HAL Tejas | Updates, News & Discussions

[adwityagrata]

Actually skepticism is the scrutinizing of claims that are not backed by evidence. Skepticism doesn't put forth a claim, it merely challenges a claim that has been put forward already, and demands evidence.

The claim that DRDO can field an AESA radar on mk-2 in time, when they couldn't field a mechanically scanned radar on mk-1 in all these decades, is a claim that is very rightly open to skepticism. As of now, only the USA and france have fielded working AESAs on fighters. Not even Russia, with decades of experience in PESAs. So DRDO's claim that they can pull off an AESA in three years, when so far they haven't even produced a PESA, and even failed to produce an MSA for mk-1, is like any other claim of DRDO.

LOL. You are wrong about what define Skepticism. Skepticism requires one to disregard ANY claim that is not backed by evidence.

When MK-2 timeline itself if not set and clearly defined, it is ridiculous for someone to claim DRDO cannot meet that mythical time line. That itself is a logical fallacy.

DRDO has not even claimed they will build the entire AESA radar on their own, they could very well seek a ToT and modify it to suite LCA. They have already demonstrated that ability in developing swordfish. DRDO could also have a tie up with a foreign agency for a joint development for AESA radar. Barak 8 and Brahmos is a classic example.

Hence the conclusion that the expressed opinion was cynicism disguised as skepticism.

 

[janon]

LOL. You are wrong about what define Skepticism. Skepticism requires one to disregard ANY claim that is not backed by evidence.

Which means that I was right and you were wrong about what skepticism is, when you said that skepticism is about bringing evidence, and I replied that it is actually about dismissing claims that cannot be backed by evidence. The burden of bringing evidence is on the party making a claim, not on the party expressing skepticism about that claim.

When MK-2 timeline itself if not set and clearly defined, it is ridiculous for someone to claim DRDO cannot meet that mythical time line. That itself is a logical fallacy.

The article that is being discussed on this thread has put forward the anticipated timelines for mk2. It is in light of this timeline, that people here are expressing skepticism about DRDO making an indigenous AESA by then. If it was so easy, many major aerospace or avionics giants would have made AESAs.

DRDO has not even claimed they will build the entire AESA radar on their own, they could very well seek a ToT and modify it to suite LCA. They have already demonstrated that ability in developing swordfish. DRDO could also have a tie up with a foreign agency for a joint development for AESA radar. Barak 8 and Brahmos is a classic example.

The article says 'DRDO built AESA radar', which is supposed to mean one that is developed by DRDO, not one that is purchased through ToT and made locally. DRDO is a research organization, not an assembly or manufacturing one, like HAL. So when they say 'DRDO made', it means developed by DRDO, not purchased by ToT and manufactured by DRDO. The R and D in DRDO stand for...

Hence the conclusion that the expressed opinion was cynicism disguised as skepticism.

You can play with words all you want. In fact cynicism is also not unwarranted, given DRDO's track record of tall promises and incommensurate results. With a development timeline of 20+ years, they have not delivered a decent mechanical radar for Tejas, and eventually an Israeli one had to be procured. Now expecting them to make an AESA in another three years to outmatch the elta-2032 in performance and have similar size, is rather optimistic, to put it mildly. Even the Russians, who put the first operational electronically scanned radar on a fighter (mig-31), have not been able to field a fighter sized AESA.

Responses in red. Short version: Skepticism and even cynicism is fully warranted, going by track record. And please understand that DRDO doesn't do things like ToT, that is not what they are there for. They are there to develop things indigenously, unlike other PSUs.

 

[Indischer]

@janon Isn't the Russian Zhuk AESA radar already fielded on the Mig-35?

 

[janon]

@janon Isn't the Russian Zhuk AESA radar already fielded on the Mig-35?

The mig-35 is not in operational service with any country. Only USA and france (them, about a month ago) have operationally fielded AESAs on fighters. When the mig-35 underwent trials in India, it did not have an AESA. In fact none of the non American fighters in that competition did.

Russia's latest and most modern fighter, the Su-35BM has a PESA. (A damn good one, btw.) Most probably it will be our own MKIs that field the first operational Russian AESA, when they get upgraded to super-30 standard. Or maybe the Russian navy's mig-29Ks which might get the zhuk-ae.

 

[Indischer]

The mig-35 is not in operational service with any country. Only USA and france (them, about a month ago) have operationally fielded AESAs on fighters. When the mig-35 underwent trials in India, it did not have an AESA. In fact none of the non American fighters in that competition did.

Russia's latest and most modern fighter, the Su-35BM has a PESA. (A damn good one, btw.) Most probably it will be our own MKIs that field the first operational Russian AESA, when they get upgraded to super-30 standard. Or maybe the Russian navy's mig-29Ks which might get the zhuk-ae.

Thanks. I was under the impression that India had rejected an AESA-equipped Mig 35. Btw, If India does go ahead with the Rafales, will it get an AESA or PESA variant?

 

[adwityagrata]

Responses in red. Short version: Skepticism and even cynicism is fully warranted, going by track record. And please understand that DRDO doesn't do things like ToT, that is not what they are there for. They are there to develop things indigenously, unlike other PSUs.

R&D does not mean reinventing the wheel or building everything from scratch. We are part of the global supply chain and it is impossible to cut off and develop any technology worthwhile.

Every electronic component worth its name is imported into India. Point is that DRDO job is to research how to use technology for defense application, not invent technology. Hope you understand the difference.

 

[janon]

Thanks. I was under the impression that India had rejected an AESA-equipped Mig 35. Btw, If India does go ahead with the Rafales, will it get an AESA or PESA variant?

AESA - in the latter stages of the competition, that as made mandatory, that the winning fighter should have an AESA by 2015. All the non American fighters showed a plan or roadmap as to what sort of an AESA they will be able to make by then. One of the criteria that went against the gripen was that the IAF was not convinced about their plans, that they could field an AESA in time. The other three contenders promised an AESA version of already fielded MSAs or PESA (in Rafale's case).

If the IAF did not have faith in Saab/Selex's ability to come up with an AESA in three years, one can understand why DRDO's claim to that effect will have to be taken with a pinch of salt.

R&D does not mean reinventing the wheel or building everything from scratch. We are part of the global supply chain and it is impossible to cut off and develop any technology worthwhile.

Every electronic component worth its name is imported into India. Point is that DRDO job is to research how to use technology for defense application, not invent technology. Hope you understand the difference.

That is all fine and dandy. But the DRDO itself does not do things like ToT - that organization exists research indigenous stuff. What they can't do, will be imported or licence manufactured by other agencies. So DRDO developed Arjun tank, but the parts that they could not develop, were bought from abroad. But when the article says "DRDO made radar", they mean one that is developed by DRDO, not one that is acquired through ToT. Which is why the MKI's radar, although built locally, is not called a DRDO made radar. If the article was talking about ToTed radar, they would not have said "DRDO made radar", and people here would not have expressed skepticism (or cynicism as you call it), and this exchange would not be taking place.

 

[adwityagrata]

That is all fine and dandy. But the DRDO itself does not do things like ToT - that organization exists research indigenous stuff. What they can't do, will be imported or licence manufactured by other agencies. So DRDO developed Arjun tank, but the parts that they could not develop, were bought from abroad. But when the article says "DRDO made radar", they mean one that is developed by DRDO, not one that is acquired through ToT. Which is why the MKI's radar, although built locally, is not called a DRDO made radar. If the article was talking about ToTed radar, they would not have said "DRDO made radar", and people here would not have expressed skepticism (or cynicism as you call it), and this exchange would not be taking place.

Even the simple act of assembling AESA radar could be termed as 'DRDO made radar'. ToT was an example, it could be customization of existing an radar, it could be miniaturization of the AEW&C radar modules etc. What it implies is that DRDO has demonstrated capability in Radars. BTW the article nowhere mentions the timelines for Mk-II, so maybe you can explain to us how you have gone on to claim that the article indicates some kind of timeline, either for LCA MK-II or for its radar.

 

[janon]

Even the simple act of assembling AESA radar could be termed as 'DRDO made radar'. ToT was an example, it could be customization of existing an radar, it could be miniaturization of the AEW&C radar modules etc. What it implies is that DRDO has demonstrated capability in Radars. BTW the article nowhere mentions the timelines for Mk-II, so maybe you can explain to us how you have gone on to claim that the article indicates some kind of timeline, either for LCA MK-II or for its radar.

No it can't. As I said before, DRDO is not in the business of assembling foreign radars, or anything else. It is a research and development agency, not a manufacturing agency. It designs missiles, which are then manufactured by BDL. It designs tanks, which are then manufactured by HVF. It (through ADA) designed LCA, which will be manufactured by HAL, and so on. Since DRDO does not manufacture or assemble anything, there is no way that assembling a foreign radar can make it a "DRDO made radar", when DRDO would have nothing to do in that process. It won't be DRDO that assembles a radar, if that is what we will end up doing. It will be HAL. A "DRDO made radar" can only mean one thing, and you might want to stop arguing for the sake of arguing.

About the timeline - you are right that this particular article does not mention it, but it is common knowledge that the mk2 is supposed to have its first slight by end 2014 and be ready for induction by 2017. Many articles are available if you want to know the timeline, and most people commenting here are aware of the proposed timeline, which is why we are all expressing incredulity about DRDO's claims. Just because this particular article doesn't mention the timeleine does not mean that a timeline has not been given at all. The same time that this article was posted, a few others were posted as well, all of which gave proposed timelines. Those threads were moved into the LCA sticky.

 

[sancho]

When the mig-35 underwent trials in India, it did not have an AESA. In fact none of the non American fighters in that competition did.

One of the criteria that went against the gripen was that the IAF was not convinced about their plans, that they could field an AESA in time. The other three contenders promised an AESA version of already fielded MSAs or PESA (in Rafale's case).

If the IAF did not have faith in Saab/Selex's ability to come up with an AESA in three years, one can understand why DRDO's claim to that effect will have to be taken with a pinch of salt.

That's not fully correct, the Rafale and with one month delay the Gripen NG, came with AESA radars to India. Only the Mig and the EF showed off their AESA radars in the trials in Russia and Germany/UK. The Mig had an early Zhuk AE that was too heavy and didn't offered the promised performance, the EF only showed an AESA demonstrator and not the Captor E that they want to develop in future.
Also the Gripen AESA development wasn't the issue, but the performance was reportedly not good (similar reports from other trials as well) and that not even a real prototype of the Gripen E was available. They only had older Gripen C/Ds which did the main parts of the Trials in India and the Gripen NG Tech Demonstrator and the risk of the Gripen to be availabe in time according to the RFP was simply too high (similar high risk rating in Brazil). Today we know that the first Gripen E will be available only by 2018, which is the same time LCA MK2 is expected, so it never was a useful choice.

 

[Water Car Engineer]

Approach to High Angle of Attack Testing of Light Combat Aircraft [LCA] Tejas

 

[shree835]

Light Combat Aircraft Tejas completes 2,400 sorties

NEW DELHI: The indigenously-developed Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) Tejas has undertaken 2,400 sorties to meet the requirements of the IAF, which is set to induct the aircraft on December 20.

"The LCA has clocked over 2400 flights till now with highest ever number of sorties achieved in the current year. The programme has achieved highest ever average number of flights per aircraft per month during this year," HAL officials said here.

The aircraft is set to be inducted into the IAF next week three decades after the programme was sanctioned by the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi.

The aircraft had recently met its final parameter by displaying its missile firing capabilities with the launching of an infrared seeking air-to-air missile that hit the target with precision and destroyed it.

The Initial Operational Clearance-II of the aircraft will be done at its home-base in Bangalore after which it will be inducted into the IAF by Defence Minister A K Antony.

The aircraft will be the LCA Mark 1 and 40 of them will be inducted by the IAF and the DRDO and HAL will continue to make improvements in it, they said, adding more powerful and capable version would be inducted later in the force.

The IAF, if everything moves ahead as per the present plans, will have a total of seven squadrons of such aircraft which comes to about 140 aircraft.

The aircraft project was sanctioned in 1983 at a cost of Rs 560 crore at an approximate overall cost of less than Rs 8,000 crore. The overall programme is expected to cost over Rs 25,000 crore.


Light Combat Aircraft Tejas completes 2,400 sorties - The Economic Times

 

[kingdurgaking]

Why would a Silent Tejas be more valuable than a Silent MKI or Rafale? The small size and trust will even work against carrying useful loads, not to mention that the other 2 offer more technical potential too.
A re-design to make MKI or Rafale similar to the Silent Hornet is not needed. As I said, Rafale already has CFTs and weapon pods under development and MKI is actually an ideal plattform for missile bays on the centerline and weapon pods for bombs at the wing stations. With a large number of 4th gen fighters remaining in IAF for the next 3 x decades, we should focus on own developments in that regard as well and not only on 5th gen fighters.

Just that neither the engine has changed, nor the air intake, other than some drag reductions.

The reason is we dont have the CAD design structure to do that.. Rafale and LCA are now both in same category... If MK2 gets AESA it will be as good as Rafale in capabilities... the advantage of LCA is we can design or modify structure using computer design which would reduce lot of efforts(remember we have developed our own world class software to do that), sadly that is not available with MKI or rafale..

 

[AnnoyingOrange]

Light Combat Aircraft Tejas completes 2,400 sorties - The Economic Times

 

[IND151]

LCA Tejas completes 2,400 sorties | idrw.org