BlackArcherIt will fly and the IAF will find a role for it to suit the short falls it has… So obsolete it may not be… A failed and badly managed project yes.
Other thing to consider if the journalist only mentions TEJAS so he may be talking of the FOC dates of the LCA MK2…
A small possibility…
FOC date for the LCA Mk2 in 2015? no way. Its supposed to be rolled out in prototype form in late 2013 or early 2014, so it is nearly impossible to have all systems tested and certified by 2015. FOC for the Tejas Mk2 will likely be in 2018 or thereabouts..
Considering that the Gripen NG won’t enter service with full Operational Capability till 2018 or 2020 (as we now know from the Swiss AF), it is really being pragmatic rather than being wildly optimistic and then missing dates.
BlackArcherT-50 series is much more comparable to the JF-17 or F-CK-1 rather than the LCA Tejas. In fact T-50 is the only ‘western’ fighter in the market comparable to the JF-17.
Will be interesting if these 2 were to ever face off in a competition.
Aditya, out of curiosity, why can’t the FA-50 be compared to the Tejas? Their empty weights, their loaded weights, dimensions, payload and engines are quite similar.
Both are light fighters although the Tejas has a clearer roadmap defined for the a slightly heavier and more powerful variant in the Tejas Mk2 whereas AFAIK, KAI has stated no requirement for a heavier, bigger and more powerful variant.
BlackArcherfrom the model of the Mk2 shown, the new tejas doesn’t look that different from the current one? doesn’t seem stretched.
ta-50 has 6 wing pylons (two on wing tips) and 1 centerline. well these are small planes, don’t expect anything beyond that
this pic, there’s two pylons not utilized.
it is stretched by 0.5 meters by adding a plug behind the cockpit. Some recent reports indicate that the stretch is actually 1 meter now.
this image from an ADA brochure gives the length as 13.7m, which is 0.5m more than the Tejas Mk1 at 13.2m.
New reports indicate that the length of the Tejas Mk2 will be 14.2m, a meter more than the Mk1.
BlackArcherWhat a pathetically ran programme. The people in charge must be held responsible for the delay and fired. Yes people may argue it has given us a lot of technologies and all, but with this much time on most other countries the results yielded would have been considerably more.
Obsolete by the time it enters service and the AMCA is going to be another comedy show.
Sell it to the Mahindra’s or Tata’s and see them turn it around easy.
Even by your standards, this is just a garbage rant post.
Obsolete by 2013 when it enters IAF service? Haven’t seen more BS in a while since you became less active on this board. :rolleyes:
BlackArcherThe first thing that comes to mind is that they are both a cheap fighter thats kind of western but not quite. Other thing is that Tejas is single seat and the Mk-2 will be better. (But if we wanted we could pay KAI to continue with the
F-50)F-50 will have a stronger airframe and more hardpoints single seat with more fuel/avionics and similar engines options to the Tejas MK-2
And it can have an AESA Radar like RACR/SABR or a Korean AESA from LIG Nex1 or Samsung Thales
So Tejas Mk-1 and FA-50 are comparable but Mk-2 will be made while F-50 will not (our airforce has no need)
Tejas has a twin seater version already flying. The Tejas can carry 4 tons of payload on six wing pylons and 1 centerline plus 1 pylon for Litening LDP. It can carry 2400 kgs of internal fuel. What is the FA-50’s internal fuel capacity?
The Tejas Mk2 is a stretched variant of the Mk1 and will have an AESA radar (which is already in development), that much is confirmed by the chief of the DRDO. And a more powerful F-414-INS6 engine that will allow for improved performance.
What is the future development plans for the FA-50? When will it have an AESA radar?
BlackArcher🙂
nicely done Paralay !
BlackArcherI hope this ends the matter of the investigation into the selection of the Rafale by the MoD..although Reddy doesn’t seem to be convinced. :rolleyes:
India’s hunt for acquisition of 126 medium multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA) is coming to a close with the defence ministry giving the green signal to the evaluation process that led to selection of the French Rafale fighter. The plane was chosen as it was the lowest bidder on the basis of its lifecycle cost and technology transfer. The total deal is worth $20 billion (Rs 1.12 lakh crore) with options for further purchases.
Replying to a letter written on February 27, 2012 by TDP Rajya Sabha member MV Mysura Reddy alleging manipulation of the MMRCA evaluation process, defence minister AK Antony said: “The issues raised by you were examined by independent monitors who have concluded that the approach and methodology adopted by the Contract Negotiations Committee (CNC) in the evaluation of the commercial proposals thus far, have been reasonable and appropriate and within the terms of the Request for Proposals (RFR) and Defence Procurement Procedure, 2006.”The Indian Air Force on January 31 had declared Rafale as the preferred bidder, overriding the claims of the multi-nation Eurofighter. According to negotiations, 18 Rafale fighters will arrive in India from mid-2015, with another 108 to be built in India under collaboration.
As reported in the Hindustan Times, Reddy had written to Antony stating: “The alleged manipulation of the evaluation process in picking the (Rafale), which resulted in the decision to procure 126 MMRCA has raised serious apprehensions not only across the country but also worldwide. If a proper decision is not taken, the country’s credibility will be at stake.”
Two days later, Antony ordered an inquiry into all the points raised by Reddy.
Talking to HT after receiving Antony’s final response on Monday evening in Hyderabad, Reddy said he was not satisfied with the reply. “I will wait for the report after the defence ministry has examined the finalised CNC recommendations as promised by the defence minister,” he said.
BlackArcherWork on the submarine launched Brahmos is in the final stages. And the air-launched Brahmos trial will be held before 2012 end.
Coimbatore: The work on launch of submarine variant of supersonic cruise missile BrahMos was in the final stages, a top official of the Indo-Russian joint venture BrahMos Aerospace said on Thursday.
“Yes we are on the job and it is in the final stages,” BrahMos Aerospace CEO and MD Dr A Sivathanu Pillai told reporters here when asked about the submarine launched-missile.
Sea and ground-launched versions have been successfully tested and put into service with the Indian Army and Navy. The flight tests of the airborne version will be completed by the end of 2012.
Pillai said the Hypersonic version of Brahmos-2 cruise missile will be ready for launch in another five years.
..
BlackArcheranother gem of a post by you Teer. Should archive it since in a few months time, someone else will raise the exact same observations (earlier it used to be Quadbike) about the IAF becoming too top-heavy in the upcoming decades and pontificate on how the IAF is doing it all wrong.
BlackArcherYes, review the selection in favor of Typhoon is a big NO.
But cancellation/suspending the deal due to high cost…. is possible.MSphere,
As per this report, all negotiations are progressing satisfactorily with Dassault on the Rafale.
New Delhi. India’s various aircraft acquisition programmes are going on as planned, and that includes the process for finalizing the contract for the French Rafale aircraft.Authoritative sources told India Strategic that several big ticket items like the Rafale MMRCA (Medium Multi Role Combat Aircraft), Boeing C 17 Globemaster, Lockheed Martin C 130 J, Agusta Westland’s VIP helicopters, Boeing’s Apache AH 64D helicopters and Swiss Pilatus trainer aircraft for the Indian Air Force (IAF) and Boeing’s P8-I aircraft for the Indian Navy were on track.
So was the acquisition process for the Russian Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA) and the Multi-role Transport Aircraft (MTA), and Mi 17 V5 helicopters.
On the Army front, certain quarters had raised some doubts about the selection process for the 197 Light Helicopters but a Technical Oversight Committee looking into the allegations has just finished its assignment, and reportedly – but unconfirmed – cleared the selection process as okay. EADS Eurocopter Fennec and Russia’s Kamov 226T are the contenders there.
As for the acquisition of the Rafale, which was initially shortlisted in technical trials along with the Eurofighter, and then selected due to its lower acquisition costs in the competitive bids, discussions between the manufacturing company, Dassault, and the Indian Ministry of Defence “are continuing as per the schedule and as they should.”The Indian Air Force and Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL), which is the lead integrator in the MMRCA project, are involved in the discussions.
In fact, French Safran’s Snecma group, which manufactures the M 88-2 engine for the Rafale aircraft, has also nominated one of its best engineers to help HAL manufacture the engine at a plant proposed to be set up in Bangalore. According to HAL sources, he has already visited the HAL headquarters to discuss the transfer of technology and manufacturing schedule as mandated by the RfP conditions.
BlackArcherThe numbers should have been like represented below. Unfortunately, IAF is going the opposite direction.
L-MRCA > M-MRCA > H-MRCAI personally consider it as a bad mix…. single engined fighter need to form the base of the structure. By base, it does not have to mean aircraft with low-tech of low-capablity, but a cost-effective multi-role aircraft that makes up the largest numbers.
It is going to be costly in the future…. a single engined low cost fighter have its own advantages. Even US have stood by its single engined fighters and the only major AF (lets keep the Brits aside now) which have done away with the smaller fighters is Russia which was based on the requirements of their large territory. It looks like IAF is moving in that direction of too many twin-engined fighters with hardly any new generation single engined fighter.
If direct operational cost need to be lowered, it can only come with the use of lighter single-engined aircraft. Twin-engined medium weight class is not going to give the margin that a single-engined MRCA is going to give.
Have you had a look at how many Flanker types the PLAAF is inducting or planning to induct through reverse engineered Flanker clones?
What you’re stating would make sense if the IAF had no threats of the PLAAF type- if the IAF had only the PAF to contend with, then yes it would make sense to have fewer Su-30MKIs and more medium single engined fighters like the Mirage-2000 or medium twin engined fighters like the MiG-29, since the PAF will almost completely be comprised of medium and light fighter types. That would work out cheaper operationally; although capability wise, it would also impact the IAF since they lack the nautical range as well as the sensor range and the payload capability of the Su-30MKIs.
You’re also not taking into account the much higher safety and lower attrition rates of twin-engined fighters like the Su-30MKI in IAF service. Nearly 150 are in service and only 3 have been lost in over a decade of operations where their utilization in flight hours per year is nearly twice that of the MiG-21s of an earlier era.
BlackArcherBut how much of a weight reduction is possible anyway?
Depends on the part being redesigned or optimized- some primary structures can yield significant weight reductions, whereas small sized composite panels may yield a pound or two each. But in the overall scheme, it is worthwhile.
A simple fighter built with conventional material or design does not mean it has to be bare bone. For eg, LCA would have met a fighters requirements with or without its unconventional wings and use of high composite content.
There is no such thing that you had better start with a metallic structure and only then can you reduce weight- sometimes there may be very little savings from moving to composites. Also, you are totally underestimating the effort required in changing from a metallic structure and panels to composites. Its “unconventional” wings are actually something that ADA/DRDO now understand very well and if anything, will make the LCA’s performance quite good thanks to very low wing loading.
The issues that have delayed the LCA haven’t related to structures for the most part, so I find it a bit hard to understand why every 6 months or so we have someone coming and telling us that going the JF-17 way, meaning with much simpler alloy/metallic construction would’ve been a better approach. Had India done so, the IAF would’ve been cribbing about how the LCA was low-tech and they’d have wanted all those changes on the LCA Mk2 anyway, leading to doubling the effort that is currently being expended on the LCA Mk2. Besides, without all the skills and knowledge gained on the aero-structures from the LCA program, India would’ve been in no position to even contribute to the PAK-FA – and the learning curve associated with composites would have had to be added to the AMCA’s timelines. What the IAF is getting (albeit late) is a fighter that structurally, is almost on par with other 4th generation fighters and way ahead of 3rd generation fighters like the JF-17.
BlackArcher^^
One of the big mistakes was for going for a high composite content from the onset. The result now is that we have exhausted allmost all options to reduce the weight by replacing the sheet metal area. The only option now to reduce the weight (if in the future it become a necessity) is on the structure. And to get a good margin on weight reduction Titanium will need to be called in, which is going to make the cost/unit go north. Let us hope Mk2 doesn’t take us to that level.
That is so not true ! Optimizing current composite structures and panels is an on-going process and can continue well into the Tejas Mk2 design phase as well. For instance, changing fiber glass composites to carbon fiber can reduce weight quite a bit, although it does increase costs.
I’ve worked on programs where we had optimization for several composite parts even after the first aircraft were delivered to the launch customers despite the aircraft being over intended design weight- the performance penalties are then factored in by the OEM and sometimes some financial arrangements are made to compensate.
I don’t know when our guys will learn to design it simple and conventional. The advantages of doing that are enormous because it keeps open the option of a better solution for the future. If we go in for what we perceive as the best and latest initially (read small & light), we are closing the doors (or narrowing) on future growth (read space & weight).
The length increase for the Mk2 over the Mk1 shows that the initial approach/priority/goal of making (or creating a record?) the worlds smallest & lightest fighter was wrong. The priority should have been for a small, light weight, multi-role & cost-effective fighter that could be produced in mass to form a strong base of the IAF fighter pyramid. At least that was the plan with LCA initially, but it have deviated from most of it. JMHT
You can say what you want, but you are ignoring the fact that the scope of the Tejas has changed quite dramatically from what it was originally envisaged as being- the IAF no longer can do with a bare-bones fighter and the Tejas Mk2 is in many compensating for the significant equipment changes that are required by the customer.
ps: Teer has already answered all the points raised by JangBoGo..and with far more details as usual. 🙂
BlackArcherIt is not supersonic though, and some might want that ability however useless it actually is operationally for them.
How long can China keep the JF-17 production line open though if the PLAAF doesn’t order the type?
Since Pakistan intends to induct nearly 200 JF-17s, they won’t have an issue with the production line having to close before they get an export order. Fulfilling that order itself will mean that the JF-17 has several years in hand to fulfill any export order.
BlackArcherThe only problem is the market for the MiG-21 level jet (as well as F-5 and basic Mirage III/5) no longer exists:
1. USSR sponsored Warpac members – gone due to conversion to NATO and general disarmament.
2. Africa – mainly gone due to economic issues.
3. India – gone due to upgrade to high tier aircraft ala Su-30 and maybe Rafale.
4. Middle East – mainly gone due to Libya and Syria being in state of upheaval and Algeria upgrading to higher tier aircraft (again Su-30).
5. Asia – again switching to higher tier markets (F-15, Su-30). North Korea under embargo.I don’t see Latin America as a market. That market is mainly western with a few exceptions. And I can’t see oil rich Venezuela or cash strapped Cuba buying Chinese jets.
That leaves very few operators able to afford the JF-17 or who are politically motviated to acquire them. In fact it’s mainly the usual suspects:
1. Egypt – replace MiG-21/F-7/Mirage 5/F-4. That’s some 200 aircraft and Egypt can’t afford adequate F-16 types or anything Western (unless it’s US subsidised).
2. Pakistan – of course.
3. Myanmar – replace A-5/F-7
4. Nigeria – once they blow the current batch of F-7s
5. Iran – potentially a big market if Iran ever decides to procure foreign built aircraft. Potential of a couple of hundred aircraft to replace F-4/F-5/J-7/Mirage F1.
6. Bangladesh – replace F-7.
7. Sudan
8. Zimabwe – if they can afford it.
But that’s kind of it.
You can add Azerbaijan, Sri Lanka, Philippines, Congo (they currently have extremely obsolete fighters) as well as Nigeria to the list of possible customers. Nigeria and Sri Lanka both operate Chinese fighters, and may well be interested in the JF-17 if it is affordable- and its likely to be cheaper than all the alternatives in the future. Once J-7 production stops, if a third tier air force wants a non second-hand fast jet component, they’ll have few options but to look at the JF-17. China may then want to sweeten the deal by offering cheap credit.
The Pakistanis have had discussions with Turkey as well, although it does seem like a long shot- after all, Turkey has a large F-16 fleet, has committed to the F-35 and is likely to develop its own fighter in the future. They don’t seem to have a need for a large fleet of cheap 3rd generation fighters.
Sign In
