What's new

HAL Tejas | Updates, News & Discussions

Status
Not open for further replies.
Those 40 were ordered long back...unfortunately HAL is running 2 years behind in producing them.. LSP-8 was supposed to fly in 2011. My question was....after the performance in Iron Fist...is the IAF going increase the order.

By the time these 40 LCA MK I will be ready, DRDO/HAL will be working on LCA MK II. It will take 2 years to produce 40 LCA MK I. (Initial production rate will be 9 or 11 plane per year max, later it may go upto 20 plane/year). The IAF will evalucate MK II and give next batch order (may be 40-120).

The worst case scenario will be LCA MKII will not get ready before LCA MK I production ends, in that case IAF can go for more LCA MK I or wait for LCA MK II.

But as i belive MK II will not take more time..
 
@sancho: No it is not, IAF wanted to sabotage LCA program. When they saw LCA becoming reality they tried to sabotage it by setting the un-realisable requirements.
LCA is alive because of A B Bajpai, A K Antony. Mulla Mulayam had almost stopped this project.
You don't need AESA, Supercruise, Stealth feature, 100KN engine for point defense role. In current form LCA is best in its class.


Hope in 2014 we see an honest PM (Acting PM) and Honest def min..
 
Last edited by a moderator:
R73 firing by LCA

 
Last edited by a moderator:
What data linking equipment is installed in LCA?
 
The same one installed in MKI, MIGs .. made by DRDO.

hate to quote JF-17 Example but it uses German software defined radios so it can communicate with western aircrafts. Is it similar kind of arrangement used in LCA? In future Rafael will join the fleet. Will western Link 16 type data link can directly communicate with your russian origin and indian origin aircraft and AWAC or you have to use intermediate solution to make them talk with each other?
 
hate to quote JF-17 Example but it uses German software defined radios so it can communicate with western aircrafts. Is it similar kind of arrangement used in LCA? In future Rafael will join the fleet. Will western Link 16 type data link can directly communicate with your russian origin and indian origin aircraft and AWAC or you have to use intermediate solution to make them talk with each other?

All our AWAC or any other military air craft uses the same stuff, our own product, whether American heavy lifter or other. I'm sure |French will hardly have any problem with that. After all We are not in NATO.(rmember MKI had comm. problems in red flag with American AWAC)
 
hate to quote JF-17 Example but it uses German software defined radios so it can communicate with western aircrafts. Is it similar kind of arrangement used in LCA? In future Rafael will join the fleet. Will western Link 16 type data link can directly communicate with your russian origin and indian origin aircraft and AWAC or you have to use intermediate solution to make them talk with each other?

Data link will be replaced by Indian one just as in case of C130.
 
Data link will be replaced by Indian one just as in case of C130.

i havent heard usa or france giving you permission to use indian origin DL equipment on therir aircrafts?

Except P-8
 
i havent heard usa or france giving you permission to use indian origin DL equipment on therir aircrafts?

Except P-8

USA control its manufactured weapons which it sell to other country inluding PAK/India. So IAF just brought downgraded version of C130, so that it will be free from monitering. And than put equivalent system in it to restore its original capability.
 
USA control its manufactured weapons which it sell to other country inluding PAK/India. So IAF just brought downgraded version of C130, so that it will be free from monitering. And than put equivalent system in it to restore its original capability.

Due to CISMOA which IAF didnt sign, you can not put anything in it until you got permission from OEM.
 
Due to CISMOA which IAF didnt sign, you can not put anything in it until you got permission from OEM.

I suppose not. We use our own communication, data link equipments and that's the very reason why we have not signed the CISMOA, and we are free to install it as long as there is no DATA Linking with the US Forces.

Why would they be having any problem?
 
what does that even mean when you say we dont need rights but approval? You dont need any rights to develop a weaponpod, but you need rights to integrate them onto a platform that is developed by them. You need rights to make any aerodynamic changes whether that is strengthening of pylon to carry Brahmos, adding weapon bay or fuel tanks.

Weapon pods as mentioned are not part of the fighter, but external payloads, that's why they don't create any aerodynamic changes to the fighter itself. We could develop them and even flight test them fitted on MKI, whithout an apporval of Russia, just like we flight tested Astra missiles. The point where Russia comes into play is, when we need to modify the fighter or certain techs, for example integrating the missile to the radar for launch tests, or if certain wireings, or software changes are need, or in case of Brahmos, if the weight limits of the harpoints needs to be changed, by modifing the airframe in that area...
But a weapon pod is not that heavy and the only integration that might be needed comes, when we would test a fully developed version, that can open it's doors and launch weapons. To make the pilot able to do so, changes of the fighters are needed and that would be done with the Russians.


And How does it help an OEM if their user is able to make future upgrades on its own without any help from the OEM?

These are modifications, not fully fleged upgrades, which include overhaul of the airframe, engine changes... and as you know, we even do most of the overhauling part of especially Russian fighters in India now as well, so that won't be an issue in future either. Just like the addition and integration of Sudarshan LGB will be done in India and not in Russia.
The OEM benefits from mdoifications, because it makes the fighter itself more capable and more interesting for export customers.
India for example funded the final integration of canards and TVC to the SU 30MK, which then resulted in high interest of this version on the export market. India beeing able to do parts of the maintenance for Russian fighters is a benefit for Asian customers like Malaysia, just like future Indian weapons would be offered to these export customers as alternatives to the Russian weapon.
And that fully developed weaponpods would increase the capability of the Flanker dramatically should be a no brainer, be it for any export customer for Su 30s, or even for Russian forces itself as explained earlier, but since you don't want to look at it in an unbiased way, it is not surprising that you don't want to understand it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom