and one doesn’t see full TOT happening.”

Helicopters, where HAL can claim experience and success in, are on the radar with discussions ongoing with OEMs to develop a 10-to 12-ton 22-seater (like the Mi-17) category helicopter for VIPs for flying at an altitude of 23,000 ft. In a tie-up with the Indian Institute of Technology in Chennai, joint research will be carried out in the field of transmission systems for a helicopter engine program. “This partnership will involve required software and design solutions for different types of gears, bearings, lubrication system, vibration monitoring systems and production technologies,” said an IIT official. HAL has also committed to certification of a Light Utility Helicopter, of which 187 are on order by the Indian army and air force, by 2015.

Acknowledging the changing business environment and challenges associated with not having kept up with times, HAL has introduced a leadership development program with premier Indian Institute of Management-Ahmedabad (IIM-A) to train its senior executives. “Our executives need to have exposure to enable them to benchmark operational and business excellence with the best international practices,” Tyagi said. The company has also inducted 400 management and design trainees and engaged consultancy KPMG to audit its workforce.

In its space business, HAL recently announced that it was setting up a facility for the Indian Space Research Organization to produce cryogenic engines and components for its geosynchronous satellite launch vehicle.



UPDATE ON HAL PROJECTS:

Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA): Preliminary design phase completed. Negotiations in progress to conclude R&D contract. 20 agencies will be involved at the R&D stage.

Jaguar Upgrade: The first flight of the Jaguar Darin III (Maritime variant) took place in Nov. 2012 and is undergoing flight evaluation. Modification on two other variants–strike and trainer–is in progress. The first flights are due by July 13 and September 13, respectively. Flight Operation Certificate (FOC) is planned for 2014-15.

Mirage Upgrade: Preliminary Design Review has been completed and technical specs for the FOC have been finalized. Design activities are under progress, according to HAL

Sukhoi: In addition to the existing contract of 180 aircraft, a contract for an additional 42 has been signed. HAL claims to have “absorbed the technologies to manufacture aircraft from the raw material stage.”

Light Combat Aircraft (LCA): The prototype flew last year and carrier compatibility trials are scheduled before year-end at the Navy’s shore-based testing facility in Goa.

 

[sudhir007]

Flight test update

From

LCA-Tejas has completed 2199 Test Flights Successfully. (13-June-2013).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-222,PV3-365,LSP1-74,LSP2-273,PV5-36,LSP3-136,LSP4-82,LSP5-178,LSP7-43,NP1-4,LSP8-6)

to

LCA-Tejas has completed 2206 Test Flights Successfully. (15-June-2013).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-222,PV3-365,LSP1-74,LSP2-273,PV5-36,LSP3-138,LSP4-82,LSP5-180,LSP7-44,NP1-4,LSP8-8)

 

[sudhir007]

Flight test update

From

LCA-Tejas has completed 2206 Test Flights Successfully. (15-June-2013).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-222,PV3-365,LSP1-74,LSP2-273,PV5-36,LSP3-138,LSP4-82,LSP5-180,LSP7-44,NP1-4,LSP8-8)

To
LCA-Tejas has completed 2208 Test Flights Successfully. (18-June-2013).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-222,PV3-365,LSP1-74,LSP2-273,PV5-36,LSP3-138,LSP4-82,LSP5-180,LSP7-45,NP1-4,LSP8-9)