What's new

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

. .
Malaysia has now reportedly officially shortlisted the Tejas as one of the contenders. Apart from the production rate (which is flexible and demand dependent), I can't think of one technical reason Tejas shouldn't win the contract. Of course better things come at a higher cost. A substitute to the radar front end should immediately be found from within or abroad.

All this would be true before the current GoI in its typical reckless behaviour decided to spite Malaysia over Kashmir. Mahathir's recklessness and hypocrisy deserved a calculated response.
 
.
Malaysia has now reportedly officially shortlisted the Tejas as one of the contenders. Apart from the production rate (which is flexible and demand dependent), I can't think of one technical reason Tejas shouldn't win the contract. Of course better things come at a higher cost. A substitute to the radar front end should immediately be found from within or abroad.

All this would be true before the current GoI in its typical reckless behaviour decided to spite Malaysia over Kashmir. Mahathir's recklessness and hypocrisy deserved a calculated response.

Link please
 
.
Link please
The Print has good defence sources. So this report should be treated differently from the earlier rumours imo. We'll have to wait till next year for confirmations.

https://theprint.in/defence/hal-eye...n-air-force-shortlists-contenders/322569/?amp

Also,
EJU6G6BWwAAPwWP.jpeg


It's universal weapon integration (Tejas) vs value for money (JF17/FC1) vs Swedish engineering (Gripen) vs only want low cost attack, no combat (Others). Unique selling points. Disregarding other positives.
 
.
The Print has good defence sources. So this report should be treated differently from the earlier rumours imo. We'll have to wait till next year for confirmations.

https://theprint.in/defence/hal-eye...n-air-force-shortlists-contenders/322569/?amp

Also, View attachment 590082

It's universal weapon integration (Tejas) vs value for money (JF17/FC1) vs Swedish engineering (Gripen) vs only want low cost attack, no combat (Others). Unique selling points. Disregarding other positives.

Nice Joke!!

Keep it up
 
.
So, as speculated earlier, NLCA Mk2 at least in its current form, seems to be dead. ADA working on a twin engined naval fighter that is not NAMCA.

A good call. Mature defence ecosystems should have the confidence to drop existing designs regardless of the work they put in, or the merits of the designs, if there's a risk of the user not accepting it. The work never goes to waste.
 
.
The Print has good defence sources. So this report should be treated differently from the earlier rumours imo. We'll have to wait till next year for confirmations.

https://theprint.in/defence/hal-eye...n-air-force-shortlists-contenders/322569/?amp

Also, View attachment 590082

It's universal weapon integration (Tejas) vs value for money (JF17/FC1) vs Swedish engineering (Gripen) vs only want low cost attack, no combat (Others). Unique selling points. Disregarding other positives.
What makes you think Thunder is not universal? Prior research is necessary before making patriotic statements...
 
.
http://delhidefencereview.com/2019/...-to-the-twin-engine-deck-based-fighter-tedbf/

The Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) controlled by the Defence Research & Development Organization has revealed to Delhi Defence Review (DDR) that it will now develop a Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF) for the Indian Navy (IN) instead of persisting with the development of a Mk2 variant of the LCA-Navy (NLCA) design. TEDBF is being projected to enter service with the IN in the early 2030s as a replacement for the existing Russian-built MiG-29K fighter. The program will run concurrently with ADA’s other programs such as the Medium Weight Fighter (MWF) and the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA) projects and utilize developments from them. The project definition phase (PDP) for this program began in September 2019 itself. A TEDBF mockup is likely to be shown at Aero India 2021, according to ADA.


So, why was the NLCA Mk2 effort abandoned in favour of the TEDBF?
The IN joined the LCA program in order to develop a fighter aircraft for its future aircraft carriers. As part of this effort, ADA was tasked with modifying the baseline LCA design meant for the Indian Air Force (IAF) with a view to making it suitable for naval use. Arrested landings on a carrier bring a high-speed fighter aircraft to a dead stop within a few hundred meters unlike what obtains on a traditional runway at a land-based airstrip. To handle the intense additional stresses likely to be experienced during carrier landings, the undercarriage of the IAF version had to be greatly strengthened, even though the overall airframe was perhaps not modified to the same degree. However, this decision to not substantially modify the baseline LCA airframe led to a NLCA Mk1 design where the strengthened landing gear would ‘sprawl’ under its airframe. This in turn prevented the carriage of external fuel tanks ( or indeed any ‘heavy’ weapons) on the inboard weapons stations of the NLCA Mk1’s wings. This meant that only the centerline and mid-board weapon stations could be used to carry drop tanks, thereby reducing the payload flexibility of the design.

As a result, the IN leaned on ADA to develop a follow-on to the NLCA Mk1 design that would not entail such compromises and truly meet its requirements. For this purpose, Airbus (earlier EADS group) was roped in to provide design consultancy for what became the NLCA Mk2 project. However, the NLCA Mk2, a mockup of which was displayed at Aero India 2019, also failed to enthuse the IN and the service’s thoughts turned towards developing a navalized version of the AMCA. Nevertheless, it was felt by ADA that operational experience with a naval 4th generation fighter was very much needed before developing a next generation fighter for a naval environment. After several rounds of deliberations involving the IN and ADA it was mutually decided that the latter would instead develop a fourth-generation ‘plus’ twin-engine fighter, likely powered by the GE F-414 to meet the IN’s requirements. Thus, was born the TEDBF project.


Update on NLCA Mk1 Arrested Landing Tests
Meanwhile, even as the TEDBF project goes through its initial paces, the two existing NLCA Mk1 prototypes have carried out several arrested landings at the Shore Based Test Facility (SBTF) located in INS Hansa. These arrested landings, which are still underway, are being used to test various scenarios with more than 15 such landings taking place since mid-October 2019. The very first such ‘night’ landing was performed on November 13, 2019. As mentioned earlier, the stresses encountered by the airframe during such arrested landings is incredibly high. Remarkably, in all the tests so far, the only item to have detached has been a pilot’s visor, unlike troubles encountered in other programs. Incidentally, the NLCA Mk1 prototypes have a programmed ‘Bolter’ mode which enables automatic-takeoff in case of a missed trap during landings. In the event of a missed trap the aircraft automatically retracts its tail hook i.e. without the need for any pilot input. This feature was actually tested prior to arrested landing tests at SBTF.
 
.
http://delhidefencereview.com/2019/...-to-the-twin-engine-deck-based-fighter-tedbf/

The Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) controlled by the Defence Research & Development Organization has revealed to Delhi Defence Review (DDR) that it will now develop a Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF) for the Indian Navy (IN) instead of persisting with the development of a Mk2 variant of the LCA-Navy (NLCA) design. TEDBF is being projected to enter service with the IN in the early 2030s as a replacement for the existing Russian-built MiG-29K fighter. The program will run concurrently with ADA’s other programs such as the Medium Weight Fighter (MWF) and the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA) projects and utilize developments from them. The project definition phase (PDP) for this program began in September 2019 itself. A TEDBF mockup is likely to be shown at Aero India 2021, according to ADA.


So, why was the NLCA Mk2 effort abandoned in favour of the TEDBF?
The IN joined the LCA program in order to develop a fighter aircraft for its future aircraft carriers. As part of this effort, ADA was tasked with modifying the baseline LCA design meant for the Indian Air Force (IAF) with a view to making it suitable for naval use. Arrested landings on a carrier bring a high-speed fighter aircraft to a dead stop within a few hundred meters unlike what obtains on a traditional runway at a land-based airstrip. To handle the intense additional stresses likely to be experienced during carrier landings, the undercarriage of the IAF version had to be greatly strengthened, even though the overall airframe was perhaps not modified to the same degree. However, this decision to not substantially modify the baseline LCA airframe led to a NLCA Mk1 design where the strengthened landing gear would ‘sprawl’ under its airframe. This in turn prevented the carriage of external fuel tanks ( or indeed any ‘heavy’ weapons) on the inboard weapons stations of the NLCA Mk1’s wings. This meant that only the centerline and mid-board weapon stations could be used to carry drop tanks, thereby reducing the payload flexibility of the design.

As a result, the IN leaned on ADA to develop a follow-on to the NLCA Mk1 design that would not entail such compromises and truly meet its requirements. For this purpose, Airbus (earlier EADS group) was roped in to provide design consultancy for what became the NLCA Mk2 project. However, the NLCA Mk2, a mockup of which was displayed at Aero India 2019, also failed to enthuse the IN and the service’s thoughts turned towards developing a navalized version of the AMCA. Nevertheless, it was felt by ADA that operational experience with a naval 4th generation fighter was very much needed before developing a next generation fighter for a naval environment. After several rounds of deliberations involving the IN and ADA it was mutually decided that the latter would instead develop a fourth-generation ‘plus’ twin-engine fighter, likely powered by the GE F-414 to meet the IN’s requirements. Thus, was born the TEDBF project.


Update on NLCA Mk1 Arrested Landing Tests
Meanwhile, even as the TEDBF project goes through its initial paces, the two existing NLCA Mk1 prototypes have carried out several arrested landings at the Shore Based Test Facility (SBTF) located in INS Hansa. These arrested landings, which are still underway, are being used to test various scenarios with more than 15 such landings taking place since mid-October 2019. The very first such ‘night’ landing was performed on November 13, 2019. As mentioned earlier, the stresses encountered by the airframe during such arrested landings is incredibly high. Remarkably, in all the tests so far, the only item to have detached has been a pilot’s visor, unlike troubles encountered in other programs. Incidentally, the NLCA Mk1 prototypes have a programmed ‘Bolter’ mode which enables automatic-takeoff in case of a missed trap during landings. In the event of a missed trap the aircraft automatically retracts its tail hook i.e. without the need for any pilot input. This feature was actually tested prior to arrested landing tests at SBTF.
I will write this down in my excerpt, shall my generations read this, 2100, rise of a new fighter, TEDBF, can fly and engage.

On a serious note, is this domestic project or aimed for export? Will the project inherit any existing design or will start from scratch?
 
.
I will write this down in my excerpt, shall my generations read this, 2100, rise of a new fighter, TEDBF, can fly and engage.

On a serious note, is this domestic project or aimed for export? Will the project inherit any existing design or will start from scratch?

Domestic program for IACs airwing. We know nothing of it's design. IN wants a twin engined aircraft for its carriers, designwise I am sure it'll get inputs from programs like AMCA, MWF.
 
.
Domestic program for IACs airwing. We know nothing of it's design. IN wants a twin engined aircraft for its carriers, designwise I am sure it'll get inputs from programs like AMCA, MWF.
Interesting, let’s see how HAL contributes to the future of aviation sciences. Even though being an adversary, it’s always interesting to see developments and even more interesting to see counter-developments...
 
.
Interesting, let’s see how HAL contributes to the future of aviation sciences. Even though being an adversary, it’s always interesting to see developments and even more interesting to see counter-developments...

Not a HAL program, DRDO-ADA. They have too many programs they are handling, in my opinion.
 
. .
Excerpts from DDR:

  • Gun trials was stuck due to lack of inert ammunition. To proceed since the same has been received.
  • Apart from structural changes, Mk1A will feature changes derived from the AMCA and MWF programs. MK1A will feature a revamped Digital Flight Control Computer (DFCC) besides incorporating various new Line Replaceable Units (LRUs). While the earlier DFCC was based on the 386 series processor, the new DFCC will feature PowerPC based computing architecture. This dramatically improves computing performance. While the Mk1 required 24 physical connectors, the newer version would be a press-fit mechanism drastically reducing maintenance overhead.
  • The design of dual carriage pylons for carrying missiles as well as a jammer pod on a single underwing station is complete.
  • 14 software updates from the FOC Mk1 have been ported to IOC Mk1 which have entered service. More updates going on.
 
Last edited:
.

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom