Tejas Mk.2: News & Discussions - 25 February 2018

SKrishna
BRFite
Posts: 151
Joined: 21 Jan 2008 19:18
Location: Bombay
Contact:

Re: Tejas Mk.2: News & Discussions - 25 February 2018

Postby SKrishna » 20 Feb 2019 09:23

I also see a LERX in the wing join. Maybe that the stub wings from the tender drawings. So the wing shape does change if ever so slightly, from double compound delta to a somewhat triple compound delta with clipped ends for wingtip CCM rails.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7874
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Tejas Mk.2: News & Discussions - 25 February 2018

Postby Rakesh » 20 Feb 2019 09:35

https://twitter.com/strategic_front/sta ... 3002928128 ---> A comparison with the Mk1 air frame.

Image

gaurav.p
BRFite
Posts: 227
Joined: 04 May 2018 23:02

Re: Tejas Mk.2: News & Discussions - 25 February 2018

Postby gaurav.p » 20 Feb 2019 09:38

^^ just for comparing the shape variations and not the dimensions (as mk2/mwf is longer than mk1).

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2524
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Tejas Mk.2: News & Discussions - 25 February 2018

Postby abhik » 20 Feb 2019 09:49

Any news on when the first flight is expected?

John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2145
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Tejas Mk.2: News & Discussions - 25 February 2018

Postby John » 20 Feb 2019 10:07

Looks like Mk.2 been officially been renamed to MWF can we stop calling it LCA Mk2? As Mk2 production starts It would make sense to continue to induct LCA MK1a beyond the initial projected numbers. Perhaps even further improving it with Mk1b.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53478
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Tejas Mk.2: News & Discussions - 25 February 2018

Postby ramana » 20 Feb 2019 10:50

It's just one day right? Not like we are laggards.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36393
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Tejas Mk.2: News & Discussions - 25 February 2018

Postby SaiK » 20 Feb 2019 11:16

Video

We’re live first & exclusive with India’s new canard concept — the Medium Weight Fighter (the rechristened LCA Mk.2) https://t.co/2lH3yKiy2u

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11328
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Tejas Mk.2: News & Discussions - 25 February 2018

Postby Aditya_V » 20 Feb 2019 11:19

So where is the new gunbay located and will it be the Gsh-23 cannon? Or are we going to the concept of removing the gun? F-4 and Mig 21 type decisions. Has gun firing been tested on the MK1?

sankum
BRFite
Posts: 679
Joined: 20 Dec 2004 21:45

Re: Tejas Mk.2: News & Discussions - 25 February 2018

Postby sankum » 20 Feb 2019 11:35

The aspect ratio is off by 13% for mid section and 5% for rear section as compared to front section which also must be off. The overall aircraft is sleeker than the conjoined three section diagrams.

It has IRST in nose and four SRAAM and four BVR AAM in multi-rack in mid wing station as standard complement. Goodbye MMRCA 2.0.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8118
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Tejas Mk.2: News & Discussions - 25 February 2018

Postby Pratyush » 20 Feb 2019 11:45

Why kind of delays are expected as a result of this radical redisign of the basic plane.

Can it enter service in the timeframe for it to be relevant for the IAF.

Shekhar Singh
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 20
Joined: 16 Sep 2018 14:55

Re: Tejas Mk.2: News & Discussions - 25 February 2018

Postby Shekhar Singh » 20 Feb 2019 12:09

Animation model from Medium Weight Fighter/LCA Mk.2 stand
https://twitter.com/livefist/status/109 ... 03584?s=19

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4843
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Tejas Mk.2: News & Discussions - 25 February 2018

Postby Neshant » 20 Feb 2019 12:10

SaiK wrote:Video

We’re live first & exclusive with India’s new canard concept — the Medium Weight Fighter (the rechristened LCA Mk.2) https://t.co/2lH3yKiy2u


I hope they blend the canards into the body as in the case of the Rafale and don't simply stick it on.

jpremnath
BRFite
Posts: 209
Joined: 18 Dec 2016 21:06

Re: Tejas Mk.2: News & Discussions - 25 February 2018

Postby jpremnath » 20 Feb 2019 12:42

Isnt the current config derived from wind tunnel testing?..so wouldnt this be the final shape?. The SAB Gripen also has canards simply stuck on. Even then the MWF looks much better than the TFTA gripen. Hopefully this time they will give it a menacing name and not Tejas, Sankalp, Sanjay etc ..:mrgreen:

siddhu
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 62
Joined: 16 Aug 2016 16:02

Re: Tejas Mk.2: News & Discussions - 25 February 2018

Postby siddhu » 20 Feb 2019 13:03

Arjun Mk2 took 2 years after Mk1... 2 yrs would be pessimistic for Tejas Mk2

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36393
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Tejas Mk.2: News & Discussions - 25 February 2018

Postby SaiK » 20 Feb 2019 13:27

Yes Neshant, I'm not sure the model reflects the right canard position. The play area seems tight but then I have no idea how many degrees it needs to turn.

Wait for the expert brigade to arrive here. :) (Looks a bit Gripenish on the wing tips) :mrgreen:

I'm sure some heated exchange will be there for the intakes. :lol:

I'm not seeing the refueling probe as retractable. Some things doesn't gel to my brain
Last edited by SaiK on 20 Feb 2019 13:34, edited 1 time in total.

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3470
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Tejas Mk.2: News & Discussions - 25 February 2018

Postby kit » 20 Feb 2019 13:37

SaiK wrote:Yes Neshant, I'm not sure the model reflects the right canard position. The play area seems tight but then I have no idea how many degrees it needs to turn.

Wait for the expert brigade to arrive here. :) (Looks a bit Gripenish on the wing tips) :mrgreen:

I'm sure some heated exchange will be there for the intakes. :lol:

I'm not seeing the refueling probe as retractable. Some things doesn't gel to my brain


Looks like a cross between the mirage 2000 and the rafale

Add one more engine and +/_ stealth for the heavy weight category

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1604
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: Tejas Mk.2: News & Discussions - 25 February 2018

Postby Khalsa » 20 Feb 2019 13:41

The Tejas Mk2 animated model on liveFist .... I don't know .... did the LCA Navy Mk1 or Jaguar just appear briefly to me.
From the side the extra strengthned spine just gave away something Jaguar like and the front was very Navy LCA to me.

Some interesting influences there. I reckon the Mk2 will have some interesting load carrying capacity.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23385
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Tejas Mk.2: News & Discussions - 25 February 2018

Postby Austin » 20 Feb 2019 13:42

The canard position sees high , gives the impression its slightly below the cockpit along the same line

The wing tunnel model shows there is sufficient space for the canard to move even though its above the wing

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23385
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Tejas Mk.2: News & Discussions - 25 February 2018

Postby Austin » 20 Feb 2019 13:44

What is the point in adding the canard when all this while ADA kept saying canard was not needed as the design was good enough and canard just added complexity without gain.

Is this because the aircraft got heavier and they need canard for additional lift , manouveribility , slow handling qualitues , high AOA , Brakes etc ?

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3882
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Tejas Mk.2: News & Discussions - 25 February 2018

Postby chola » 20 Feb 2019 13:45

I can’t see how the F414 will make Mk2 a medium fighter. There is a good increase in power but it is still a medium sized engine. It would great enhance the performance of the LCA but a true medium fighter would weigh it down.

What is “medium”? A F-16? The Falcon’s F110 produces 132kN. The F414 gives 97kN onlee.

The F-Solah is considered “light” in Amreeki terms while a medium fighter would be a F-18E/F SHornet with two F414s.

I am worry that instead of upgrading the Tejas with a new engine we are going in a new direction with new development and expectations that can’t be delivered by a single F414.

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2642
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Tejas Mk.2: News & Discussions - 25 February 2018

Postby nam » 20 Feb 2019 13:48

All the details.

https://www.pscp.tv/w/1eaJbOvvDQrxX

Still in initial design. 2023 first flight
Last edited by nam on 20 Feb 2019 15:49, edited 1 time in total.

Shekhar Singh
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 20
Joined: 16 Sep 2018 14:55

Re: Tejas Mk.2: News & Discussions - 25 February 2018

Postby Shekhar Singh » 20 Feb 2019 14:05

Internal fuel : 3300 ltr
Payload capacity 6500 kg
Length : 1.35 mtr longer tha mk1.
IRST
MAWS
UTTAM AESA
Ge 414 engine.
First flight at end of 2023
4 prototypes planned

https://twitter.com/statuses/1098122542529892352


sudhan
BRFite
Posts: 1092
Joined: 01 Jul 2009 17:53
Location: Timbuktoo..

Re: Tejas Mk.2: News & Discussions - 25 February 2018

Postby sudhan » 20 Feb 2019 14:50

First flight 2023??

Awww..

suryag
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3415
Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14

Re: Tejas Mk.2: News & Discussions - 25 February 2018

Postby suryag » 20 Feb 2019 14:58

What is the empty weight going to be

sankum
BRFite
Posts: 679
Joined: 20 Dec 2004 21:45

Re: Tejas Mk.2: News & Discussions - 25 February 2018

Postby sankum » 20 Feb 2019 15:00

The internal fuel is 3300kg and not 3300lt as given above.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Tejas Mk.2: News & Discussions - 25 February 2018

Postby Singha » 20 Feb 2019 15:05

they will have to manage the weight budget carefully because while F16 has a 130kn afterburning engine, and is 2tons MTOW heavier .... the 414 is a considerably weaker engine falling short 20kN in dry and 30kN in afterburning. and as we know weights always tend to increase in development never decline. demands of multi role and long range mean big rafale type fuel tanks, and multi racking of a2g standoff munitions, plus 100s of kg of EW gear all over.

no option but to pony up the cash for EPE engine production. the R&D had been done by 2012 and 17 protos were made. was on offer for gripen and f18 also. choices were 115kn with generous durability and temp margin and 126kn "gamer edition/overclocked" model with no change in regular life.
either was said to drastically improve supersonic performance and "halve the acceleration time into supersonic" at high alt for gripen. might permit more of dry supersonic with slim a2a payloads.

I dare say we should get the EDE 115kn model and run with that.

p.s. speaking of the dreaded word "supercruise" the ancient Concorde with 44 RR olympus engines used afterburner for takeoff only and then could supercruise for *2 hours* at 60,000 feet at Mach2 on dry thrust onlee with 100 passengers. beast of a pathbreaking design. the cancelled XB70 valkyrie probably took it one level further toward a higher ceiling and mach3ish...

todays chota mota munnas brag about supercruising for 15 mins.

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2642
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Tejas Mk.2: News & Discussions - 25 February 2018

Postby nam » 20 Feb 2019 15:16

First flight in 2023, even if there was 5 years of flight testing that is 2028-29 IOC. 2029 Production. 10 years from now. Optimistic timelines.

We have 24(FOC+ trainer)+ 83 planned. i.e. 107

MK1A will fly in 2020. 2021 production. If we get 24 per year line, assuming average 20 per year. in 5-6, say 7 years MK1A production will be done.

Then we will be sitting on our thumbs for 3 years? :x

So either we MK2 needs to fly earlier or we will NOT be doing 24 per year line. It is a waste of resources if it does not fly by 2021.

sankum
BRFite
Posts: 679
Joined: 20 Dec 2004 21:45

Re: Tejas Mk.2: News & Discussions - 25 February 2018

Postby sankum » 20 Feb 2019 15:25

7T is the intended empty weight as MTOW 17.5T and payload of 6.5T for clean weight of 11T.
Minus 3.3T internal fuel and rest 700kg for 2CCM, pilot weight, cannon ammo, chaff, flare and pylons.

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2642
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Tejas Mk.2: News & Discussions - 25 February 2018

Postby nam » 20 Feb 2019 15:29

Pained to say, Mk2 is set up for failure.

Looks like the requirement is to match Mirage loadout, Mig 29 flying abilities. ADA has probably added Gripen/F16 TFTA to the mix.

I really don't see the need for wintip hardpoints, with dual racks available. With 11 of them(cannot imagine why they need 11 on SE fighter), it is given IAF will ask for a powerful 110KN engine.

We should have kept it simple. Increased range and existing hard-points strengthen for greater load.

The requirements are greater than Gripen E(fundamentally a brochure claim)

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2642
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Tejas Mk.2: News & Discussions - 25 February 2018

Postby nam » 20 Feb 2019 15:31

I am now appreciating Chini way of doing things. Bring it out a version as soon as possible and increment it in bits and pieces.

We go for perfection.

ADA does not resources for running 4 programs at the same time. MK1A, MK2, AMCA & UCAV. All will be delayed.

Kakarat
BRFite
Posts: 1895
Joined: 26 Jan 2005 13:59

Re: Tejas Mk.2: News & Discussions - 25 February 2018

Postby Kakarat » 20 Feb 2019 16:23

nam wrote:Pained to say, Mk2 is set up for failure.

Looks like the requirement is to match Mirage loadout, Mig 29 flying abilities. ADA has probably added Gripen/F16 TFTA to the mix.

I really don't see the need for wintip hardpoints, with dual racks available. With 11 of them(cannot imagine why they need 11 on SE fighter), it is given IAF will ask for a powerful 110KN engine.

We should have kept it simple. Increased range and existing hard-points strengthen for greater load.

The requirements are greater than Gripen E(fundamentally a brochure claim)


Engines wont be a problem GE has plans to uprate the 414 upto 120KN, just that with first flight only in 2023 nobody knows how long it might take to certify.

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2642
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Tejas Mk.2: News & Discussions - 25 February 2018

Postby nam » 20 Feb 2019 16:37

Changing to 120KN will need modification again. Switching from F404 to 414 required MK2. And we are not planning LCA MK3.

When will we change to 120KN?

I didn't mind aiming for the sky for LCA MK1, as we were building our ecosystem. We don't have that objective now. It is numbers and rapid production is what we need. Not competing with Gripen and F16.

Kakarat
BRFite
Posts: 1895
Joined: 26 Jan 2005 13:59

Re: Tejas Mk.2: News & Discussions - 25 February 2018

Postby Kakarat » 20 Feb 2019 16:43

Changing from F404 to F414 required modification because the engines are different, but changing from 98KN F414 to 110 or 120KN F414 wont need such modifications as both are same engines but uprated using new technology infusion

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2642
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Tejas Mk.2: News & Discussions - 25 February 2018

Postby nam » 20 Feb 2019 16:45

Higher thrust engines require higher airflow. Which means air intake changes, means volume changes, means moving LRU around, means change of CoG, means changes in FBW....

means new jet.

Hope MK2 is designed with higher airflow is mind, in case they want to switch over to higher thrust engine.

naird
BRFite
Posts: 244
Joined: 04 Jun 2009 19:41

Re: Tejas Mk.2: News & Discussions - 25 February 2018

Postby naird » 20 Feb 2019 17:29

Agree with Nam , it is setup for failure. We have had countless discussions on engine change - but this model confirms every bit of our suspicion. It will be underpowered , with weight quickly adding up. MMRCA folks - will use this point to drive up the Agenda and the stories will start before even the first prototype rolls out that it is underpowered. Hope ADA folks realize this ! Also Dec 2023 - is a long way ahead.

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 984
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Tejas Mk.2: News & Discussions - 25 February 2018

Postby ks_sachin » 20 Feb 2019 18:09

naird wrote:Agree with Nam , it is setup for failure. We have had countless discussions on engine change - but this model confirms every bit of our suspicion. It will be underpowered , with weight quickly adding up. MMRCA folks - will use this point to drive up the Agenda and the stories will start before even the first prototype rolls out that it is underpowered. Hope ADA folks realize this ! Also Dec 2023 - is a long way ahead.

Kindly wait for INdranils article before hypothesising needlessly.

gaurav.p
BRFite
Posts: 227
Joined: 04 May 2018 23:02

Re: Tejas Mk.2: News & Discussions - 25 February 2018

Postby gaurav.p » 20 Feb 2019 18:16

sankum wrote:7T is the intended empty weight as MTOW 17.5T and payload of 6.5T for clean weight of 11T.
Minus 3.3T internal fuel and rest 700kg for 2CCM, pilot weight, cannon ammo, chaff, flare and pylons.

any source? images from aeroindia just specify the MTOW to be 17.5T

mk1 vs mwf

empty weight = 6.5 -> 7.0 = +0.5T
fuel capacity = 2.5 -> 3.3 = +0.8T
payload = 3.5 -> 6.5 = +3T
misc = 1.0 -> 0.7T = -0.3T
-----------------------------------
MTOW = 13.5 -> 17.5 = +4T


In case of comparing above nos to,
gripen E = 16.5T MTOW 8T empty
mirage 2000 = 17T MTOW 7.5T empty
f-16 block50 = 19.2T MTOW 8.5T empty
j-dus = 19.2T MTOW 8.8T empty

Seems like we are trying to emulate a soolah/dus going by the nos BUT with an underpowered engine. F414 EPE can at max increase from 98kN-> 116kN, but it's nowhere to be happening since 2013. Are these projections realistic enough. What do the gurus think?

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Tejas Mk.2: News & Discussions - 25 February 2018

Postby Singha » 20 Feb 2019 18:22

Kakarat wrote:Changing from F404 to F414 required modification because the engines are different, but changing from 98KN F414 to 110 or 120KN F414 wont need such modifications as both are same engines but uprated using new technology infusion


https://www.geaviation.com/military/engines/f414-engine

check the data sheets here. the INS6 and EPE is exactly the same size and weight @ 35in diameter max, @31 inlet diameter

the only diff is airflow - 170lb/sec vs 187lb/sec - so thats like 7kg more of air needed. someone from aero background pls clarify if this will need a redesign of the inlet ?

as you know they had to cut one hole on side of air intake after finding it too small for the 404. presumably this is going to suffice for 414 if Mk1A is not redesigned by its datasheet flow of 70kg/sec maps to 154lb/sec.

https://www.geaviation.com/sites/defaul ... Family.pdf

Inshallah cutting a bigger hole on side of air intake may tide us over ?

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Tejas Mk.2: News & Discussions - 25 February 2018

Postby Singha » 20 Feb 2019 18:25

USN has not ordered any so far, they keep buying the current 400 engine.

Image


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests