Despite Flaws, India to Induct Tejas Mark-1A Fighter

[GURU DUTT]

Now try and sell it internationally
Build scale to ramp volumes

why sell it internationalli when forb the first decade all HAL and publick private companies will be fully streached to fullfill the massive indian order as for ramping up the manufacturing vomumes HAL cant do it alone and its more than visible now as its order books are already brimming participation of private players like Mahindra , TATA , Relaince and L&T is inevitable

 

[PARIKRAMA]

1. Saurav Jha ‏@SJha1618 1h1 hour ago
   Uttam AESA is expected to be ready for airborne testing soon. Ground based testing has delivered encouraging results.
   
2. Saurav Jha ‏@SJha1618 1h1 hour ago
   There'll be no IOC/ FOC campaign per se for the Mk-1A. The improvements will be made concurrently with the production process.
   
   
   
3. Saurav Jha ‏@SJha1618 2h2 hours ago
   To attain that 400 figure a parallel line in the private sector is a must. This is being resisted by you know who.
   
   
4. Saurav Jha ‏@SJha1618 2h2 hours ago
   IAF requirement for LCAs of different configurations is 400. This is the number people are talking about now.
   
   
   
5. Saurav Jha ‏@SJha1618 2h2 hours ago
   All stakeholders are onboard with the Mk-1A configuration. Broad improvements: Uttam AESA, maintainability improvements, MAWS, DFCC Mk-2 etc
   

 

[Chanakya's_Chant]

Actually its the problem with the title itself FLAWED. the tejas mk1 still have to validate and certify certain parameters that means still it is meant to get FOC. In that sence does JF-17 have got its FOC.

The 33 temporary concessions in ASR as mentioned in the CAG report - which include increased aircraft weight, inadequate speed, reduced internal fuel capacity and the absence of an electronic warfare suite - are to be made good before the final operational clearance is granted in March 2016 whereas the 20 permanent waivers in ASR are to be rectified in Mark II variant.

The CAG report nowhere recognises that, in fighter design anywhere, prototypes invariably go overweight while accommodating all the capabilities and weaponry that the users optimistically specify. Then, while paring down weight, some capabilities are diluted, in consultation with the air force. In this, the LCA has trodden a well-worn path.

Essentially, the CAG report is an auditor's review of a complex, high-technology platform development, which involves risks and uncertainties that are not captured in a simple balance sheet assessment of targets and budgets.

any news on range increase of LCA after the intigration of quartz rodome and what is the range of EL-2052 and can it fit easily and work properlli on Tejas MK1A

Quartz Nose Cone is being integrated in SP-1 which will increase its Multi-Mode Radar's Range to 80+ Km from the existing 50 km. Nose cone qualification for FOC will be completed by year end.

Exact range of EL/M 2052 hasn't been specified - probably between 100 to 150 km. - with a multi-target tracking capability of up to 64 targets. The current LCA-MkI version uses 210 kilos with ballast in the nose to stabilize the aircraft. This will be removed, and the AESA and EW suite weighing about 250 kilos will be added. The net weight gain will be of about 40 to 50 kilos. But that would be probably balanced since they are shelving Mark I's empty weight by 1,000 kg.

So what happened to our utham AESA?

Uttam AESA is meant for Tejas Mark II only - Currently being tested in rooftop and Air-to-Air mode configurations - In fact this radar if successful is also intended as an upgrade package for the IAF's Jaguars and Mig-29s and the Indian Navy's Mig 29Ks.

Neither ADA nor the IAF want to jump headlong into the Israeli offer on the EL/M-2052 for the Mk-II especially since Project Uttam is progressing quite well and LRDE is confident that it will be able to deliver a good product within the stipulated time frame.

Uttam AESA is expected to be ready for airborne testing soon. Ground based testing has delivered encouraging results.

 

[GURU DUTT]

Quartz Nose Cone is being integrated in SP-1 which will increase its Multi-Mode Radar's Range to 80+ Km from the existing 50 km. Nose cone qualification for FOC will be completed by year end.

Exact range of EL/M 2052 hasn't been specified - probably between 100 to 150 km. - with a multi-target tracking capability of up to 64 targets. The current LCA-MkI version uses 210 kilos with ballast in the nose to stabilize the aircraft. This will be removed, and the AESA and EW suite weighing about 250 kilos will be added. The net weight gain will be of about 40 to 50 kilos. But that would be probably balanced since they are shelving Mark I's empty weight by 1,000 kg.


.

so this 80Km range of EL-2032 is for a traget size ?

 

[zebra7]

The 33 temporary concessions in ASR as mentioned in the CAG report - which include increased aircraft weight, inadequate speed, reduced internal fuel capacity and the absence of an electronic warfare suite - are to be made good before the final operational clearance is granted in March 2016 whereas the 20 permanent waivers in ASR are to be rectified in Mark II variant.

The CAG report nowhere recognises that, in fighter design anywhere, prototypes invariably go overweight while accommodating all the capabilities and weaponry that the users optimistically specify. Then, while paring down weight, some capabilities are diluted, in consultation with the air force. In this, the LCA has trodden a well-worn path.

Essentially, the CAG report is an auditor's review of a complex, high-technology platform development, which involves risks and uncertainties that are not captured in a simple balance sheet assessment of targets and budgets.



Quartz Nose Cone is being integrated in SP-1 which will increase its Multi-Mode Radar's Range to 80+ Km from the existing 50 km. Nose cone qualification for FOC will be completed by year end.

Exact range of EL/M 2052 hasn't been specified - probably between 100 to 150 km. - with a multi-target tracking capability of up to 64 targets. The current LCA-MkI version uses 210 kilos with ballast in the nose to stabilize the aircraft. This will be removed, and the AESA and EW suite weighing about 250 kilos will be added. The net weight gain will be of about 40 to 50 kilos. But that would be probably balanced since they are shelving Mark I's empty weight by 1,000 kg.



Uttam AESA is meant for Tejas Mark II only - Currently being tested in rooftop and Air-to-Air mode configurations - In fact this radar if successful is also intended as an upgrade package for the IAF's Jaguars and Mig-29s and the Indian Navy's Mig 29Ks.

Neither ADA nor the IAF want to jump headlong into the Israeli offer on the EL/M-2052 for the Mk-II especially since Project Uttam is progressing quite well and LRDE is confident that it will be able to deliver a good product within the stipulated time frame.

Uttam AESA is expected to be ready for airborne testing soon. Ground based testing has delivered encouraging results.

Thank you very much

The 33 temporary concessions in ASR as mentioned in the CAG report - which include increased aircraft weight, inadequate speed, reduced internal fuel capacity and the absence of an electronic warfare suite - are to be made good before the final operational clearance is granted in March 2016 whereas the 20 permanent waivers in ASR are to be rectified in Mark II variant.

The CAG report nowhere recognises that, in fighter design anywhere, prototypes invariably go overweight while accommodating all the capabilities and weaponry that the users optimistically specify. Then, while paring down weight, some capabilities are diluted, in consultation with the air force. In this, the LCA has trodden a well-worn path.

Essentially, the CAG report is an auditor's review of a complex, high-technology platform development, which involves risks and uncertainties that are not captured in a simple balance sheet assessment of targets and budgets.



Quartz Nose Cone is being integrated in SP-1 which will increase its Multi-Mode Radar's Range to 80+ Km from the existing 50 km. Nose cone qualification for FOC will be completed by year end.

Exact range of EL/M 2052 hasn't been specified - probably between 100 to 150 km. - with a multi-target tracking capability of up to 64 targets. The current LCA-MkI version uses 210 kilos with ballast in the nose to stabilize the aircraft. This will be removed, and the AESA and EW suite weighing about 250 kilos will be added. The net weight gain will be of about 40 to 50 kilos. But that would be probably balanced since they are shelving Mark I's empty weight by 1,000 kg.



Uttam AESA is meant for Tejas Mark II only - Currently being tested in rooftop and Air-to-Air mode configurations - In fact this radar if successful is also intended as an upgrade package for the IAF's Jaguars and Mig-29s and the Indian Navy's Mig 29Ks.

Neither ADA nor the IAF want to jump headlong into the Israeli offer on the EL/M-2052 for the Mk-II especially since Project Uttam is progressing quite well and LRDE is confident that it will be able to deliver a good product within the stipulated time frame.

Uttam AESA is expected to be ready for airborne testing soon. Ground based testing has delivered encouraging results.

Thanks for the information and clear many doubts. I will not talk about LCA-1P though because its the ADA own choise to develop if he wants for himself or may be it is only to validate the avionics meant for the mark 2 my question is for the mark 2 :
1. For mk2 the engine is sellected F414 which will take care of the few parameter which regarding the substantial turn rates, is there any plan for the tvc nozzle proposed by the russian oem or they going for the cannard in the IAF variant this time.

2. Why till now no multiple ejector rack is not been developed.

3. Why there is no work on the irst in the country for the mk2

4. For the naval mk2 do you expect big order or its just the technology demonstrator for the proposed naval AMCA because navy would definetly choose mig29k/rafale m , twin engine and longer lotiery flight time.

 

[PARIKRAMA]

I am hearing a very different news view on this so called Tejas Mk1a
Pls read below what Prasun K Sengupta 's view on Tejas Mk1A

The ‘desi’ journalist who was the first to splurge out disinformation about the non-existent Tejas Mk1A was a chap called Gulshan Luthra , who owns INDIA STRATEGIC. He was previously just a news-bureau chief & therefore possesses ZERO (0) knowledge about aviation/aeronautical/avionics matters & consequently he can’t even ask elementary questions pertaining to any aircraft or any on-board system. So here are the facts dictated by the laws of physics:

1) Weight reduction isn’t necessary at all, be it 1kg or 1,000kg. This figure of 1,000kg is another figment of a ‘desi’ journalist’s wild imagination. What matters most is internal volume to accommodate the MMR’s environment control system, on-board oxygen generation system (absent on Tejas Mk1), hydraulically actuated in-flight refuelling probe (absent on Tejas Mk1), and an internal CW/Pulse ASPJ.

2) Since the Tejas Mk1’s design is that of a light MRCA, internal volume is severely restricted when compared to that of M-MRCA or heavy-MRCA. Therefore, the nose-section has to be heavily redesigned to house an AESA-MMR for catering to extra cooling/power/processor reqmts. If this were to be done, it will create the need for brand-new jigs & toolings for the final assembly line, which in turn will drive the production costs through the roof. Sanity therefore demands that no ‘deep’ airframe redesign be undertaken. Hence, the IAF has decided to stick to the EL/M-2032 MMR with slotted-array antenna for the 40 Tejas Mk1s on order & the 86 more to be ordered.

3) The same also holds true for the internal ASPJ, since when the Tejas Mk1’s design was frozen for series-production, no spare internal volume was available for the ASPJ’s installation, since the ASPJ at that time was still under development by DARE & its design was frozen in only mid-2011. Early R & D on the airborne ASPJ & its interfacing with the RWR sensors also wasn’t possible because neither the CABS nor DARE had an airborne avionics integration testbed, like a Do-228 that CABS only recently acquired. Had this been acquired by 2005, matters would have been much better. Now, HAL has decided to use one of the Tejas Mk1 PV vehicles as an airborne avionics integration testbed & this is what is known as the Tejas Mk1A. It is only a testbed, meaning it will be used for testing & certifying A) the airborne ASPJ prototype; B) its interfacing with the pylon-mounted RWR sensors; & C) testing & certifying an internally-mounted MAWS suite using MILDS-F sensors. And for this to be done, some other avionics LRUs will have to be removed so that internal volume for the ASPJ & MAWS becomes available. Consequently, this Tejas Mk1A testbed cannot ever be labelled as being a fully functional light MRCA. The internal ASPJ & MAWS will therefore make their way only on-board the Tejas Mk2 MRCA, which is still on the drawing boards.

4) Lastly, procuring only 126 Tejas Mk1s for CAS & defensive counter-air/interception missions will fill the gap only to an extent. Therefore, the Combat Hawk option also needs to be exercised. For, the IAF in the 1980s itself had planned a CAS aircraft force structure of 258 aircraft, for which it had acquired 93 MiG-23BNs & 165 MiG-27Ms.



@GURU DUTT @Abingdonboy @ni8mare @kurup @Chanakya's_Chant @SpArK @MilSpec @Water Car Engineer
@anant_s @HariPrasad

The above view is totally against the article about Mk1A acceptance and specs.. Is PSK's views making any sense? Can some one shed a bit more light on this? I mean veracity of his opinion

 

[GURU DUTT]

I am hearing a very different news view on this so called Tejas Mk1a
Pls read below what Prasun K Sengupta 's view on Tejas Mk1A

The ‘desi’ journalist who was the first to splurge out disinformation about the non-existent Tejas Mk1A was a chap called Gulshan Luthra , who owns INDIA STRATEGIC. He was previously just a news-bureau chief & therefore possesses ZERO (0) knowledge about aviation/aeronautical/avionics matters & consequently he can’t even ask elementary questions pertaining to any aircraft or any on-board system. So here are the facts dictated by the laws of physics:

1) Weight reduction isn’t necessary at all, be it 1kg or 1,000kg. This figure of 1,000kg is another figment of a ‘desi’ journalist’s wild imagination. What matters most is internal volume to accommodate the MMR’s environment control system, on-board oxygen generation system (absent on Tejas Mk1), hydraulically actuated in-flight refuelling probe (absent on Tejas Mk1), and an internal CW/Pulse ASPJ.

2) Since the Tejas Mk1’s design is that of a light MRCA, internal volume is severely restricted when compared to that of M-MRCA or heavy-MRCA. Therefore, the nose-section has to be heavily redesigned to house an AESA-MMR for catering to extra cooling/power/processor reqmts. If this were to be done, it will create the need for brand-new jigs & toolings for the final assembly line, which in turn will drive the production costs through the roof. Sanity therefore demands that no ‘deep’ airframe redesign be undertaken. Hence, the IAF has decided to stick to the EL/M-2032 MMR with slotted-array antenna for the 40 Tejas Mk1s on order & the 86 more to be ordered.

3) The same also holds true for the internal ASPJ, since when the Tejas Mk1’s design was frozen for series-production, no spare internal volume was available for the ASPJ’s installation, since the ASPJ at that time was still under development by DARE & its design was frozen in only mid-2011. Early R & D on the airborne ASPJ & its interfacing with the RWR sensors also wasn’t possible because neither the CABS nor DARE had an airborne avionics integration testbed, like a Do-228 that CABS only recently acquired. Had this been acquired by 2005, matters would have been much better. Now, HAL has decided to use one of the Tejas Mk1 PV vehicles as an airborne avionics integration testbed & this is what is known as the Tejas Mk1A. It is only a testbed, meaning it will be used for testing & certifying A) the airborne ASPJ prototype; B) its interfacing with the pylon-mounted RWR sensors; & C) testing & certifying an internally-mounted MAWS suite using MILDS-F sensors. And for this to be done, some other avionics LRUs will have to be removed so that internal volume for the ASPJ & MAWS becomes available. Consequently, this Tejas Mk1A testbed cannot ever be labelled as being a fully functional light MRCA. The internal ASPJ & MAWS will therefore make their way only on-board the Tejas Mk2 MRCA, which is still on the drawing boards.

4) Lastly, procuring only 126 Tejas Mk1s for CAS & defensive counter-air/interception missions will fill the gap only to an extent. Therefore, the Combat Hawk option also needs to be exercised. For, the IAF in the 1980s itself had planned a CAS aircraft force structure of 258 aircraft, for which it had acquired 93 MiG-23BNs & 165 MiG-27Ms.



@GURU DUTT @Abingdonboy @ni8mare @kurup @Chanakya's_Chant @SpArK @MilSpec @Water Car Engineer
@anant_s

The above view is totally against the article about Mk1A acceptance and specs.. Is PSK's views making any sense? Can some one shed a bit more light on this? I mean veracity of his opinion

nothin can se said about prasoon k sengupta he always says something thats far far away from facts but then who knows both HAL/DRDO/ADA or IAF will not say anything till the final FOC product arrives till then all such things are mere speculations

but no one answered my last post on this thread as to what are the size of targets EL-2032 can handle at 80KM range

 

[PARIKRAMA]

but no one answered my last post on this thread as to what are the size of targets EL-2032 can handle at 80KM range

i will answer that . bit long analysis, so please have patience


First, please find attached the company brochure details

So in A2A mode 80 Nm means 148.16 Km as per the brochure which i believe is TWS mode

Now secondly,
Israel EL/M-2032 LD/SD for each of the objects in the classes
Large/Medium/Small/V Small/Stealthy
63/10/3.2/0.1/0.001 m2 rcs
55/40/30/13/4 All in nautical miles
102/74/55/24/7.5 all in kms

LD/SD - Look Down/Shoot Down
Air - Full range co-altitude, two higher, two lower Half range elsewhere Also functions as FC radar.

What it implies is that in LD/SD mode at 3.2 m2 rcs detection range is 55 km in air to air mode


Comparing it with say RBE 2, the data states
France RBE2 LD/SD, TF 175/113/84/36/11 in Nm and 324/209/156/67/20 in kms

TF - Terrain Following No search capability, but must be on for NOE flight at night or in bad weather.

SS 175/133/76/43/24 in Nautical Miles and 324/246/141/80/44 in Kms
SS - Surface Search Surface - at full range Air - VLow altitude only at half listed Surf range

The same in RBE2 at 3.2 m2 RCS detection for LD/SD mode is 156 kms and at Vlow alititude terrain hugging mode its 141 Kms


Before jumping to any conclusions, i am also attaching a link for an article about the standard 3.2M2 RCS detection of KLJ-7/10 FCR LD/SD mode range and its 35 Km as per janes
(Source: https://web.archive.org/web/2012102...nics/KLJ-710-Fire-Control-Radar-FCR-China.html)

For this version detection range is 25/16/12/5/2 in NM or 46/29/22/9/4 kms as per the smarter radar atatchedment from where other values were taken.

That estimates KLJ-7 V1 LD for 3.2m2 as 22 kms

Another radar is KLJ -7 V2, rumured to have look up range of 110 Km for 3.2m2 but no confirmation from either FC or say independent sources say like janes. If lookup is really 110 km then for the same 3.2 m2 look down will be 55km



Comparing it with N011M Bars, its
N-011M LD/SD 100/96/72/30/9 in Nm or 185/178/133/56/17 Kms
So 3.2m2 RCS LD is 133 Kms

Normal mode of detection otherwise known as Look up mode is generally twice of look down mode. Again it depends upon jamming, radar shadows, all sorts of radio interference will influence the radar range in look up.

So in short as per LD mode for 3.2 M2 rcs
KLJ-7 v1 - 22/35Km
KLJ-7 v2 - 55Km
El 2032 - 55Km
N011M - 133 Km
RBE2 - 155 km and 141 km Terrain hugging

Of course RBE2 is far more advanced..

Further legends

Look down
Militaries require performance of airborne intercept radar under all aspects, including downwards. By using techniques to effectively remove clutter, human operators and computers can focus on targets of interest. This allows the radar system to "look down", and that eliminates the zone of weakness. Military air combat vehicles that lack this capability are blind to attack from below and along the line of the horizon.

Shoot down
Once the radar can "look down", it is subsequently desirable to "shoot down". Various weapons systems (including guns and missiles) are then employed against designated radar targets, either relying on the aircraft's radar employing the "look down" capability or the weapon's own active radar to resolve the indicated target


Source :https://clashofarms.com/files/Smarter Radars for Hpn.pdf
This file seems a masterpiece for many enthusiasts

Hope it helps..

 

[Echo_419]

1. Saurav Jha ‏@SJha1618 1h1 hour ago
   Uttam AESA is expected to be ready for airborne testing soon. Ground based testing has delivered encouraging results.
2. Saurav Jha ‏@SJha1618 1h1 hour ago
   There'll be no IOC/ FOC campaign per se for the Mk-1A. The improvements will be made concurrently with the production process.
   
   
   
3. Saurav Jha ‏@SJha1618 2h2 hours ago
   To attain that 400 figure a parallel line in the private sector is a must. This is being resisted by you know who.
   
   
4. Saurav Jha ‏@SJha1618 2h2 hours ago
   IAF requirement for LCAs of different configurations is 400. This is the number people are talking about now.
   
   
   
5. Saurav Jha ‏@SJha1618 2h2 hours ago
   All stakeholders are onboard with the Mk-1A configuration. Broad improvements: Uttam AESA, maintainability improvements, MAWS, DFCC Mk-2 etc

Awesome news