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

fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2962
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

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

Postby fanne » 21 Feb 2019 07:50

My guess is someone is quietly setting this up for failure. Making it USS enterprise, capable of doing everything - A2A, A2G, DPSA, Air Superiority, Long range.., stealth will be demanded later, I guess laser weapon too at a later stage if it somehow manages to do all this (even cook noodles, make chapatis).

It will not work with the engines it has. You need a more powerful engine...do that and you introduce enough time and uncertainty to kill it. I guess someone should push that while this flies and get inducted, IAF will keep on taking at least 16 LCA MK-1 per year. Then the sabotage may end.
Last edited by fanne on 21 Feb 2019 08:09, edited 1 time in total.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4306
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Kartik » 21 Feb 2019 07:59

hemant_sai wrote:I am of same opinion as Chola sir. I was expecting a twin engine with delta frame but front fuselage as derivative from AMCA design. Too many expectations, I guess.
On the second note, if MK2 design is kept so close to MK1, shouldn't they deliver sooner than 2023?
What risk mitigations are planned? If increased weight factor compensates more of advantage of increased thrust? If someone reads MK2 history, which started from 2011, are we still kidding with design only after 8 years?
It is just unbelievable that same ADA which proposes AMCA, is not resourceful enough to impress with MK2.
Also I don't understand why they are not opting for 414 engine on MK1A.
What I can infer is we don't have same kind of leadership in ADA which worked on AMCA.


Really? You expected a twin engine with AMCA derived front fuselage? :roll:

Obviously you have not been following the Mk2 in any way whatsoever, except with khayali pulao type thinking. If they did what you're asking for, then NOTHING would ever get built.

The Mk2 design is NOT close the Mk1. It is a radical improvement in performance with an iterative improvement in design. See the drag improvement figures that Indranil mentioned. STR, which is the Mk1's weak point will also be improved with this design. Not to mention the fuel and endurance improvement with more fuel and OBOGS.

And to achieve a good light empty weight, it will take a lot of optimization with inputs from the Mk1 design- However, the Mk1's aero loads are not as great as those on the Mk2. Which means some very clever engineering will be required to keep empty weight to ~7,000 kgs. ~7,400 kgs will be doable.

Do you not understand what a new engine does to a design? This has been discussed a lot on this forum earlier, that it is a big project in itself. On the Mk2, the entire rear fuselage has been widened to accomodate the F-414..which means that thanks to area ruling, the fuselage cross section in the mid-fuselage section also has to cater to that.

Your inferences are also way off. You want to get to first flight from Preliminary Design Stage in 3 years? Then praise the Lord for a very balanced approach that these guys have followed, with their primary customer, the IAF, kept in close loop. This is a design for the IAF's requirements, not for some fanboy on the net who wants to prove something.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4306
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Kartik » 21 Feb 2019 08:04

Cybaru wrote:What a gorgeous bird!! Like what they are doing, incremental changes that they can push through testing really fast!

If the EPE engine comes great - otherwise the new 414 is fine. The aim is to reliably and decently deliver the payload. It seems to be well designed for this role! Gripen-vaporware has the same engine too.

Would have loved to see a little bit more internal fuel. 3300 seems like 300 liters more than Mk1. Is that right? Would have been nice if we touched 4000 liters. Would have doubled the airtime when compared to many other birds in IAFs inventory.


Yes, a gorgeous bird. I mean just look at this ! :D

Image

The fuel is a full 842 kg more than that on the Mk1, whose internal fuel capacity is 2458 kg. F-414 being an engine with a slightly higher SFC will consume a little more per hour, but this will significantly increase the range on internal fuel only. Plus the bigger drop tanks that are supposed to be more drag-efficient than the current design.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66591
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

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

Postby Singha » 21 Feb 2019 08:11

Image

i hope this loadout is not demanded :)

sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1657
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

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

Postby sudeepj » 21 Feb 2019 08:18

Mk2 size is very close to the mirage 2000, which is an all aluminum aircraft with an empty weight of 7600 kgs. The mk2 will have a lot of composites, and in addition to a lighter weight engine. On the flip side, the aesa radar, the irst, the maws and the canard will all add weight. So I think 7000 kgs is going to be achievable goal.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4306
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Kartik » 21 Feb 2019 08:21

Something similar will be, but that will be at full MTOW. they will need to demonstrate that it can take off at the 17,500 kg figure as well.

But frankly, we do have Rafales as well. They will be tasked for such missions that require some major enemy installations to be taken out in one single mission. The MWF could then provide escort, loaded with 4 BVRAAMs, 4 WVRAAMs and 2 of those pinched waist drop tanks or the supersonic drop tanks.

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1187
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

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

Postby Gyan » 21 Feb 2019 08:24

One of the areas where LCA MK2 may be able to do weight optimisation is landing gear, compared to LCA MK1.

6500 kg payload capacity may not all be used only for weapons as 3000-3500kg may go for fuel tanks in long range missions.

Though I think that we must order 1 extra squadron of MK1 and 2 extra squadrons of MK1A for keeping up numbers of IAF & to prevent lull in production line.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3640
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

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

Postby chola » 21 Feb 2019 08:32

sudeepj wrote:Mk2 size is very close to the mirage 2000, which is an all aluminum aircraft with an empty weight of 7600 kgs. The mk2 will have a lot of composites, and in addition to a lighter weight engine. On the flip side, the aesa radar, the irst, the maws and the canard will all add weight. So I think 7000 kgs is going to be achievable goal.


If the specs and missions stay at the M2K’s then it is fine. Maybe I am too hung up over terms. For them to say “medium” implies something else to me and that means something like a SHornet.

I will be VERY happy if we end up with an indigenous M2K that you and Karthik-ji suggested.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66591
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

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

Postby Singha » 21 Feb 2019 08:55

Shornet is a heavy a/c if you see it logically its always packed to the gunwales with various sensors , fuel tanks and weapons and heavy undercarriage for naval role. carries a large aesa radar.

the only 2 engine that may quality as a medium is the base Mig29.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4306
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Kartik » 21 Feb 2019 09:10

Gyan wrote:One of the areas where LCA MK2 may be able to do weight optimisation is landing gear, compared to LCA MK1.

6500 kg payload capacity may not all be used only for weapons as 3000-3500kg may go for fuel tanks in long range missions.

Though I think that we must order 1 extra squadron of MK1 and 2 extra squadrons of MK1A for keeping up numbers of IAF & to prevent lull in production line.


Looks like the MWF's landing gear is going to be longer than that of the Mk1. Will allow for better rotation angles while carrying heavy ordnance under the centerline hardpoint. Will also be somewhat beefier given the higher MTOW. But Mk1 learning could be used to optimize the design and not add any extra weight due to unnecessary conservatism.

Image

It was this conservatism that led to the Mk1's empty weight being heavier than intended, hence not making the best use of the advantages of going with such a high percentage of composites. Hopefully ADA engineers have studied this deeply and figured out what structures and skin panels could be made lighter.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2320
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby Cybaru » 21 Feb 2019 09:14

Kartik wrote:
Cybaru wrote:What a gorgeous bird!! Like what they are doing, incremental changes that they can push through testing really fast!

If the EPE engine comes great - otherwise the new 414 is fine. The aim is to reliably and decently deliver the payload. It seems to be well designed for this role! Gripen-vaporware has the same engine too.

Would have loved to see a little bit more internal fuel. 3300 seems like 300 liters more than Mk1. Is that right? Would have been nice if we touched 4000 liters. Would have doubled the airtime when compared to many other birds in IAFs inventory.


Yes, a gorgeous bird. I mean just look at this ! :D

Image

The fuel is a full 842 kg more than that on the Mk1, whose internal fuel capacity is 2458 kg. F-414 being an engine with a slightly higher SFC will consume a little more per hour, but this will significantly increase the range on internal fuel only. Plus the bigger drop tanks that are supposed to be more drag-efficient than the current design.
]

is it 3300 kgs of fuel or 3300 liters??? Those are very different. If true that it is 3300 kgs then Mooh mein ghee shakar else nothing! :D
Last edited by Cybaru on 21 Feb 2019 12:25, edited 1 time in total.

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2727
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

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

Postby tsarkar » 21 Feb 2019 09:36

dkhare wrote:2. IRST?

No IRST as Litening suffices.

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 » 21 Feb 2019 10:16

Those canards look like whiskers...

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10921
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

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

Postby Aditya_V » 21 Feb 2019 11:14

Guys should this thread name now be changed from Tejas.mk2 to MWF?

jpremnath
BRFite
Posts: 191
Joined: 18 Dec 2016 21:06

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

Postby jpremnath » 21 Feb 2019 12:02

Noob pooch to Seniors....I see what i believe to be hardpoints at wingtips...Is it possible to have in the future; a towed decoy system like that of eurofighter here?..or is it something which will be too heavy to do that?

Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2505
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

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

Postby Katare » 21 Feb 2019 12:04

I can’t understand the math here. F404-IN20 provides 19,000lb of thrust while the f414-INS6 is rated at 22,000lb.

For additional 3000lb of thrust they are talking about adding additional ~7000lb of payload, significantly higher (at least a few thousand lbs) fuel to increase endurance/range, enlarging the body size and all kind of additional sensors and electronics.

This impossible goal can only be achieved with a very significant reduction in empty weight and miraculous improvements in aerodynamics.

To me, it looks like they are setting themselves up for the failure again. It should stay as LCA mk 2 not some crazy fat MWF. Looks a lot like Classic case of project scope creep gone crazy

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2320
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby Cybaru » 21 Feb 2019 12:22

Katare wrote:I can’t understand the math here. F404-IN20 provides 19,000lb of thrust while the f414-INS6 is rated at 22,000lb.

For additional 3000lb of thrust they are talking about adding additional ~7000lb of payload, significantly higher (at least a few thousand lbs) fuel to increase endurance/range, enlarging the body size and all kind of additional sensors and electronics.

This impossible goal can only be achieved with a very significant reduction in empty weight and miraculous improvements in aerodynamics.

To me, it looks like they are setting themselves up for the failure again. It should stay as LCA mk 2 not some crazy fat MWF. Looks a lot like Classic case of project scope creep gone crazy


Not sure what the worry is. The specs are pretty much the same as m2k. It is far better refined and updated model. M2k is 21500lbs of wet thrust and 17K kgs mtow. If you assumption is true that it is underpowered, the worst case will be it might need a little bit more runway to take off when fully fully loaded. No different than jag/m2k or any other plane. But that probably won’t be the case.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7457
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Postby Indranil » 21 Feb 2019 13:19

1. Dedicated IRST will be provided.
2. It is 3300 kg of internal fuel
3. The inlet is optimized for better low speed performance. So, taking off with 17.5 tons will not be a problem.
4. Making a Mirage sized aircraft, with the same empty weight, but of more capability is possible. Today, composite aerostructures can reduce part weights and part counts. Additionally, a lot LRUs have got miniaturized, and consolidated. This reduces the weight of their mounts. Vina calls this the spiraling down effect 8)

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4306
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Kartik » 21 Feb 2019 13:29

Cybaru wrote:
is it 3300 kgs of fuel or 3300 liters??? Those are very different. If true that it is 3300 kgs then Mooh mein ghee shakar else nothing! :D


3300 kg of internal fuel. Was mentioned by the ADA gentleman who gave the interview to Shiv Aroor.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4306
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Kartik » 21 Feb 2019 13:30

tsarkar wrote:
dkhare wrote:2. IRST?

No IRST as Litening suffices.


Actually there is an IRST now. See the MWF images, not the wind tunnel model.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4306
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Kartik » 21 Feb 2019 13:31

Katare wrote:I can’t understand the math here. F404-IN20 provides 19,000lb of thrust while the f414-INS6 is rated at 22,000lb.

For additional 3000lb of thrust they are talking about adding additional ~7000lb of payload, significantly higher (at least a few thousand lbs) fuel to increase endurance/range, enlarging the body size and all kind of additional sensors and electronics.

This impossible goal can only be achieved with a very significant reduction in empty weight and miraculous improvements in aerodynamics.

To me, it looks like they are setting themselves up for the failure again. It should stay as LCA mk 2 not some crazy fat MWF. Looks a lot like Classic case of project scope creep gone crazy


Please do a comparison with the Mirage-2000's empty weight, MTOW, payload and onboard fuel. You'll see what category the MWF is being targeted for.

sajaym
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 44
Joined: 04 Feb 2019 09:11

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

Postby sajaym » 21 Feb 2019 14:15



That tenders have been issued at such an early stage for such a project is a great step ahead. This is a positive development which needs to be built on.

The next logical step after this is to allow private companies to build each section and deliver to HAL for integration... somewhat like how the Eurofighter is assembled. What I would suggest is that we create Aeronautical Tech Parks with companies clustered around to produce the equivalent of a single production line. Then the same companies in one cluster will propogate other clusters in other Tech Parks at other locations.

For e.g. in TECH PARK 1 (BANGALORE) you'll have

HAL LTD - MWF INTEGRATOR 1
AMAR LTD - MWF Front section with canards
AKBAR LTD - MWF Mid section
ANTONY LTD - MWF Rear section

in TECH PARK 2 (NASHIK):

AMAR LTD - MWF INTEGRATOR 2
SUSHMA LTD - MWF Front section with canards
SANGEETHA LTD - MWF Mid section
PUSHPA LTD - MWF Rear section


in TECH PARK 3 (JORHAT):

AKBAR LTD - MWF INTEGRATOR 3
SALEEMA LTD - MWF Front section with canards
AMINA LTD - MWF Mid section
FATIMA LTD - MWF Rear section

in TECH PARK 4 (COIMBATORE):

ANTONY LTD - MWF INTEGRATOR 4
SUSIE LTD - MWF Front section with canards
DAISY LTD - MWF Mid section
TRACY LTD - MWF Rear section

Can you imagine the job opportunites and development which will result?! Leave alone the timely execution and fast delivery on projects?

The LCA, MWF & AMCA are all great projects...but relying heavily ONLY on the HAL for delivering these products on a timely basis is too much of a stretch. The MOD & the IAF really needs to spread their bets a little more at this point. Otherwise the MWF & the AMCA will also end up as endless shouting matches & blame games at the cost of national security.

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2380
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

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

Postby nam » 21 Feb 2019 15:27

Singha wrote:6500kg is weapons is a absurd number!
What mission and loadout needs this?


The target loadout is more than Gripen's brochure claim of 6000 kg.

Gripen will get away with it, while we will be held to it.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18087
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 21 Feb 2019 16:08

Singha wrote:6500kg is weapons is a absurd number!
What mission and loadout needs this?


Singha,

3x 1000 kg class bombs eg Griffin NGLGB/ missiles/ heavy PGMs eg ASB Glide, 3.2 T+ (with pylons, depending on their weight can move this upwards )
2x CCM (2x pylons) + 2x BVR (2x pylons) ~600 kg
3x Fuel tanks (~2000 kg+)
1x LDP/sensor (~220 kg)

This is a standard long range strike config. with the capability to self-defend & escort. As you can see we rapidly approach the 6.5T figure.

sankum
BRFite
Posts: 624
Joined: 20 Dec 2004 21:45

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

Postby sankum » 21 Feb 2019 17:10

Saurav Jha
@SJha1618
That is an aspiration. The IAF wants at least 6 tons. I spent a couple of hours at the place you mention.
@rahul_dhammi
Replying to @SJha1618
Payload is 6.5 Tons as mentioned by Group Head of ADA , not 6.0 tons as mentioned by you.


IAF is okay if empty weight of MWF hits 7.5T. They want minimum payload to be 6T.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66591
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

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

Postby Singha » 21 Feb 2019 17:18

>> 3x 1000 kg class bombs eg Griffin NGLGB/ missiles/ heavy PGMs

all of the bombs dropped in vayu shakti were 450kg (1000lb) or smaller.
do we really use any 1000kg (ie 2400kg) of bombs?

sometimes i have seen FAB500/BETAB500 on sukhois which map to 1400lb but no bigger.

the KH59/Popeye types are 1000kg or heavier but we dont seem to have any plan to manufacture local designs , so numbers remain weak.

Karthik S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4936
Joined: 18 Sep 2009 12:12

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

Postby Karthik S » 21 Feb 2019 17:26

Are 450 kg enough for large buildings? I saw US use 2000 pounder (910 kg) on bunkers and buildings in Afghanistan.

OT, why we don't develop bunker busters (2000+ kgs) such as GBU 28 37 etc?

sankum
BRFite
Posts: 624
Joined: 20 Dec 2004 21:45

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

Postby sankum » 21 Feb 2019 17:30

In the Livefist video 1000Kg weapons are planned on MWF. If mid wing station hardpoint payload has been raised to 1000Kg from 800Kg in mk1 and innermost hardpoint to 1500Kg from 1200Kg.

Max loadout 2*1500kg brahmos loadout+3*1000Kg PGMs+200kg optronic pod+250kg pgm on belly hardpint parallel to optronic pod+2*100 Kg CCM additional=6650Kg.

Its a bomb truck.

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1395
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby Thakur_B » 21 Feb 2019 19:54

^^ Sankum ji, the centerline hard point is rated at 1200 kg in mk1.

sankum
BRFite
Posts: 624
Joined: 20 Dec 2004 21:45

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

Postby sankum » 21 Feb 2019 20:04

I am putting just 1000kg pgm there. Doubt whether it can carry 1320litre EFT or 1500kg pgm.

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1187
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

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

Postby Gyan » 21 Feb 2019 20:14

I think MWF = LCA MK2 specifications are achievable. It falls between Mirage 2000 and F-16XL both of which are 30-40 year old designs. See below for lazy jingos

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16XL

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_Mirage_2000

nash
BRFite
Posts: 828
Joined: 08 Aug 2008 16:48

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

Postby nash » 21 Feb 2019 20:33

Saurav Jha
‏Verified account @SJha1618

Yes, yes, Tejas Mk-2 has the whole shebang 17.5 ton MTOW, dual ejecter racks, 5 hardpoints with plumbing ( total 11), IRST, 6 ton external payload, 28 degree AoA refined UEWS etc etc. Let's hope they can pull off all this. It is now supposed to replace the M2K, Jaguar & Mig 29.

https://twitter.com/SJha1618/status/1098510146693545985


M2K+Jag+Mig-29 = ~12 squadron and IAF want 12 squadron of MWF .

Mig-29 and Jag will phase out from mid of next decade and M2K by 2030+.

Time lines seem to be in sync, only probable problem I see empty production for couple of years.
Last edited by nash on 21 Feb 2019 20:33, edited 1 time in total.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4116
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby JayS » 21 Feb 2019 20:33

Rakesh wrote:https://twitter.com/SJha1618/status/1098296685023744000 ---> Ok, as far as the Tejas Mk-2 'Medium Weight Fighter' is concerned it seems the user has requested that the SCALP air to surface missile be integrated with it.


SCALP is confirmed. Thus shown on model. Center pylon capacity has gone up. Couldnt get exact number but say 1.5T or even more.

Astra may come earlier than expected, say in next 2yrs. Some preliminary studies done already by DRDL for LCA wing integration. But I am not much sanguine on this timeline.

Uttam is already integrated on one of the LSP. The one which is displayed KH2012. Its not a mock up. We should see flight test sometime in near future.

I spent like half the day at DRDO hall and I yet missed so many key questions to ask. I had a list of questions and I forgot I had one. :oops:

sankum
BRFite
Posts: 624
Joined: 20 Dec 2004 21:45

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

Postby sankum » 21 Feb 2019 20:36

Thanks JayS. whether the centreline pylon will be able to carry 1320 Lt EFT.

Shekhar Singh
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 17
Joined: 16 Sep 2018 14:55

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

Postby Shekhar Singh » 21 Feb 2019 20:45

Max. take Off Weight =17.5 tons
Weapon Load = 6.5 tons
So Loaded Weight = 11 tons
Internal Fuel = 3.3 tons
So empty weight = 11000 Kg - 3300 kg - 500 Kg (Additional Load) = 7200 KG (7.2 tons)
Last edited by Shekhar Singh on 21 Feb 2019 21:36, edited 1 time in total.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18087
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 21 Feb 2019 20:56

Singha wrote:>> 3x 1000 kg class bombs eg Griffin NGLGB/ missiles/ heavy PGMs

all of the bombs dropped in vayu shakti were 450kg (1000lb) or smaller.
do we really use any 1000kg (ie 2400kg) of bombs?


DRDO Tests 1000 Kg Class Indigenous Guided Glide Bomb (2014). Also tested in 2015, 16, 18 etc. Garuda (non winged version, 30km slant range), Garuthma (winged version, 100km range)
http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease. ... lid=113801
http://www.uniindia.com/drdo-indigenous ... 74340.html

240x KAB-1500 i.e. 1.5T (2018)
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ne ... 337956.cms

Why? Heavy targets. e.g.

http://www.indiandefencereview.com/news/iaf-the-strategic-force-of-choice/

Vietnam War saw B-52 strategic bombers unleashing up to 30 t bombs in each sortie for support of troops in close air support, i.e. in tactical role. In 1982 eight Israeli F-16s attacked Osrik nuclear reactor near Baghdad with 1000 Kg bombs each and totally destroyed this facility. It set back Iraq’s quest for nukes at least by a decade.


Also, SAAW will be our SDB type mass deployed weapon @ lower weights. See proposed Jaguar Max loadout here:
https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-8XwqVQLgZ60/ ... ster-1.jpg

The weapons @ 1,2,4,5,7 are indigenous ones. First one some swarming UAV proposal. 2nd a new CM, seen on LCA Mk2 model as well. 4, SAAW. 5. Likely the DRDO AShM in the works. 7. Astra.

Centerline for the idea of size of weapon 3. Looks like SPICE 2000.
https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Tz2tL9yiHkc/ ... ster-2.jpg
For comparison.
http://www.deagel.com/Defensive-Weapons ... 83001.aspx

sometimes i have seen FAB500/BETAB500 on sukhois which map to 1400lb but no bigger.
the KH59/Popeye types are 1000kg or heavier but we dont seem to have any plan to manufacture local designs , so numbers remain weak.


Please see above, we are definitely stocking up on 1000kg weapons.

sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1657
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

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

Postby sudeepj » 21 Feb 2019 22:08

chola wrote:
sudeepj wrote:Mk2 size is very close to the mirage 2000, which is an all aluminum aircraft with an empty weight of 7600 kgs. The mk2 will have a lot of composites, and in addition to a lighter weight engine. On the flip side, the aesa radar, the irst, the maws and the canard will all add weight. So I think 7000 kgs is going to be achievable goal.


If the specs and missions stay at the M2K’s then it is fine. Maybe I am too hung up over terms. For them to say “medium” implies something else to me and that means something like a SHornet.

I will be VERY happy if we end up with an indigenous M2K that you and Karthik-ji suggested.


When desi peeps name everything LIGHT combat aircraft, LIGHT combat helicopter, BABY boomer..
Desis are so self deprecating.. dont spend an ounce in marketing their achievements.. Enough of this light-shite..


When desis name something even a little aggressively..
This is just marketing bullshit.


You just cant please desis. :-)

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36285
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

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

Postby SaiK » 21 Feb 2019 22:25

Singha wrote: http://www.air-cosmos.com/upload/18/pic ... 399f83.jpg

i hope this loadout is not demanded :)
with single engine?

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2320
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby Cybaru » 21 Feb 2019 22:55

Indranil wrote:1. Dedicated IRST will be provided.
2. It is 3300 kg of internal fuel
3. The inlet is optimized for better low speed performance. So, taking off with 17.5 tons will not be a problem.
4. Making a Mirage sized aircraft, with the same empty weight, but of more capability is possible. Today, composite aerostructures can reduce part weights and part counts. Additionally, a lot LRUs have got miniaturized, and consolidated. This reduces the weight of their mounts. Vina calls this the spiraling down effect 8)


WOOOOOW!!!

That is almost 4200 liters of Jet Fuel!
It has 300 liters more fuel than M2k!!
The 414 is more fuel efficient than M53 engine.
If the inner pylons are rated for 1500 kgs then they can take the 1700 liter external fuel tanks.

The possibilities are immense!

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4840
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby Neshant » 21 Feb 2019 23:06

Hope they are not reaching for pie in the sky.

Keep the requirements realistic so the project does not spend years trying to achieve a bar set too high.

All hopes are being pinned on top level performance of the engine in the airframe with zero margin given to design constraints. A red flag surely.


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests