LCA Tejas Mk1 & Mk1A - News and discussions

[screambowl]

I will say ditch the ToT and do reverse engineering once you get the platform. Do remember to get all the maintenance training done for Indian personnels so US does not send any of its own people for maintenance pretext.

Reverse engineering is a political decision and has lots of repercussion like visa restrictions to Indians, tougher visa norms, tougher admission criteria and paper work at foreign universities and more complicated trade deals. Restriction on defence deals with India by most western countries.

 

[Rajput Lion]

Based on the current conditions, yes. This is really a post 2030 decision. That's when we will know where we stand with AMCA.

Post election, AMCA's definitive engine deal along with other deals will be signed. I said in the KF-21/KAAN thread that we may look late now, but now that the funds are released we'll reach our targets much faster as a lot of core tech has already been developed for AMCA.

 

[randomradio]

I will say ditch the ToT and do reverse engineering once you get the platform. Do remember to get all the maintenance training done for Indian personnels so US does not send any of its own people for maintenance pretext.

We do not reverse engineer as a matter of policy. It's useless and wastes a lot of time. China isn't a good example because people do not understand what they did. China has not done much reverse engineering, what they have done is innovated up and over what they already received in the form of ToT from the West and the Russians. And then they used that experience to make their own designs after a decade.

We have taken a different route. Since we do not reverse engineer as a matter of policy, and we pay good money for tech, FOEMs feel secure in parting with higher grades of technologies than what China operates. This has allowed us to keep up with the rest of the world in a much shorter time than the Chinese.

Look at our GDP versus theirs. We are where they were in the early 2000s. Our economy is at least 20 years behind. But look at our technologies compared to what they had back then. We are already making world-beating tech with very little money. We have pretty much caught up with Europe. So imagine what it's gonna be like 5 or 10 years down the line. Our method is obviously better.

 

[randomradio]

Post election, AMCA's definitive engine deal along with other deals will be signed. I said in the KF-21/KAAN thread that we may look late now, but now that the funds are released we'll reach our targets much faster as a lot of core tech has already been developed for AMCA.

Things are looking fine for LCA and TEDBF, but AMCA is still a pie in the sky. The design has to be validated with the 2 TDs. Only then can we proceed. Quite a few programs have failed.

Here's a good example:

This was the first Flanker TD. It failed, so they had to go back to the drawing board.

Similarly, Rafale also had to undergo redesign, which is why Rafale A is different from B/C/M.

So nothing can be said for sure until the TD is validated.

 

[Rajput Lion]

Things are looking fine for LCA and TEDBF, but AMCA is still a pie in the sky. The design has to be validated with the 2 TDs. Only then can we proceed. Quite a few programs have failed.

Here's a good example:
View attachment 32784

This was the first Flanker TD. It failed, so they had to go back to the drawing board.

Similarly, Rafale also had to undergo redesign, which is why Rafale A is different from B/C/M.

So nothing can be said for sure until the TD is validated.

CAD is much advance now than what it was back then. Anyways, only thing we can do is wait and watch while hoping for the best.

 

[Arpit]

I think you are misinformed... MADL is the data link that is used for co-ordination and tactical co-operation between F-35s. F-35s, actually have multiple datalink to talk to other platforms and (for the lack of better word) elements of USAF "network". The most common link is called Link16 which is common between F-18, F-16 etc. MADL is line of sight, limited range link so, it finds use in only very specific scnarios and ONLY involving F-35s.

You can read more on this from this document from US military : https://www.marines.mil/Portals/1/Publications/MCTP 3-20C.pdf , go to page 73.

View attachment 32782


Now coming to the bigger question that you were asking : How will F-35s communicate with AFNet, IACCS and indian AEW&C, right? Well for that you will have to integrate Link-16 with AFNet, IACCS and indian datalink standards. So it will be really this hard?

Now given that US was more than willing to sell F-18 and F-16 and India and US have signed an Air Information Sharing agreement, I am very confident that Link 16 could be integrated with Indian system OR Link 16 to Indian data link protocol convresion is possible OR system architecture in us fighters is modular enough to replace link 16 with whatever non US customers need.

Firstly Link-16 too is a LoS tactical D/L and not a SATCOM based datalink. Furthur, adoption of MADL feet-wide is already going on in US military.

The MADL and IFDL systems are both designed to be low probability of intercept/low probability of detection (LPI/LPD) systems that enable F-35 variants and the F-22 to communicate while still remaining as stealthy as possible and their highly directional broadcasting concepts make them extremely difficult to jam. F-35s can send information to F-22s directly via Link 16, a far more widely adopted waveform. However, doing so would increase the likelihood of an enemy being able to spot and track the aircraft via those emissions, which are omnidirectional and not very LPI/LPD in nature.

The Hydra OSG does also have the ability to transmit information across Link 16, a capability that was also a component of this recent demonstration. This would allow the F-22 and F-35's data to become available to 4th generation fighter assets, such as the F-16C/D Viper, the F-15E Strike Eagle, or the Air Force's new F-15EX Eagle II, for enhanced battlespace awareness.

IBCS, which you can read about in more detail here, is a distributed architecture that the Army is in the process of fielding, initially for connecting air and missile defense assets, but which take a more general networking function for that service as time goes on. Project Hydra in fact featured a demonstration of the potential broader role for IBCS with the U-2S passing along sensor data from the F-35As to the IBCS Tactical System Integration Laboratory (TSIL) at Fort Bliss in Texas via this system.

F-22 And F-35 Datalinks Finally Talk Freely With Each Other Thanks To A U-2 Flying Translator

Beyond linking up F-22s and F-35s, the U-2 and its gateway payload also connected naval and ground assets, and more.

www.twz.com

Also, Aussies are adopting MADL in there ELINT aircraft.

Since the F-35 will penetrate deeper into enemy territory than any other aircraft, the electronic information it gathers will be incredibly important to exploit on a large scale. With this in mind, if the G550 ELINT and jamming aircraft can "talk" to the F-35s digitally using their own MADL waveform, they can share electronic intelligence in real time and even coordinate electronic and kinetic attacks. If the G550 reprocesses and rebroadcasts this information to aircraft equipped with Link 16 modems, such as Australia's Super Hornets, Hornets and Growlers, it will only add to the lethality and survivability of those aircraft as well.

Australia Set To Become One Of The World's Top Aerial Electronic Warfare Powers

Along with Growlers and other capabilities, five Gulfstream jets fitted with the latest electronic warfare and surveillance gear are being ordered by the RAAF.

www.twz.com

Link-16 and MADL both are tactical datalink and not SATCOM datalink, and upgrading whole infrastructre to MADL is cost-prohibitive exercise, it is not about MADL just only for F-35 to F-35. Infact, F-35 have no SATCOM based datalink.

Furthur, own your part of adopting F-35, you really want integrating Link-16 with IACCS? IAF want to even change infrastructure that we bought from Reytheon and Cisco to Indian one, but you think we go for adoption of Link-16, I cannot stop laughing.
How much costly it would be, and how much time going to take? Linking all IACCS nodes took 5-6 years, and we paid a hefty amount.

 

[Arpit]

I don't see the point of buying more, it's just an upgraded jet, not a modernized airframe. Meaning, if MKI was our jet, we could have made an Mk2 version like the Su-35S and kept going with production. But the vanilla MKI aircraft is at the end of its useful life. Buying anymore just means we are planning to lose more jets that we had anticipated, so that's not really good news now, is it?

The engine modernization is meant for all MKIs, so that doesn't mean anything in terms of new orders.

Upgrading the MKI is part of the MLU, it's necessary. Almost the entire aircraft will be rebuilt, and changing the basic avionics architecture is part of any MLU program. We have done even more extensive work on the Mig-29UPG and Jaguar DARIN III. M2000 is also a complete change from the original.

Are you sure?

. Over its total service life of 6,000 flying hours or 30-40 years, each fighter undergoes three overhauls.

First Sukhoi-30 overhauled at Nashik, highlights HAL’s growing capability

www.ajaishukla.com

And from what I know, the oldest MKI is only reaching 3000 hours and HAL already claimed they can do a SLEP on MKI to reach it above 8000 hours.
These news are not coming out of thin air.

The Indian Air Force is considering extending the operational life of its Su-30 MKI fighter jets by another 20 years or more.​

​

Indian Air Force to extend Su-30 MKI fighter jets' service life by 20 years

The Indian Air Force is considering extending the operational life of its Su-30 MKI fighter jets by another 20 years or more. With over 260 of these planes in its fleet, the IAF aims to ensure their availability for operations until 2045 and beyond.

www.indiatoday.in

 

[Saaho]

Firstly Link-16 too is a LoS tactical D/L and not a SATCOM based datalink. Furthur, adoption of MADL feet-wide is already going on in US military.

Actually, satellite based Link-16 has been demonstrated, very recently (Space Development Agency Successfully Completes Space to Ground Transmission from Link 16 Tactical Data Network – Space Development Agency). So yeah. Its no longer a LoS data link.

Also, Aussies are adopting MADL in there ELINT aircraft.

So what?

Link-16 and MADL both are tactical datalink and not SATCOM datalink, and upgrading whole infrastructre to MADL is cost-prohibitive exercise, it is not about MADL just only for F-35 to F-35. Infact, F-35 have no SATCOM based datalink.

I do not get your point here. MADL is a directional line-of-sight tactical datalink for a particular purpose. And that is to talk among F-35s or possibly other stealth fighters, when they want to keep the source of transmission and even the fact that a transmission has happened hidden. It DOES NOT preclude F-35s to communicate with other assets using other tactical links. It does not preclude F-35s to be integrated with IAF's tactical network. And NO, we do not have to upgrade whole infrastructure of MADL.

Even USA is not doing that. And it has not done for now over a decade. Nor has Israel.

And the 1000 pound reason why they are not doing it. MADL has rather limited range. Around 50 KM.

Furthur, own your part of adopting F-35, you really want integrating Link-16 with IACCS? IAF want to even change infrastructure that we bought from Reytheon and Cisco to Indian one, but you think we go for adoption of Link-16, I cannot stop laughing.

NO!!

We can use B-Net. Something we already use. If Israel sold it to us for army, it will also sell it to us for fighters.

Asian Army Orders Israeli Tactical Data Link | Aviation Week Network

Order announced but customer undisclosed.

aviationweek.com

The BNET radio provides a similar function as the NATO-standard Link 16 Joint Tactical Information Distribution System, but with significantly higher speed and bandwidth.

In 2020, Rafael officials said that the BNET system had been deployed by the Israeli Army at the battalion level. The data link also has been demonstrated on various aircraft, including Israeli unmanned aircraft systems and the Lockheed Martin F-35I operated by the Israeli Air Force. The system allows a distributed force to maintain a common view of the battlespace.

And now its my turn to laugh. On your ignorance.

 

[Saaho]

We do not reverse engineer as a matter of policy. It's useless and wastes a lot of time. China isn't a good example because people do not understand what they did. China has not done much reverse engineering, what they have done is innovated up and over what they already received in the form of ToT from the West and the Russians. And then they used that experience to make their own designs after a decade.

We have taken a different route. Since we do not reverse engineer as a matter of policy, and we pay good money for tech, FOEMs feel secure in parting with higher grades of technologies than what China operates. This has allowed us to keep up with the rest of the world in a much shorter time than the Chinese.

Look at our GDP versus theirs. We are where they were in the early 2000s. Our economy is at least 20 years behind. But look at our technologies compared to what they had back then. We are already making world-beating tech with very little money. We have pretty much caught up with Europe. So imagine what it's gonna be like 5 or 10 years down the line. Our method is obviously better.

I will not take a direct comparison of China and India on technology grounds as useful simply because we are working on higher baseline technology. Meaning Chinese were working with technologies that were available back then.

Leaving aside technology, my biggest gripe is that we do not do large scale production. Something Chinese are very good at. We make good science projects alright. But it takes eternity to make them real products.

Their PL-12 was a weird kind of Frankenstine monster of a Chinese motor and Russia seeker. But it was working in 2005 onward. Our equivanlent is flying and in production now in 2024, that too in first batch only.

 

[Saaho]

I will not take a direct comparison of China and India on technology grounds as useful simply because we are working on higher baseline technology. Meaning Chinese were working with technologies that were available back then.

Leaving aside technology, my biggest gripe is that we do not do large scale production. Something Chinese are very good at. We make good science projects alright. But it takes eternity to make them real products.

Their PL-12 was a weird kind of Frankenstine monster of a Chinese motor and Russia seeker. But it was working in 2005 onward. Our equivanlent is flying and in production now in 2024, that too in first batch only.

To be fair, our equivalent of Chinese PL-12, is a whole 30 KG lighter and uses a home-made seeker.

 

[Arpit]

Actually, satellite based Link-16 has been demonstrated, very recently (Space Development Agency Successfully Completes Space to Ground Transmission from Link 16 Tactical Data Network – Space Development Agency). So yeah. Its no longer a LoS data link.


I do not get your point here. MADL is a directional line-of-sight tactical datalink for a particular purpose. And that is to talk among F-35s or possibly other stealth fighters, when they want to keep the source of transmission and even the fact that a transmission has happened hidden. It DOES NOT preclude F-35s to communicate with other assets using other tactical links. It does not preclude F-35s to be integrated with IAF's tactical network. And NO, we do not have to upgrade whole infrastructure of MADL.

Even USA is not doing that. And it has not done for now over a decade. Nor has Israel.

And the 1000 pound reason why they are not doing it. MADL has rather limited range. Around 50 KM.

Adopting MADL fleet wide doesnt mean adopting Freedom series SDR in all nodes, rather than combining technologies developed for EMC2 with Freedom series, and implementing that in every node.

NO!!

We can use B-Net. Something we already use. If Israel sold it to us for army, it will also sell it to us for fighters.

Asian Army Orders Israeli Tactical Data Link | Aviation Week Network

Order announced but customer undisclosed.

aviationweek.com

And now its my turn to laugh. On your ignorance.

For the tenth time, SDR doesnt mean datalink, its a harware side, not the software side. Israel use OPAL, and they have already interconnected it with Link-16.

https://www.iai.co.il/opal-connects-natos-link-16

https://www.iai.co.il/p/opal

Israeli integrated BNET for OPAL in F-35, doesnt mean you buy BNET, and ODL be integrated out of the box. If they wanted to they had used any other SDR and integrated with it, its the software thats matter.

And you are already going for SDR-1 and SDR-2 in Tejas Mk2 and MKI UPG, and that be fully functional with BNET SDR in Tejas Mk1A. Its the waveform and software thats matter.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1753297428735033799

 

[Ankit Kumar]

Okay, people, even after 10 years I still have to repeat this. LCA Mk2 and Rafale are not in competition with each other. Both are necessary.

Both are different, agreed.

Can we authorise funding for procurement/development of MK2, AMCA, TEDBF , additional Mk1A and MMRC within 2025? That's the issue.

Signing MMRC in 2027 makes no sense. And delaying indigenous development for imports is also making no sense.

MMRCA signed in 2014 made sense, even till 2019 it was acceptable. Not now.

That's why go for the easy way out , buy Rafales off the shelf. DO NOT PAY 200 MIL A 100 MIL product by licence assembly in India.

Do not go into theories which cannot be translated into reality. Go for the option giving you the highest overall returns or EMV or EVPI or whatever the commerce guys call it.

 

[Ankit Kumar]

It's not about you fighting a war, it could be about you supplying weapons to your strategic partner. If you want to export Mk1 you need to have both indigenous engine and imported engine.

Mk1 with indigenous engine can be sold to those where US has objection or strictly for Indian use and where US doesn't have objection then there US can also vouch for LCA Mk1 giving you upper hand in the market , finally they have to sell the engines too.

I am not saying engines aren't important. But be clear about your end goal.

Is it ensuring planes fly during the war?

Or it is making money by selling weapons?

Give clear objectives to the industry and accordingly allocate resources.

Do not mix different line of thoughts.

 

[Arpit]

To those who unable to understand how BNET AR work in Tejas Mk1A, you recieve the data in BNET in a specified datalink waveform through L-band antenna where it transmit it to data junction box(actual LRU for ODL) for interpretation and furthur to Multi function diplay or in case of Tejas Mk1A to SMFD via 1553 databus, in the Navy case its Link-II and in IAF's case its ODL.

HAL is now trying to merge this multiple LRU into one, with the help of SDR-1. Not only SDR-1 use 1553 databus, but ethernet for data transfer through optical fiber(1394 databus). This is a level above BNET.

Purchasing the SDR from foreign company doesnt mean just integrate into our jets, and voila suddenly you able to do NCW.

 

[randomradio]

Are you sure?

First Sukhoi-30 overhauled at Nashik, highlights HAL’s growing capability

www.ajaishukla.com

And from what I know, the oldest MKI is only reaching 3000 hours and HAL already claimed they can do a SLEP on MKI to reach it above 8000 hours.
These news are not coming out of thin air.

​

Indian Air Force to extend Su-30 MKI fighter jets' service life by 20 years

The Indian Air Force is considering extending the operational life of its Su-30 MKI fighter jets by another 20 years or more. With over 260 of these planes in its fleet, the IAF aims to ensure their availability for operations until 2045 and beyond.

www.indiatoday.in

View attachment 32786

Overhaul and MLU are not the same. What's happening now in terms of new radar, EW suite etc is MLU. An overhaul does come with upgrades, but it's mostly about extending the service life of the airframe. MLU is a full replacement of the aircraft's avionics.

So they can keep overhauling the MKI, but the MLU is primarily done just once, and it's seriously expensive.

 

[Arpit]

Overhaul and MLU are not the same. What's happening now in terms of new radar, EW suite etc is MLU. An overhaul does come with upgrades, but it's mostly about extending the service life of the airframe. MLU is a full replacement of the aircraft's avionics.

So they can keep overhauling the MKI, but the MLU is primarily done just once, and it's seriously expensive.

Where I am suggesting this is a SLEP program, but what HAL claimed for SLEP. Furthur, overhaul doesnt come with upgrading radar to AESA, MC upgrade, FCC upgrade, IRST upgrade, changing full interior of aircraft with Indian one. Its not an overhaul neither MLU. Its a modernization program in US FMS's terms. You totally upgrading a 4th gen jet to 4.5+ gen.

And it is only cheap because you paying in INR, and everything is Indian, but in relative terms its still a costly proposition, otherwise check what Turkiye is paying for similar mordernization program

 

[randomradio]

I will not take a direct comparison of China and India on technology grounds as useful simply because we are working on higher baseline technology. Meaning Chinese were working with technologies that were available back then.

Leaving aside technology, my biggest gripe is that we do not do large scale production. Something Chinese are very good at. We make good science projects alright. But it takes eternity to make them real products.

Their PL-12 was a weird kind of Frankenstine monster of a Chinese motor and Russia seeker. But it was working in 2005 onward. Our equivanlent is flying and in production now in 2024, that too in first batch only.

All incorrect comparisons. Their industry was ahead back then 'cause they started earlier and a lot of it was developed with both Western and Russian help. We did ours from scratch. You give an example of PL-12, but they had received missile tech from the West.

In any case our military industry has pretty much caught up with the Chinese in many areas.

You've misunderstood the point. Back in the early 2000s, even though the baseline was lower compared to today, they did not have anything in their possession that was world-beating. Forget world-beating, they did not have anything that was equivalent to what the rest of the world had. But, in 2024, we do.

Take SSBNs for example, both have developed it at roughly the same time. Both of our space shuttles will also show up at roughly the same time, so will our definitive SSNs. Ramjet and hypersonics, we are just a few years apart. We are more or less on par when it comes to BMD. And so on.

 

[randomradio]

Both are different, agreed.

Can we authorise funding for procurement/development of MK2, AMCA, TEDBF , additional Mk1A and MMRC within 2025? That's the issue.

We have already done it. Pretty much all of these are official programs now.

MMRCA signed in 2014 made sense, even till 2019 it was acceptable. Not now.

It's necessary 'cause none of our aircraft will be mature or operationally proven until after 2035-40, particularly AMCA.

MRFA has room until 2030 because of that.

 

[randomradio]

To those who unable to understand how BNET AR work in Tejas Mk1A, you recieve the data in BNET in a specified datalink waveform through L-band antenna where it transmit it to data junction box(actual LRU for ODL) for interpretation and furthur to Multi function diplay or in case of Tejas Mk1A to SMFD via 1553 databus, in the Navy case its Link-II and in IAF's case its ODL.

View attachment 32790


HAL is now trying to merge this multiple LRU into one, with the help of SDR-1. Not only SDR-1 use 1553 databus, but ethernet for data transfer through optical fiber(1394 databus). This is a level above BNET.

View attachment 32791

Purchasing the SDR from foreign company doesnt mean just integrate into our jets, and voila suddenly you able to do NCW.

View attachment 32792

What are you talking about? HAL's SDR lost to B-NET. The network's name is IACCS riding on the AFNet backbone and choosing the SDR was the last step to finishing our NCW goals.

After HAL's initial failure, they are now continuing their program.

 

[Arpit]

What are you talking about? HAL's SDR lost to B-NET. The network's name is IACCS riding on the AFNet backbone and choosing the

After HAL's initial failure, they are now continuing their program.

This is new development and for Tejas Mk2, and based on BNET. This was showcased in Aero India 2023. Furthur, there is no SDR for SATCOM from Israel, while HAL developing for Tejas Mk2.

BNET was only for Tejas Mk1A, and might be for those MKI upgraded with it after 2020.

SDR was the last step to finishing our NCW goals.

And this wasnt what stopping them, non-SDR based L-band datalink was available since 2015.