HAL Tejas | Updates, News & Discussions

[BlueDot_in_Space]

Tejas TD1 & TD2 test flight

More: http://www.tejas.gov.in/

 

[satishkumarcsc]

Not at all! You "normally" don't just jump into such developments without propper planning to minimise mistakes and failures, just to look at how it ends up, because any of these problems will delay the development and increase the costs. That's why you first look at what is really needed and what can be done by us and where do we need external help, so LCA development (not the fighter itself), is a perfect example how such an development should not be done, because "as a development" we completelly messed it up!

Sometimes even if everything is taken into consideration, putting it into practice is always difficult. Just as we say in medical terms even if you know anatomy byheart, each and every body is different. We already have learnt a lot from the LCA so now time to learn from N-LCA.

This is well quoted by Dr. Kota Hainarayana. Even if they could simulate the whole LCA wind tunnel tests in a computer they had to go to the actual wind tunnel each time to iron out many issues. Making an undercarriage for a naval aircraft is an arduous task. It is very hard to make sure that the undercarriage is strong at the same time it is cost-effective too.

We had and still have a huge learning curve to acheive as many of the components made for LCA could have been replaced by other labs. HA was far more capable in designing and making the Kaveri but it went to GTRE so as to expand the design base in the country. Stuff like that delayed the aircraft development. But we did get a lot from it.

R&D is not about getting a product up in air....but to keep up with the latest technologies and make robust products that the customer trusts to do its job without hindrance.

The Navy will order a minimum of 50 aircrafts in the Mk2 version. It will still be a good air defence fighter for the CBG....in later stages another aircraft can be developed to replace the MiG 29k. But this gives the basics for our scientists to work on the other projects without taking anyone's help.

Well you dont fail a 100 times man but you learn a 100 ways things dont work which is very important for our future. The LCA program would have been completed with LM help but we were placed under sanctions after 1998 which seriously delayed the development. Why cant it happen again?

 

[WHITESMOKE]

test flight test flight
what the **** this test flight

your frustration is very natural.. How can you know what is the meaning of test flight as your country havent produced even a wing of fighter jet at your own. But i saw the test flight of your "Home Made" helicopter.. . Was that really a test flight?

 

[Black Widow]

It is a waste of money, since it is not a capable carrier fighter and the navy knows that very well, but in our country pride has too much influence in such developments and that's why the navy will procure the fighter in numbers, although the N-LCA MK1, which is described as an tech demonstrator, would be more than enough for our aims.
If they would have put the pride factor aside, they would simply build some tech demo prototypes to give DRDO/ADA/HAL a base for future developments in this sector and used the additional money that is now wasted by the development of several fully working and capable carrier versions of the LCA MK2, to get additional Mig 29Ks, which is the clearly more capable fighter. It would have been a win win situation for our industry and IN, because IN would be more capable as well, but now they have to stuck with less capable fighters, just to say that we operate and indigenous carrier fighter on an indigenous carrier.




Not at all! You "normally" don't just jump into such developments without propper planning to minimise mistakes and failures, just to look at how it ends up, because any of these problems will delay the development and increase the costs. That's why you first look at what is really needed and what can be done by us and where do we need external help, so LCA development (not the fighter itself), is a perfect example how such an development should not be done, because "as a development" we completelly messed it up!

Typical "SANCHO" post. This is the maximum praise he can offer to LCA program...

1. Waste of Money not capable fighter:
I disagree: For a good high-low mix. We need something with MiG29K. In operation if we lost couple of MiG29K, NLCA will replace it (Till N-AMCA/Rafael-M/F35C is procured). By the time NLCA will be operational , It will be capable of launching Anti-ship missiles and ground attack Bombs. Everything is usefull if we use it wisely. (China still keeps its 1000+ MiG21, They can use it to outnumber enemies once there frontline fighters did there work. )

2. Jump into development without proper planning:
Who told you that DRDO does it??? I can't assume that DRDO/HAL officials are so dumb. Cost escalation is a part of defense product development. Suppose we Indian are dumb , what bout Americans? whose F35 cost has escalated like anything???.. Sancho, there are few things which are not into our control.

I can agree on you on only one point "Indian Agencies don't keep plan B and C" with them.

---------- Post added at 04:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:07 PM ----------

your frustration is very natural.. How can you know what is the meaning of test flight as your country havent produced even a wing of fighter jet at your own. But i saw the test flight of your "Home Made" helicopter.. . Was that really a test flight?

Don't humiliate him.... Please...

 

[WHITESMOKE]

Don't humiliate him.... Please...

Well he was trying to troll in this sticky thread.. I think Trolls should not be allowed into sticky threads as these are the only few threads left where members still can read without interruption. So i had to.. sorry there was no other option.

 

[sancho]

We already have learnt a lot from the LCA so now time to learn from N-LCA.

We have learned nothing as long as we still are only testing LCA prototypes! We can say we have really learned something, when LCA got FOC and was inducted into operational service and even during the operational service we will learn more than we have so far.
Wrt learn from N-LCA, I have nothing against learning about a naval re-design, but N-LCA tech demonstrators, based on the current Mk1 version are more than enough for that aim. They can test changes like LEVCONs, a hook, folding wings, even take off on the shore based ski-jump or arrested landing at INS HANSA can be done. You don't need to interfere in LCA MK2s developedment, just because the navy has some requirements too and you don't need to pay that much to develop an N-LCA MK2 for operational service. All this is simply unnecessary and is counter productive for the general LCA development!

HA was far more capable in designing and making the Kaveri but it went to GTRE so as to expand the design base in the country. Stuff like that delayed the aircraft development. But we did get a lot from it.

Bad planning as I said, but again, they didn't learned anything yet, because they have no engine that would be useful for any aircraft in Indian forces, that's why the search for foreign help. Same goes for the radar development, that also went wrong and needed foreign help, so how can we say we learned something, when we haven't achieved anything in these fields yet?
LCA as a fighter has the potential to be very good, but we are the most limiting factor to get it out, so we have to change the way we think and plan first, before we can really learn something. The sad point is, that we did it the right way with Dhruv and simply had to do it the same way again, but unfortunately we didn't.

The LCA program would have been completed with LM help but we were placed under sanctions after 1998 which seriously delayed the development. Why cant it happen again?

The sanctions were a problem during the development, but the mistakes happend in the planning stages way earlier! We could have take proven parts from reliable countries like Russia, Israel or France, or benefit from their knowledge and experience through JV and co-developments. The same things we now do, when our own developments failed, but if we had gone that way from the start, things would have been way different today and we might have seen an LCA MK1 with Snecma M53-p2 engine (engine of Mirage 2000) licence produced in India and Elta 2032 (licence produced in India) as proven stop gap techs, until our own developments would have been ready. We wouldn't even had gone with MMRCA, since LCA MK1 would already have been inducted into IAF and if necessary, we could have also developed N-LCA with Russian help, instead of waiting for LM to get US government approval to assist us. The Russians even had way more knowledge and experience with developing carrier fighters for STOBAR carriers and would have been logical partners.
As you can see, there were waaaaaay better ways, but we simply took many wrong decisions in this development!

 

[sancho]

Typical "SANCHO" post. This is the maximum praise he can offer to LCA program...

True and I will go on with praise the LCA as a fighter, but criticise the development, because I don't belong to those people who close the eyes in regard to the mistakes that were done, or celebrate any small step, just because it is an indigenous development! There are always 2 sides and we have to see both if we really want to improve!
Yes, LCA is a very important development for India, but although so many time and money was wasted, we still have no operational fighter, no operational engine, no operational radar and this is simply not expectable!
There are a lot of people that constantly say we have to privatize..., but lets be honest, if this development would have been done by a privat company, many of the decision makers would have been fired long ago, because of the failures and mistakes during the development. Nobody in such a company would say, it's ok because at the end it is an indigenous development and we should demand the same from companies like ADA, DRDO, or HAL.

2. Jump into development without proper planning:
Who told you that DRDO does it???

If they did it, they would have gone the same successful way Dhruv was developed!

- get foreign partners with experience and knowledge (MBB/Eurocopter)
- get proven parts first and develop indigenous later (Turbomecca engine first, Shakti engine later)
- learn from the development and improve it during the operational service (more indigenous content in Dhruv today than in the begining)
- use the knowledge and experience to take the next step based on the same plattform (re-design from Dhruv to LCH)


It was all right in front of them, but they thought they can do it alone just for pride reasons, the same reasons why we go for N-LCA although IN admits it's not a capable carrier fighter and the same reasons why they now plan with AMCA, although they lack nearly in every field to develop such a NG fighter.

 

[ramu]

Sancho, the urge to build not just a tech demonstrator but a complete usable product is a passion and you will know this if you develop a product. The high you get out of making something work that someone makes use of and the satisfaction from it is unparalleled. Having said that, India should have planned better and should have put in a lot more effort in understanding foreign technology before jumping into the game of indigenous development.

The fundamental flaws in our system is zero competition from local industry. The GoI is to blame for this. The defence industry in India helped Russia and Israel but not our own. We have made Israel a great defence exporter thanks to our continued support and their hard work not necessarily in the same order. But the point is why are we not encouraging our automobile manufacturers to supply aerospace parts. Why are we not outsourcing the "tough" problems that drdo was unable to solve to private players first before taking Russian assistance?

I think the problem is the middle tier leadership in defence labs plus the babus who lack an understanding of what needs to be done to get from point A to point B. Vision is nothing without execution. I am sure a few here will not like my comments but who cares.

 

[sancho]

Sancho, the urge to build not just a tech demonstrator but a complete usable product is a passion and you will know this if you develop a product. The high you get out of making something work that someone makes use of and the satisfaction from it is unparalleled.

From the point of view of the developers, but what's the use if the endproduct is not good enough for the operational use? LCA will be produced in numbers for the air force, so the developers will get more than enough satisfaction from that, while the tech demo versions of N-LCA MK1 should give them anything to learn and improve themselfs. So why is more necessary, if even IN say, it's just a modest plattform and we have to spend more time and money for it, which would be more helpful in other areas?

Why are we not outsourcing the "tough" problems that drdo was unable to solve to private players first before taking Russian assistance?

Which private Indian company has enough knowledge to help in the Kaveri development or the MMR development? All the hype about privatisation doesn't help us, because that is not the solution for our problems. ADA/DRDO & co ran into problems because they lacked the knowledge, so replacing them with other Indian companies that lacks the knowledge too, won't change anything right? That's why the only choice was to search for experienced foreign co-development partners, but we should have done it from the start and not so late.
Privatization is needed, no doubt about that but only as an addition, not as the only way! We can't let privat, benefit oriented companies decide what arms and techs our forces will have to use, because their requirements might be different from S. American export customers that might buy these arms and techs too. The private companies will always have the focus on exports and benefit first, while the government companies will have a way closer relation to out forces and to their requirements. The idea of having a deeper tie between IAF and HAL isn't that bad actually, because it will ensure that the developments will run into the right directions, for the main customer.
However, I agree with you that competition is needed and private companies should be able to be competitors against ADA/DRDO..., which gives MoD the chance to choose the best that is on offer and also to spread the production and not only have HAL as the sole supplier for aircrafts for example. Or to let private companies be part of government lead developments, but no matter how, we need foreign know how to learn first and that's why co-developments must be the first choice at the moment!

 

[ptltejas]

some product Avionics if transfered to private company for its development. for product like nuke sub brahmos private companies work there. for some other products like engine radar better to purchase from other country.

LCA required to take place of Mig 21 immediately if work is transfered to many companies the procedure of production may take speed.

One of my relative in IAF told me mig 21 are outdated and and need tobe retired immediately. these planes are scrape now. pilots fly it with keeping that they might be back or not.

If private company will come to play roal LCA will take place immediately or as early as possible.

 

[sancho]

some product Avionics if transfered to private company for its development. for product like nuke sub brahmos private companies work there. for some other products like engine radar better to purchase from other country.

LCA required to take place of Mig 21 immediately if work is transfered to many companies the procedure of production may take speed.

One of my relative in IAF told me mig 21 are outdated and and need tobe retired immediately. these planes are scrape now. pilots fly it with keeping that they might be back or not.

If private company will come to play roal LCA will take place immediately or as early as possible.

But we are still in the development stage so far, production might be less of a problem and privat companies will be included as well, look at Samtel for example, which makes displays for MKI and LCA. We could have been replaced the Mig 21s with LCAs long ago and I still hope that IAF will force MoD to buy more MMRCAs from the winning country directly, to replace the Migs faster, while the licence production could follow on a lower pace. But again, I'm afraid that we want to produce anything in India again, which will cause delays in the production and slower replacement of the Migs.

 

[jha]

Dont know how credible this is..But IDRW is considered an OK source..

Recently sources are indicating that IAF is seriously considering increasing the numbers of Tejas aircrafts, Indian air force has already committed 40 Tejas MK-1 aircrafts, along with 8 Limited serial production aircraft.

IAF had projected 5 Squadrons (100) of Tejas MK-2, but IAF is considering adding more 2 to 3 Squadrons of Tejas aircrafts in its inventory post 2020, IAF after recalculation of fleet strength and expected delays in programs like FGFA and more time given to ADA for development of AMCA, means they will be short fall of aircrafts, IAF plans to retire all Mig-21 by 2017 and will reduce it Mig-27 strength by half in 2015 and complete phase out will be done by 2020.

ADA few years back was seen keen to work on third variant of Tejas (MK-3), in cooperating 5th generation avionics along with AESA radar. AESA radar was dropped from Tejas MK-2 since IAF and DRDO felt that it will lead to delays in the program, since radar is still in development phase; testing and production will take time. IAF is open to AESA for later variants.

AMCA which was supposed to have it first flight before 2020 will get more time for development of 5th generation avionics and technologies, to make it a true 5th gen fighter has demanded by its customer.

Tejas MK-3 is it on? | idrw.org

 

[ptltejas]

Dont know how credible this is..But IDRW is considered an OK source..



Tejas MK-3 is it on? | idrw.org

Well nice to know this.

we might think to incorporate some six generation characteristics directly. GRAFIN might play important role in all electronics, the processor based on photon made by usa and indian firm for f-35 might be useful. could take place of Miraj.

there is require to make 2 different design one present one and another interceptor will good engine and speed with less weapon load IF REQIRED....

 

[Dash]

Bad planning as I said, but again, they didn't learned anything yet, because they have no engine that would be useful for any aircraft in Indian forces, that's why the search for foreign help. Same goes for the radar development, that also went wrong and needed foreign help, so how can we say we learned something, when we haven't achieved anything in these fields yet?
LCA as a fighter has the potential to be very good, but we are the most limiting factor to get it out, so we have to change the way we think and plan first, before we can really learn something. The sad point is, that we did it the right way with Dhruv and simply had to do it the same way again, but unfortunately we didn't.!

Sancho - Practically what ever you have said is true, its teh reality. However lets take an example of buying some western stuff.
We all have seen that GOI will buy first in small numbers and later if this thing really works they will increase the order. If we just rewind to the moment GOI took the decision to buy I am not sure, neither you can say that IAF/IN will have agreed on the units GOI decided to buy (Say Apache order of 26, did IAF really suggest 26 is the question.) Our govt is always has a TRIAL first principle, and dont care about money overspent/ cost overrun.

Here neither GTRE for Kaveri, ADA for LCA or DRDO for LCA Radar have to be blamed imho. They have certainly learnt everything but not GOI, and over the years they have lost the hope of perduading GOI towards something..

MOD and MOF are the real culprits here as far as defence preparedness, self reliance or competativeness is concerned.

Just wanted to shade some light here.

 

[sancho]

Sancho - Practically what ever you have said is true, its teh reality. However lets take an example of buying some western stuff.
We all have seen that GOI will buy first in small numbers and later if this thing really works they will increase the order. If we just rewind to the moment GOI took the decision to buy I am not sure, neither you can say that IAF/IN will have agreed on the units GOI decided to buy (Say Apache order of 26, did IAF really suggest 26 is the question.) Our govt is always has a TRIAL first principle, and dont care about money overspent/ cost overrun.

Here neither GTRE for Kaveri, ADA for LCA or DRDO for LCA Radar have to be blamed imho. They have certainly learnt everything but not GOI, and over the years they have lost the hope of perduading GOI towards something..

MOD and MOF are the real culprits here as far as defence preparedness, self reliance or competativeness is concerned.

Just wanted to shade some light here.

Hi Dash, sorry for the late reply, but I simply don't find much time these days.

However, you can't blame it on government all the time, there were mistakes from all sides! They for not choosing the right companies for developments and not going the same way they did with Dhruv, Indian industry for overestimating their capabilities and the bad planning of this project, IAF/IN for constantly increasing their requirements during the development, still prefering the fully indigenous developments and not focusing on what they really need and what is the best for the development.
If you don't want to blame those developers who failed to provide what they promised, whom else do you want to blame? The government gave them the chance (a wrong decision imo) and they failed in these certain parts of the LCA development, so they have to be accountable it, not the government who trusted them.
Similarly, the tanker competition that was scrapped by FM, was completelly silly planned by IAF, since they had asked for a budged that was too low, fielded aircrafts against eachother, although they new that the IL 78 does not meet the requirements. Again, how can we blame FM here, when they are doing their job of not wasting more money than initially was planned? And we only have to look at the incompetence of IA to procure howitzers for such a long time. Do you also blame the government that IA constantly scrap the tenders, mainly because of their own faults?
Wrt the follow deals, I didn't get your point here I guess. Imo it's much more preferable to have a government that buys additional fighters/arcrafts, tanks, or vessels, than a governmeant that plans with high numbers in the begining, but then realize that costs too much and cancel deals afterwards. Look at the EF (GER, UK, ITA), at Gripen (SWE), F35 (US, UK...), the A400 (GER, ESP..). I do think GoI/MoD make a lot of mistakes in the decision making, but at least here I don't see how it would be a bad idea to buy more things that are inducted and turned out to be good. Be it C130J, P8I, MKIs, Phalcon AWACS..., all good follow on deals!