Tejas Mk.2 News & Discussions: 25 February 2018

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 62721
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

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

Postby Singha » 22 May 2018 12:30

It will not be a hot rod but perhaps we will fund the epe 414 in which us navy is not interested

Neither is the rafale much of a hot rod ...agile and versatile but not a energy oriented sports car of the f16a or f22 mould

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6750
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Postby Indranil » 22 May 2018 22:09

It will be pretty okay in A2A loadout.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15358
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 23 May 2018 02:26

JayS wrote:
Karan M wrote:https://www.theweek.in/theweek/current/2018/05/18/interview-s-christopher-chairman-drdo.html

You had a problem with the LCA for the Navy. The Navy has said no to it for their present carrier programmes.



So does this means the lifts are being enlarged to fit NLCA MK2...?

If this is the case and given authoritative statements about LCA MK2 being 17.5T, then something really interesting is brewing up in ADA. Can't wait to find out the details.

Its good and bad both. Hopefully they will be able to keep in realistic so no project creep happens.


New lifts.

Enjoy the ride saar. With 123 produced units, MK2 will be much more capable and will at least give us a workhorse jet.

Hope they also include some reduced RCS features.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15358
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 23 May 2018 02:36

Singha wrote:It will not be a hot rod but perhaps we will fund the epe 414 in which us navy is not interested

Neither is the rafale much of a hot rod ...agile and versatile but not a energy oriented sports car of the f16a or f22 mould


Rafale is a hot rod saar. The claims it is not mostly stem from a comparison to EF and F-22 with most of the writing being from the perfidious Albion types.

USN F/A-18 E/F pilot:

“The Rafale, once I go up and fight it, it’s a fast aircraft,” he said. “It’s got a very good thrust-to-weight ratio. We’re not used to seeing some of the speeds they operate at. The Super Hornet is is a great maneuverable aircraft and we see some advantages when we fight them.”

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19384
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

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

Postby Philip » 23 May 2018 10:02

Karan.Reduced RCS.Quite right. What I've been saying that we should use the MK-2 opportunity to introduce as much stealth features as possible, a stepping stone to the AMCA. If the MK-2 also comes with a 3D TVC engine it would be a great increase in WVR capability.We should not be blinkered in a search for the MK-2 engine with the threats of US sanctions if we maintain our military and economic ties with Russia.Relying solely upon US key components will be the equiv. of cutting off a tree branch while sitting on the same part !

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3390
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby JayS » 23 May 2018 10:39

Indranil wrote:It will be pretty okay in A2A loadout.


Yeah. The doubts on maneuverability for Mk2 are unfounded. (Make no mistake IAF WILL NOT accept such aircraft AT ALL. If you don't trust ADA can deliver, have trust in IAF, that they will not accept it :D ). It should be pretty agile even with significant weight gain. I do not think there is any reason to believe MK2 will have any less agility in A2A than MK1 has even with the new 17.5T MTOW version.

At significantly higher weapons load - bomb truck config, no aircraft in the world retains maneuverability anyway.

Trikaal
BRFite
Posts: 321
Joined: 19 Jul 2017 08:01

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

Postby Trikaal » 23 May 2018 19:29

If Mk2 is to be 17.5 ton MTOW, would it not make sense to make it twin engined? This will give the added security to N-Mk2 as twin engined carrier based aircraft. If we are worried about excessive testing, the changes between Mk1 and Mk2 are already significant enough that entirely new testing of all features will be required anyway. Also, twin engine means power to spare if new stuff needs to be added a couple of decades down the line in MLU.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3390
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby JayS » 23 May 2018 19:49

Trikaal wrote:If Mk2 is to be 17.5 ton MTOW, would it not make sense to make it twin engined? This will give the added security to N-Mk2 as twin engined carrier based aircraft. If we are worried about excessive testing, the changes between Mk1 and Mk2 are already significant enough that entirely new testing of all features will be required anyway. Also, twin engine means power to spare if new stuff needs to be added a couple of decades down the line in MLU.


If you make it twin engine, next someone will ask why not make it 25T MTOW aircraft since we have so much of power available. There is no end to wish list.

LCA Mk2 will only occasionally use full 17.5T config in real life, even the twin jet fighters wouldn't fly with that kind of weapons load much. Its quite useful to fight brochure wars with firagi jets, not so much the real wars. :wink:

By the time we master naval fighter technology and make a reliable NLCA mk2, we would have AMCA TD at hand. Its better to jump to NAMCA as twin jet Naval fighter then.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50094
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby ramana » 23 May 2018 21:11

Philip wrote:Karan.Reduced RCS.Quite right. What I've been saying that we should use the MK-2 opportunity to introduce as much stealth features as possible, a stepping stone to the AMCA. If the MK-2 also comes with a 3D TVC engine it would be a great increase in WVR capability. We should not be blinkered in a search for the MK-2 engine with the threats of US sanctions if we maintain our military and economic ties with Russia. Relying solely upon US key components will be the equiv. of cutting off a tree branch while sitting on the same part !


Philip How can you say that?
Asking for stealth is like contradictory requirements. As Dr. Christopher says and confirmed from many, many foreign airplane designers, 70% of radar stealth comes from shaping, the rest 30 % from materials including spray coatings. Changing the shape which gives the most benefit will mean scrapping the current Mk2 and start fresh. Same with materials as the wings etc. have to be changed and qualified. It took US 15 to 20 years to complete the designs. F-35 is still going thru development testing. Spray coat even Abdul the amby mechanic can do that. What do you get for this? Delay by 15 years. Is this what you want?
And this WVR capability is a throwback to Sopwith Camel and such vintage planes that needed to maneuver into the third quadrant and get close to deliver the gun fire. And where will you get the 3D TVC engines in the China Bazar? And it runs hot and that defeats the stealth as it can be spotted from miles away.

You say all things and contradict in next sentences.
Why the confusion?
If senior members can't think straight what is the point of this forum lasting for 20 years?

Do you realize the IAF is dwindling numbers and the other option is to buy expensive junk planes.

That to from the US which you don't like that much.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50094
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby ramana » 23 May 2018 21:12

JayS wrote:
Indranil wrote:It will be pretty okay in A2A loadout.


Yeah. The doubts on maneuverability for Mk2 are unfounded. (Make no mistake IAF WILL NOT accept such aircraft AT ALL. If you don't trust ADA can deliver, have trust in IAF, that they will not accept it :D ). It should be pretty agile even with significant weight gain. I do not think there is any reason to believe MK2 will have any less agility in A2A than MK1 has even with the new 17.5T MTOW version.

At significantly higher weapons load - bomb truck config, no aircraft in the world retains maneuverability anyway.


Yes they would rather be penguins.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19384
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

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

Postby Philip » 24 May 2018 04:03

My point was that if there is going to be major differences in the MK-2 , as said before, rather than some mere "stretching" of the fuselage for a larger engine,then the opportunity could be used to increase its stealth capability.More composites and if the fuselage is going to be modified, intakes as well .Some say canards may be added.So it appears from details being discussed that it is a major mod. job.In previous types like the MIG-23/27 as well as Jags, we've had different nose profiles.The nose could be shaped differently too as in the stealth aircraft proliferating globally.The SU-57 comes with conformal radars and a new IRST. Why can't we experiment with developing the same for the AMCA but install it first on the MK-2.Then there's TVC.Engines are available both from the West and Ru.These possibilities would give a quantum increase in the MK-2s capability , bringing it upto contemporary developments instead of reinventing a 4th-gen. bird of middling legacy F-16 std. that Pak already posses.

I don't see how incremental stealth for the LCA is a bad idea.Just as some FGFA elements are supposedly on Ru SU-35s, so too could the MK-2 benefit with the same.I'm not advocating it be turned into a twin-engined bird, that would be a new bird altogether.

barath_s
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 31
Joined: 03 Apr 2017 10:40

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

Postby barath_s » 26 May 2018 19:33

Philip, every product design starts with a concept. You are advocating complete change of concept with the contradictory notion of 'as possible'.
Stealth shaping is usually not done by piecemeal modifications and throwing in another couple of items into the sales pot..

The LCA Mk2 concept design is supposedly frozen. Revisiting this and going for computation heavy analysis of concept will make it into an ALCA initiative that can be slotted after the AMCA is completed, given the number of years work put into AMCA.

If you are looking to scrap LCA Mk 2, please state it directly, else it may appear to be a sneak sabotage by adding additional requirements that require one to start from zero. (as many longtime indian defence followers are aware of such examples)

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15358
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 26 May 2018 19:52

Philip, I said reduced RCS features. Not, "stealth" - there's a difference.
The LCA already features Y shaped intakes which should shield a significant portion of engine face from radar.
v -Incremental features could include adding RCS baffles provided they don't impede air flow.
LCA features already treating radar hot spots.
-Incremental addition on Mk2 could include newer, lighter RCS paints/surface treatment for expanded coverage and better performance. Also, treated canopies.
LCA will have an AESA.
-Incremental improvement could be treating the structure for radar mounting with RCS absorbent material (as in F-16s etc), canting the antenna to reflect radar waves away, or even a frequency selective radome (tech on which NAL is working)
Other improvements - saw tooth edge treatment (as is common on the Rafale), frequency selective antennae, better/wideband antennae (minimize protrusions) and flush air data sensors (again, to minimize surface discontinuities).

All this can be incrementally added to the LCA

None of this requires radical changes to the fighters design, true stealth via shaping or brand new aerodynamics research and significant time delays.

Please understand the difference.

Second, if you think adding TVC is just about the engine, I am not sure how all these years on BRF have been helpful for you. Because adding a TVC engine comes with significant weight gains, changing the entire layout of the aircraft (rebalancing), with additions required to flight control and myriad other changes throughout the systems and flight control regime.

Philip wrote:My point was that if there is going to be major differences in the MK-2 , as said before, rather than some mere "stretching" of the fuselage for a larger engine,then the opportunity could be used to increase its stealth capability.More composites and if the fuselage is going to be modified, intakes as well .Some say canards may be added.So it appears from details being discussed that it is a major mod. job.In previous types like the MIG-23/27 as well as Jags, we've had different nose profiles.The nose could be shaped differently too as in the stealth aircraft proliferating globally.The SU-57 comes with conformal radars and a new IRST. Why can't we experiment with developing the same for the AMCA but install it first on the MK-2.Then there's TVC.Engines are available both from the West and Ru.These possibilities would give a quantum increase in the MK-2s capability , bringing it upto contemporary developments instead of reinventing a 4th-gen. bird of middling legacy F-16 std. that Pak already posses.

I don't see how incremental stealth for the LCA is a bad idea.Just as some FGFA elements are supposedly on Ru SU-35s, so too could the MK-2 benefit with the same.I'm not advocating it be turned into a twin-engined bird, that would be a new bird altogether.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 62721
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

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

Postby Singha » 26 May 2018 20:08

https://defenseissues.net/2013/08/24/da ... is/Stealth

While Rafale is not a VLO aircraft, measures have been taken to reduce its radar cross section. Main aspect of stealth design is concentrating most radar returns in very small number of “spikes”, which leads to design that emphasizes small number of parallel surfaces. But frontally, main contributor to RCS in traditional fighter aircraft are engine faces. Thus, modern designs, including Rafale, have curved intakes that hide engine faces.

Further, Rafale has sawtooth design on all surfaces that are not angled when viewed from front, such as inner air intake surface as well as wing and canard trailling edge control surfaces; all panels and landing gear doors also have sawtooth design. Rafale’s fin is radar-transparent, and air intakes are treated with RAM. It can also carry 2 missiles in wingtip carriage; drag- and RCS- -wise, these missiles are almost irrelevant. Rafale’s canopy is also coated with gold, which reduces RCS signature from rather uneven cockpit innards, while protrusions are used to hide gap between canards and the airframe. All these measures provide Rafale with frontal RCS that is, according to Dassault, 1/10 of Mirage; this translates into 0,1-0,2 m2.

While non-retractable probe does cause small increase in RCS, Dassault opted for it instead of retractrable one in order to reduce mechanical complexity and increase fuel flow, thus reducing refuelling time.

As for IR stealth, engine features described above, as well as Rafale’s excellent aerodynamic design, make Rafale’s IR signature comparatively low, far lower than so-called stealth fighters’ (F-22 and F-35, though F-22 may have lower IR signature from direct rear). Additional factor in reducing aircraft’s IR signature is Hot Spot treatment.

Engines are smokeless, which helps reduce visual signature. However, all these stealth measures are worthless if fighter is using its radar to find the enemy. Thus Rafale has a wide array of passive sensors which allow detection, identification and targeting of airborne and surface targets; more about these later.

sawtooth
Image

sawtooth
Image

one more sawtooth under the nose and a fairing to make sure canard is flush against fuselage
Image

sawtooth
Image

a smoothly oiled machine with every sensor internal except the LDP. drop the LDP and every offensive and defensive sensor is internal....and sharp teeth in upto 8 AAMs, some cued by IRST feed.

a slippery serpent for sure.

it will need a comprehensive CAD CAM skin and RCS analysis and some math model ... but once done it should be fairly simply to work out what sawtooth can be done .... but 100s perhaps 1000s of screws and rivets may need to be slighly moved and any change in panels rolls back into design drawings fed to machines and 3rd party vendors ...... its a project, not a hack job and cannot be done as a MLU ... can be done on a new airframe only.

but well worth starting it and incorporating it into Mk1A itself when its done.....no point waiting on Mk2.

srin
BRFite
Posts: 1554
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

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

Postby srin » 26 May 2018 21:41

^^^ Correct me if I'm wrong. Despite all the RCS decreases of the airframe, if you load it with missiles, bombs, drop tanks, target pods, jamming pods, it is going to be rather reflective. I don't know how much, but my WAG is it is going to be significant. So, while I'm sure it is quite useful in some scenarios (fast egress from enemy territory), on the whole I don't see the point.

You need recessed/conformal weapons bays at the very least to make a practical difference.

JMT

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 62721
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

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

Postby Singha » 26 May 2018 22:41

being able to escape skin intact has its own value I suppose, while retaining the wingtip AAMs for self defence if confronted directly, else show a clean pair of heels.

nam
BRFite
Posts: 1094
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

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

Postby nam » 26 May 2018 23:00

Even if the reflections are reduced to the minimum, there is one major issue. B2 is said to have the RCS of bumble bee, wonderful, however bumble bees don't fly subsonic or supersonic.

Modern radars & operator should quite easily figure out there is a bogey out there flying subsonic/supersonic, even if the reflection is small. Even if the reflections are lost in the noise, I presume modern algorithms can see "noise" moving quite fast.

So true stealth is EW. Spoofing the radar, IFF, flying within radar gaps etc are probably real stealth. Then use standoff weapons and run back.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 62721
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

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

Postby Singha » 26 May 2018 23:21

but wont the distance for the radar to detect a bumble bee be quite small like 1km? its said a huge X-band like Bars can detect the F22 at around 20km. if you let the dog that close, he would suddenly launch AAMs and start vertical climbing immelman turn in which he is strong. 20km is almost the seeker range of most modern AAMs....so F&F.

cost ofcourse is the massive post-mission maalish paalish needed in AC cooled hangers, special coatings and portable rcs test, every detail and panel screwed on tight like a iphone....must need a lot of groundcrew to make it work and costly base infra. translate that to a B2 size plane and no wonder each puppy weighs in at a hefty 1b in 1990 prices.

nam
BRFite
Posts: 1094
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

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

Postby nam » 26 May 2018 23:41

Ofcourse, the distance will be small. Nowadays given mobile powerful radars on SAMs like S400, they can see quite deep in to enemy territory, probably can detect it a bit earlier. Distributed, early warning radars will have a better chance. With networked radars, you could probably play around with the Electronic Orbat. Deliberately keep a radar gap, move in a mobile radar, switch it on/off radomly etc.

Do remember in Desert Storm, the door was kicked opened by AH64s, despite the presence of F117 and HARM. Americans probably did not wanted take chance with the Iraqi Early warning radars.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 62721
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

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

Postby Singha » 27 May 2018 00:08

^^^ I have always felt that was SOCOM pulling some strings to good publicity before the main thing started, Schwartzkopf hated the socom despite having a detail of delta force as personal guard (!) he cancelled all their plans and went for a big western europe type campaign plan....only grudgingly under potus pressure he allowed socom to try and hunt the scuds which was unsuccessful but pronounced as successful for political reason like the PAC1 vs scud thing. scud hunting consisted of F15 orbiting over potential launch areas in anbar at night with numbers of small bombs and dropping one now and then to "let the iraqis know" that american assets were on the hunt and present.

those radars could have been attacked by N number of assets.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15358
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 27 May 2018 00:49

srin wrote:^^^ Correct me if I'm wrong. Despite all the RCS decreases of the airframe, if you load it with missiles, bombs, drop tanks, target pods, jamming pods, it is going to be rather reflective. I don't know how much, but my WAG is it is going to be significant. So, while I'm sure it is quite useful in some scenarios (fast egress from enemy territory), on the whole I don't see the point.

You need recessed/conformal weapons bays at the very least to make a practical difference.

JMT


RCS is tied to EW effectiveness. Smaller the RCS, lower the ERP required of the EW suite.
If you have some RCS spikes, eg weapons etc, you can still manage by tuning the EW suite. However, if the whole aircraft is a slab sided brick, with exposed fan blades, then your EW itself will announce the aircraft and power required will be insane.
All you can do is attempt to break the missile lock, because you will be detected at a distance.

ashishvikas
BRFite
Posts: 288
Joined: 17 Oct 2016 14:18

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

Postby ashishvikas » 27 May 2018 10:14

Interview/ S. Christopher, chairman, DRDO

But, the drag has been on conventional platforms—combat aircraft especially.

The Light Combat Aircraft programme has been on for some time. But, in the last few years, we got the induction, squadron formation all done. The credit goes to [former defence minister] Manohar Parrikar. He pushed us all. The LCA is flying. Mark 2 and Mark 1A are coming. There will be 83 Mark-1As.

But, there has been a delay.


Seven or eight years ago, we were told to increase the length [and] change the engine [of the aircraft].... After taking up the project, we looked for the engine. By the time the engine landed, HAL [Hindustan Aeronautics Limited] thought they should get orders fast. Then, IAF got ambitious. They had the Rafale coming with AESA radar, though it originally came without it. They asked for the ultimate radar in LCA, too. You assure me that you will give it, and I will give you [order for] 83, they [IAF] said. We said ho jayega.

Anyway, we are finalising Mark-2. It will take another month. With all the changes, it will not be a LCA. It is not in 10 tonnes category, but 17.5 tonnes category. It will be medium weight.

https://www.theweek.in/theweek/current/ ... -drdo.html

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 62721
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

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

Postby Singha » 27 May 2018 12:40

good move to build the Mk2 as a full-up Rafale

will be good stepping stone to higher levels of manufacture and design needed in AMCA for a "true" VLO platform, not showbaazi stealth.

Haridas
BRFite
Posts: 286
Joined: 26 Dec 2017 07:53

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

Postby Haridas » 27 May 2018 22:09

nam wrote:Even if the reflections are reduced to the minimum, there is one major issue. B2 is said to have the RCS of bumble bee, wonderful, however bumble bees don't fly subsonic or supersonic.

Modern radars & operator should quite easily figure out there is a bogey out there flying subsonic/supersonic, even if the reflection is small. Even if the reflections are lost in the noise, I presume modern algorithms can see "noise" moving quite fast.....

Ahaaaa, assumptions and wishes divorced from real investment in equipment and worse in number of IAF personnel frozen since 30 years ago; while need for signal units, skills & facility to keep it running, much less continously run the cat & mouse game of one-up men ship in technology & signal/information processing. Go to a IAF SU or meet your uncle working there and you would know they are living in cavemen style while what you speak of is iPhone, VR , AI and Facebook living.

Sad but true. To make a difference, one must ensure a clean government and determined Defense Minister for 20 years. Not some aloo (potato ) Anthony and Mauni Kaathputli (puppet) Singh.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3160
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

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

Postby Cain Marko » 28 May 2018 01:04

Singha wrote:good move to build the Mk2 as a full-up Rafale

will be good stepping stone to higher levels of manufacture and design needed in AMCA for a "true" VLO platform, not showbaazi stealth.


If it is a rafalesque bird that is wanted, why not go the whole hog and convert it to a twin engined MRCA using Snecma-Kaveri? IN one stroke, we could:
- Take care of MRCA need
- Take care of Navy need
- Get a platform that can be easily kitted out with internal sensors, jammers etc.
- Get rid of the power constraints that have hounded the lca
- Get rid of the dependency on engines that might be liable for sanctions

What I'd really like to see is a straight commitment to 250 plus LCA mk1 or mk1A and redesign of Mk2 into above 4.5 gen++ bird readied in 10 years. Even if they managed a mini M4K, it would be awesome.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 62721
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

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

Postby Singha » 28 May 2018 16:46

I think they hope to retain same wing on mk2 and reduce fcs test to minimum

A new wing is big fcs changes

JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2278
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

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

Postby JTull » 28 May 2018 16:53

We shouldn't forget that LCA derived MCA will be a different bird from AMCA. Different capabilities! Expecting creep of AMCAesque features in MCA are only going to delay it considerably. Aim is to have an aircraft that'll stop all this talk of F-16/18/gripen/etc.
Last edited by JTull on 28 May 2018 17:05, edited 1 time in total.

Bhaskar_T
BRFite
Posts: 239
Joined: 13 Feb 2011 19:09

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

Postby Bhaskar_T » 28 May 2018 16:58

Why Tejas MK2 being in Medium Weight category is not being celebrated as Lungi Dance fanfare moment by Rakshaks? Is it because of expected long delays and scope creeps? This likely means more orders for Tejas MK1A (assuming new MMRCA competition will die).

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7804
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

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

Postby Pratyush » 28 May 2018 17:28

Bhaskar_T wrote:Why Tejas MK2 being in Medium Weight category is not being celebrated as Lungi Dance fanfare moment by Rakshaks? Is it because of expected long delays and scope creeps? This likely means more orders for Tejas MK1A (assuming new MMRCA competition will die).



Maybe no one is sure of the time line at this point in time.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35729
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

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

Postby SaiK » 28 May 2018 21:41

I strongly believe in not losing aerodynamics for stealth. It just doesn't makes sense. Mk2++ or better Mk3 platform can focus on internal shape deflections and highly permeable aerodynamic shapes to meet mach 2.5+. Why this struggle when we have strong kevlar composites that we used for radomes.? Gurus?

And we can have stealth unlike looks with virtually nothing on the enemy radar for 100s of miles. Chippanda will lungi shibber.

RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5179
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

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

Postby RoyG » 28 May 2018 21:48

SaiK wrote:I strongly believe in not losing aerodynamics for stealth. It just doesn't makes sense. Mk2++ or better Mk3 platform can focus on internal shape deflections and highly permeable aerodynamic shapes to meet mach 2.5+. Why this struggle when we have strong kevlar composites that we used for radomes.? Gurus?


With data fusion, HMCS for a2a coupled with a2g smart weapons, maneuverability is less important these days. F22-F-35 can wipe all 4-4.5 gen fighters out of the sky with relative ease. The trend is laser, stand off smart munitions and EM kinetic energy rounds doing almost all the heavy lifting. Drones doing the rest. Pilot in the loop will be relevant maybe for another 2 decades but that's it.

pravula
BRFite
Posts: 216
Joined: 07 Aug 2009 05:01

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

Postby pravula » 28 May 2018 21:53

Pratyush wrote:
Bhaskar_T wrote:Why Tejas MK2 being in Medium Weight category is not being celebrated as Lungi Dance fanfare moment by Rakshaks? Is it because of expected long delays and scope creeps? This likely means more orders for Tejas MK1A (assuming new MMRCA competition will die).



Maybe no one is sure of the time line at this point in time.


Because this is Arjun redux. Mk2 will be used to kill MK1A orders and Mk2 will be sent through a series of requirement changes. Then IAF will "suddenly" realize the aircraft is bigger than the Mig-21 pens and/or tractors and will require new infra and therefore ADA failed. We know the next few steps.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3160
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

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

Postby Cain Marko » 28 May 2018 22:58

Singha wrote:I think they hope to retain same wing on mk2 and reduce fcs test to minimum

A new wing is big fcs changes


JTull wrote:We shouldn't forget that LCA derived MCA will be a different bird from AMCA. Different capabilities! Expecting creep of AMCAesque features in MCA are only going to delay it considerably. Aim is to have an aircraft that'll stop all this talk of F-16/18/gripen/etc.


I think the scope creep on the lca mk2 will make it's development anything but fast. I don't expect it to be ready for production any time soon. Just look at the gripen e time line.

And then the mk2 is very likely to suffer from similar issues... Low space, weight creep along with low power. The Frenchies produced the m4k in rather short order, and perhaps a twin engined LCAmk2 would be available in the same time frame considering that there will be greater margins available.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 62721
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

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

Postby Singha » 28 May 2018 23:05

how about a moveable shock cone M2k style or internal constrictor within the air intakes to push up top speed to Mach2.2 from Mach1.8

will permit better escape velocity after those dpsa missions :D

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3160
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

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

Postby Cain Marko » 29 May 2018 09:13

Saar, you knows the answer to that better than me.... The top speed is not such a pressing requirement any more, unless you are Russian of course and can produce a m2 bird like the pakfa, and are determined to outfly mijjiles.. The shock cones won't do much for thrust which is where I foresee the problem esp. For a naval version.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 62721
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

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

Postby Singha » 29 May 2018 13:08

i guess the redesigned longer airframe and other refinements will improve the acceleration from 0 all the way to mach1.8
fighters prefer to patrol at high subsonic but chase and launch missiles at supersonic for better energy.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35729
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

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

Postby SaiK » 29 May 2018 15:03


Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 62721
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

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

Postby Singha » 29 May 2018 15:24

looks like the hawks and rebels are already out to show their 'defiance' in true indian style.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2545
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

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

Postby chola » 29 May 2018 17:52

Singha wrote:i guess the redesigned longer airframe and other refinements will improve the acceleration from 0 all the way to mach1.8
fighters prefer to patrol at high subsonic but chase and launch missiles at supersonic for better energy.



How will that happen without a new engine? The M-88 our French friends have with won’t be able to support this either unless we redesign the LCA to go two engine. If the French can re-jig Kaveri so it is racheted up to the Al-31 class then maybe it stays single. But even WE have more experience with a heavyweight engine (by HAL’s building of the AL-31 for MKI) than the French.

As the DRDO chair Christopher said this is no longer a 10 tonnes light category aircraft but 17.5 tonnes medium one. This thing will take a LONG time to come to fruition.

I hope the Mk2 is not used as some pie-in-the-sky end goal that cuts into the sales of the Mk1A. (“Let’s cap our Mk1A buy at 84 and wait for the super Mini-Rafale coming down the pike.”)

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10961
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

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

Postby Gagan » 01 Jun 2018 20:59

So there are three fighter programs currently running
LCA Mk1a: Single engined, light fighter, with AESA
MCA Mk2: Single engined, medium fighter, with AESA. Comparable to Mirage 2000 upg
AMCA: Twin engined, stealth, AESA.

Problem is AMCA might be small, engine might be under powered unless they have a new engine. Supercruise has already been dropped, are they going to drop full stealth too? An external litening pod!! External stores !!

All we need is a medium Tu-22 sized long range bomber project and the IAF will be a superpower!!!


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ArjunPandit, dnivas, Google [Bot], nvishal and 45 guests