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.
Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3892
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Kartik » 19 May 2018 00:29

srin wrote:One question I have is: with a 17.5t MTOW, will a GE F414 suffice ? My concern is - would we be back to "it is underpowered" situation ?


It will give the Tejas Mk2 similar T/W ratio as the Mirage-2000-5. the Snecma M53-P2 produces ~98 kN in afterburner and ~64 kN in dry thrust. Similar to what the F-414-INS6 will produce. So as long as the weight management is done carefully and the empty weight stays ~7800 kgs to 8000 kgs and no more, the T/W ratio will be as good as that of the Mirage-2000-5. And I've not heard people complain about the Mirage being under-powered.

Raveen
BRFite
Posts: 441
Joined: 18 Jun 2008 00:51
Location: 1/2 way between the gutter and the stars
Contact:

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

Postby Raveen » 19 May 2018 02:18

Kartik wrote:
srin wrote:One question I have is: with a 17.5t MTOW, will a GE F414 suffice ? My concern is - would we be back to "it is underpowered" situation ?


It will give the Tejas Mk2 similar T/W ratio as the Mirage-2000-5. the Snecma M53-P2 produces ~98 kN in afterburner and ~64 kN in dry thrust. Similar to what the F-414-INS6 will produce. So as long as the weight management is done carefully and the empty weight stays ~7800 kgs to 8000 kgs and no more, the T/W ratio will be as good as that of the Mirage-2000-5. And I've not heard people complain about the Mirage being under-powered.



T/W is only one part of the equation, the other part is drag. I can give a giant slab of steel great T/W, but what I can't do is give it low enough drag for the T/W to matter.

There remain too many areas on the Mk.1 where drag reduction needs to be applied, hopefully this is the primary focus, that alone can help with responsiveness and agility.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3193
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

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

Postby Cain Marko » 19 May 2018 02:33

Cybaru wrote:
srin wrote:One question I have is: with a 17.5t MTOW, will a GE F414 suffice ? My concern is - would we be back to "it is underpowered" situation ?


the m53 powers the m2k-9 and it has never been called under powered. the F414 is very similar plus there is probably an enhanced version on the way.


Actually saar, the M53 and related power issues have always been considered the M2K's Achilles heel, especially wrt its peers the fulcrum and the viper. A quick read of the AM Masand article brings out this weakness.

Having said this, it will not likely be an issue for the IAF LCA mk2; the TWR is more than enough for a light fighter that makes up the numbers in the fleet. For the Navy version, it might be altogether another story! I have always felt that the F414 is too weak for stobar ops, especially when you add another 500-1000kg to the empty weight. If the weight for the IAF version is around 8000kg, we might as well forget about the naval version.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3892
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Kartik » 19 May 2018 04:14

Raveen wrote:
Kartik wrote:
It will give the Tejas Mk2 similar T/W ratio as the Mirage-2000-5. the Snecma M53-P2 produces ~98 kN in afterburner and ~64 kN in dry thrust. Similar to what the F-414-INS6 will produce. So as long as the weight management is done carefully and the empty weight stays ~7800 kgs to 8000 kgs and no more, the T/W ratio will be as good as that of the Mirage-2000-5. And I've not heard people complain about the Mirage being under-powered.



T/W is only one part of the equation, the other part is drag. I can give a giant slab of steel great T/W, but what I can't do is give it low enough drag for the T/W to matter.

There remain too many areas on the Mk.1 where drag reduction needs to be applied, hopefully this is the primary focus, that alone can help with responsiveness and agility.


You're stating the very obvious. The Mk2 is no "slab of steel" so I don't know why you're basically even mentioning this. Do you know that the Tejas Mk2 will be draggier than the Mirage-2000 is? Aerodynamic refinements were one of the key area of improvement for the Mk2 program, so rest assured that area ruling and wing to body blending will definitely be looked at in detail.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2195
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby Cybaru » 19 May 2018 04:32

Raveen wrote:
Kartik wrote:
It will give the Tejas Mk2 similar T/W ratio as the Mirage-2000-5. the Snecma M53-P2 produces ~98 kN in afterburner and ~64 kN in dry thrust. Similar to what the F-414-INS6 will produce. So as long as the weight management is done carefully and the empty weight stays ~7800 kgs to 8000 kgs and no more, the T/W ratio will be as good as that of the Mirage-2000-5. And I've not heard people complain about the Mirage being under-powered.



T/W is only one part of the equation, the other part is drag. I can give a giant slab of steel great T/W, but what I can't do is give it low enough drag for the T/W to matter.

There remain too many areas on the Mk.1 where drag reduction needs to be applied, hopefully this is the primary focus, that alone can help with responsiveness and agility.


From an older interview, AdA is aware and working on areas of issue.


"LCA Navy Mk-2 will not be delayed," said Balaji with a lot of confidence. "We are close to freezing its design, which has been simplified. The new design would be easy to implement."



LCA Navy Mk-2

Commodore Balaji's confidence was eye-opening - The biggest pay-off from the LCA Navy project may well be ADA's increasing confidence in its ability to tweak fighter aircraft design to squeeze out better performance. This is evident from the following

LCA Navy Mk-2 has been designed from the ground up as a Navy fighter, independently of Tejas LCA Mk-2.

The fuselage of the aircraft has been broadened and the wing roots moved outwards. As a result, aircraft design has been optimized for supersonic flight with perfect conformance to area rule. (Tejas LCA and LCA Navy Mk-1 do not conform perfectly to area ruling resulting in high supersonic drag.)

Mid section fuselage broadening allows undercarriage bays to be shifted outwards, allowing a simpler, straight and light undercarriage as in the Rafale.

Mid section fuselage broadening also increases fuel capacity.

That is three birds with one stone!

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 993
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

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

Postby Gyan » 19 May 2018 07:49

LCA MK1 has excessively large wing compared to any Single Engined Aircraft. Size of the the wing has been moderated in AMCA. A longer LCA MK2 with a relatively smaller wing, may do the trick, as the drag will be reduced.

hanumadu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3989
Joined: 11 Nov 2002 12:31

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

Postby hanumadu » 19 May 2018 09:20

How about the lift. Won't the increased size and weight need more lift, which in turn needs a larger wing area?

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3399
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby JayS » 19 May 2018 15:25

Cybaru wrote:
JayS wrote:
1.3m plug..? Fore IAF's MK2..? How come..? Last I checked MK2 is suppose to have 0.5m plug. It was my wish that they make it 15m long after they decided to go with canards.

17.5T is more than I expected. NLCA MK2 was suppose to have 16.5T. Anyhow, majority of the hike will be from increased payload capacity. I expected empty weight to be ~7.3T and internal fuel increased to 3.2-3.4T and max payload to 5T. Looks like they will go to max payload of 6T or so.


I don't think Ada ever worked on the 0.5 meter plug IAF variant as much. I think a lot of effort went into the mk2 to make it naval compliant and that is where they will pick up from. The 0.5 meter new variant for IAF didn't make sense one way or another. I think ada's initial thought of designing for navy and then extracting for iaf always made more sense and that is what may happen for mk-2 if we are lucky.

The LCA will be no different than mirage2k. The plane wings and plane will be hardened for max payload, but for most work, they will task it as usual, 1 ldp, 1 jammer, 2 pylons A2G (dumb or smart), 2 pylons with tanks (probably larger tanks allowing it more range) and 2CCM (3-4 ton) payload.


Arre Sir, MK2 with 0.5 plug is the only publically known version to my knowledge. Its preliminary design was frozen long back in 2014-15. The reason NLCA mk2 looks different is because it lagged significantly behing the AF version. I suggest you revisit the ADA annual review from last year.

Even though it makes all the sense in the universe to design a naval version, the NLCA development is been lagging too much. Even for AMCA IN is dragging its feet. While Preliminary config for AMCA is frozen for IAF, IN is yet to even formulate its SQR for NAMCA. No, learning from past is not really an SDRE thing.

Though now things have changed a bit for AF MK2 as canards are in picture. So its likely that its lenght is also changed. But I have not seen any number so far. And I am not expecting it to have changes like wing root shift and MLG repositioning etc. From the PDR config known previously, only known change so far is canard. Highly likely is wingtip mounted CCM too. I am waiting for annual report release for previous year to be released. That on will have quite a lot of info.

sankum
BRFite
Posts: 538
Joined: 20 Dec 2004 21:45

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

Postby sankum » 20 May 2018 00:33

Dr. Kota Harinarayana interview in Aeromag

http://www.aeromag.in/Magazines/6868929262.pdf
The LCA programme is progressing fast. ADA is also working on the Mk II version of LCA, which they like to be called as a Medium Weight Combat Aircraft as it will weigh around 17.5 tonnes which is 4 tonnes heavier than the LCA. After listening to the features and technologies of the aircraft, I believe it would have far superior range and capabilities than the Mirage 2000.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19551
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

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

Postby Philip » 20 May 2018 08:37

Fine mag filled with lots of news.Good to see Tejas " accelerating " well.Any MK-2 pics would be welcome.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6810
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Postby Indranil » 20 May 2018 09:08

I have never heard of a 17.5 ton in gossips. But Kota sir saying that changes everything. ADA chief has also said that it is going to be medium weight.

Interesting times ahead. Cannot be a 0.5 mtr plug if it is 17.5 tons. We are speaking of a plane CTOW of roughly 12 to 12.5 tons, which means internal fuel capacity close to 4 tons. Such a bird is going to rival Su-30 is range as Kota sir is saying.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7823
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

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

Postby Pratyush » 20 May 2018 09:18

Can this be done in the time frame required. Or are we likely to see 4 to 5 years for prototype and 5 year's of flight testing

fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2732
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

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

Postby fanne » 20 May 2018 09:53

and what would be the engine? can't be f414

Haridas
BRFite
Posts: 297
Joined: 26 Dec 2017 07:53

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

Postby Haridas » 20 May 2018 11:15

Indranil wrote:I cannot foresee this number. With apptoximately a 10% increase in thrust, i can’t see how they are going to get a more than 10% increase in the clean TOW. At max 15% to account for extra internal fuel. That would put the clean TOW below 11.5 tons. That would leave 6 tons of payload. I don’t know how they could possible carry 6 tons on 7 pylons!

Indranil ji, LCA mk2 becoming MCA imho means it truly becoming multi role aircraft (instead of a fighter prime role and light bomber secondary role) by significantly adding to its bombing strike capabelity ; so bomb truck confign does not constrain 10% engine thrust increase to 10-15% MTOW. In bomb truck role the MTOW increases and all that is required is longer runway runup. In fighter role ToW would be lower and it continue to leverage the higher thrust F414 engine.
Jmt.

srin
BRFite
Posts: 1558
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

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

Postby srin » 20 May 2018 12:01

Kartik wrote:
srin wrote:One question I have is: with a 17.5t MTOW, will a GE F414 suffice ? My concern is - would we be back to "it is underpowered" situation ?


It will give the Tejas Mk2 similar T/W ratio as the Mirage-2000-5. the Snecma M53-P2 produces ~98 kN in afterburner and ~64 kN in dry thrust. Similar to what the F-414-INS6 will produce. So as long as the weight management is done carefully and the empty weight stays ~7800 kgs to 8000 kgs and no more, the T/W ratio will be as good as that of the Mirage-2000-5. And I've not heard people complain about the Mirage being under-powered.


Brochure-comparing M53 and F414, I see two things:
- that M53 is some 400 kg heavier than the F414, for roughly the same spec. Is it that the M53 is an older gen engine or that F414 is phenomenally advanced ?
- that M53 dry thrust is some 15% more than the F414. Because I see only wet thrust figures mostly used for comparison, does the difference in dry thrust matter a lot ?

srin
BRFite
Posts: 1558
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

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

Postby srin » 20 May 2018 12:02

Haridas wrote:
Indranil wrote:I cannot foresee this number. With apptoximately a 10% increase in thrust, i can’t see how they are going to get a more than 10% increase in the clean TOW. At max 15% to account for extra internal fuel. That would put the clean TOW below 11.5 tons. That would leave 6 tons of payload. I don’t know how they could possible carry 6 tons on 7 pylons!

Indranil ji, LCA mk2 becoming MCA imho means it truly becoming multi role aircraft (instead of a fighter prime role and light bomber secondary role) by significantly adding to its bombing strike capabelity ; so bomb truck confign does not constrain 10% engine thrust increase to 10-15% MTOW. In bomb truck role the MTOW increases and all that is required is longer runway runup. In fighter role ToW would be lower and it continue to leverage the higher thrust F414 engine.
Jmt.


Wouldn't that necessarily mean that structure needs to be strengthened for increased load capacity and therefore empty weight increases ?

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19551
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

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

Postby Philip » 20 May 2018 12:47

LCA MK-2 is now the " MWCA" ! Yet anothef bird, "big birather" to Tejas..So it's virtually a new bird even more than the MIG-35 is from the legacy MIG-29.
However , there is a danger signal ahead.The US is warning us threatening to impose sanctions if we buy Russian defence eqpt. If that really happens then from the US's track record we can say goodbye to US engines for the LCA, spares,etc. for P- 8 Poseidons,C-17s, C-130Js, etc., etc.!

It's why I have for aeons , well over a decade, been wanting LCA prototypes flying with equiv. Western engines to the GE 404 and 414 in the future in case of US sanctions.The TVC variant of the Eurojet EJ 200, in the same league as the GE 414, SNECMA M88 and RD-33 would be a good choice.We should immediately invite those manufacturers to examine their engines for the LCA MWCA MK-2 as well as the LCA MK-1As of which over 80 will be built.Engines from the same family also for the AMCA as it is too dangerous to use US engines which will cripple the programmes if sanctions under a boorish bully like Trump are imposed.The Europeans, livid at the US abandoning the Iran B-8deal, are now examining lifting US led sanctions against Russia as they've been losing billions in exports as a consequence.Some even say that the EU must abandon the almighty $ and use the Euro in future for all its trade.

An Indian official team has just visited Russia and has been given a tour of the IL facility building new IL-476s and it's tanker and AWACS platform variants.Signs of things to come as we need more such variants for the IAF?

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 62932
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

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

Postby Singha » 20 May 2018 14:11

>> that M53 dry thrust is some 15% more than the F414.

an interesting article comparing various fighter engines though not the M53.

https://defenseissues.net/2014/12/06/fi ... mparision/

maybe the M53/M88/EJ200 with low bypass ratios are optimized for high alt and high dry thrust as a % of wet thrust - trading off a bit of fuel economy - a necessity for air to air missions to sustain nearly supersonic speed for longer periods. the 404/414 were designed for F-18 which operated mainly at medium level for strike and not so a2a oriented initially because the F-14 was there for the long range counterair mission...now after super hornet 414 design changes it has caught up with the euro engines...... the F135 engine still has 2X the bypass ratio of the M88 ... both a factor of the large engine size able to keep things moving with 50% air and perhaps need to meet the 900 mile combat radius range so fuel economy is important.

the fighter with the highest bypass ratio still operational is the RR RB199 on tornado with 1.1 - flies fast and slippery in the low alt DPSA mission
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bypass_ra ... ass_ratios
at other end we have ratio 12 on the latest geared turbofans with the huge fans on civilian planes. fuel sipping to the core with > 90% bypass air.

engine design seems like having to balance some 100s of interlinked factors in a house of cards , meeting the use cases and somehow getting a design that is still reliable and maintainable over long term.

no wonder only a few countries with the deepest STEM resources and dozens of engines under the belt (so biggest historical data bank of design choices) run the show. :((

time seems to be its own teacher, and hard lessons are also learnt from operational experience only - cheen has taken some slaps in their efforts to quickly close the gap, but they are persisting and putting 1st gen engines into flying duties and gathering data banks which kaveri can never gain sitting on the ground in a static testbed....just as ISRO is still taking blows and learning hard lessons on lab vs inflight failure modes.

we need to get kaveri into a couple of Mig29U or Su30 and atleast start this long journey. HAL should pay itself to produce a couple more Su30 and engage retiring pilots onto flying this testbed, and equip the WSO station with the engine monitoring kit.

Haridas
BRFite
Posts: 297
Joined: 26 Dec 2017 07:53

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

Postby Haridas » 20 May 2018 23:09

srin wrote:Wouldn't that necessarily mean that structure needs to be strengthened for increased load capacity and therefore empty weight increases ?

Only under carriage needs strengthening (for greater all-up weight and slightly higher t/o and langing speed), for bomb trucking (or long range full fuel) flight profile the max G will be capped by flight control computer to stay put within current structural limit. When aircraft weight decreases (fuel used up and or weapon store deliveted) pilot will still have 8.5 G manuverability. JMT.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6810
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Postby Indranil » 20 May 2018 23:55

The wing will need more strength for sure. Good thing is that LCA's wing is almost as big as Mirages to start with. With Mk2 having canards and the probably a slightly wider wing setting, the main wing will not need any enlarging. The LG will definitely need more strength, but here too the LGs are overdesgined for the Mk1, so it is likely that the weight gain will not be much here either.

The bulk of the empty weight gain is going to be from the larger fuselage and more internal LRUs. I think they are upping the internal fuel capacity by more than 50-60%. That is phenomenal.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3193
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

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

Postby Cain Marko » 20 May 2018 23:59

Again, I wish they created a twin engined bird with kaveri weighing about 10-11 tons instead of a radically different single engine bird dependent on the f414.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 62932
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

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

Postby Singha » 21 May 2018 08:22

Khan is trying to create a situation where we need to file h1 type petitions to get case by case waivers for purchasing russian gear else it will get tough to obtain services for khan gear

They can kiss any future deals goodbye if they keep repeating such threats

Tejas mk2 will get delayed by 5 years and fly with a indian dunded euro or russian derivative engine like al32

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2201
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

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

Postby abhik » 21 May 2018 10:47

^^^
And I predict we will stand in line to get those clearances like we do for H1s.

VKumar
BRFite
Posts: 425
Joined: 15 Sep 1999 11:31
Location: Mumbai,India

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

Postby VKumar » 21 May 2018 11:26

Cain Marko wrote:Again, I wish they created a twin engined bird with kaveri weighing about 10-11 tons instead of a radically different single engine bird dependent on the f414.


Same here. They haven't even put the Kaveri in any jet so far. Shows their seriousness.

sankum
BRFite
Posts: 538
Joined: 20 Dec 2004 21:45

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

Postby sankum » 21 May 2018 16:54

The Tejas mk2 should be equipped with saddle conformal fuel tanks of minimum 1600 litres just like Rafale which can carry 2300 litres in CFT to free up hard points and utilize the increased external weapon payload capacity.

BTW the economic times news report gives a 85% weapon payload increase which is additional 3T over 3.5T payload of Tejas mk1 to take the total external payload of Tejas mk2 to 6.5T and CTOW of 11T.

nam
BRFite
Posts: 1229
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

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

Postby nam » 21 May 2018 20:14

Singha wrote:Khan is trying to create a situation where we need to file h1 type petitions to get case by case waivers for purchasing russian gear else it will get tough to obtain services for khan gear

They can kiss any future deals goodbye if they keep repeating such threats


India should cancel the latest IA AH64 orders as a warning shot...

We could technically apply the same law for US companies dealing with Pakistan, specially Boeing in the civilian aircraft market..

Haridas
BRFite
Posts: 297
Joined: 26 Dec 2017 07:53

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

Postby Haridas » 21 May 2018 20:16

Indranil wrote:The wing will need more strength for sure..

Do you believe the bomb truck config also needs to pull the same 8.5 G? Imho slightly more wing strength only due to delta increase in fuselage weight and added LRU weight to pull same G in fighter configuration.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3892
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Kartik » 21 May 2018 23:28

Haridas wrote:
Indranil wrote:The wing will need more strength for sure..

Do you believe the bomb truck config also needs to pull the same 8.5 G? Imho slightly more wing strength only due to delta increase in fuselage weight and added LRU weight to pull same G in fighter configuration.


Even without having to attain any more than 5Gs in an air to ground configuration as per FCS imposed restrictions, the wing will need significant strengthening to carry more payload and sport additional hardpoints. There is no doubt about that.

Take a look at how much weight the Gripen E has gained over the Gripen C. Empty weight went up from ~6700 kgs to 8000 kgs.

BTW, the original targeted empty weight for the Gripen E was ~7200 kgs- their original promotional material mentioned an empty weight of 7136 kgs. Of course, being masters at PR, only those paying close attention to this realised that they overshot that mark by ~1000 kgs (!), and there were no negative articles castigating Saab for this.

See this spec sheet from the presentation to the Dutch. This is what they presented as the facts to them.
Image

And we can now see Saab's specs for the Gripen E. Empty weight 8000 kgs. A full 900 kgs over the empty weight that they were actively promoting to possible buyers.

I can only imagine what would've happened if ADA misses its initial weight targets, with the likes of Prodyut Das and others crawling out of the woodworks to blast them as incompetent.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6810
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Postby Indranil » 22 May 2018 02:07

Haridasji,

Of course, the envelop will be restricted in bomb truck mode. But, even then the wing will need strengthening.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15485
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 22 May 2018 02:50

Indranil wrote:The bulk of the empty weight gain is going to be from the larger fuselage and more internal LRUs. I think they are upping the internal fuel capacity by more than 50-60%. That is phenomenal.


Is the fuel info confirmed, truly a phenomenal improvement if it occurs.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3193
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

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

Postby Cain Marko » 22 May 2018 02:54

We are essentially looking at a Tejas NG. but this will mean that the Navy will likely forego the tejas

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2629
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

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

Postby kit » 22 May 2018 02:58

Looks like the mark 2 is going into AMCA territory!.. any further development would take it into the heavy weight category albeit with two engines

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2195
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby Cybaru » 22 May 2018 03:02

JayS wrote:
Cybaru wrote:
I don't think Ada ever worked on the 0.5 meter plug IAF variant as much. I think a lot of effort went into the mk2 to make it naval compliant and that is where they will pick up from. The 0.5 meter new variant for IAF didn't make sense one way or another. I think ada's initial thought of designing for navy and then extracting for iaf always made more sense and that is what may happen for mk-2 if we are lucky.

The LCA will be no different than mirage2k. The plane wings and plane will be hardened for max payload, but for most work, they will task it as usual, 1 ldp, 1 jammer, 2 pylons A2G (dumb or smart), 2 pylons with tanks (probably larger tanks allowing it more range) and 2CCM (3-4 ton) payload.


Arre Sir, MK2 with 0.5 plug is the only publically known version to my knowledge. Its preliminary design was frozen long back in 2014-15. The reason NLCA mk2 looks different is because it lagged significantly behing the AF version. I suggest you revisit the ADA annual review from last year.

Even though it makes all the sense in the universe to design a naval version, the NLCA development is been lagging too much. Even for AMCA IN is dragging its feet. While Preliminary config for AMCA is frozen for IAF, IN is yet to even formulate its SQR for NAMCA. No, learning from past is not really an SDRE thing.

Though now things have changed a bit for AF MK2 as canards are in picture. So its likely that its lenght is also changed. But I have not seen any number so far. And I am not expecting it to have changes like wing root shift and MLG repositioning etc. From the PDR config known previously, only known change so far is canard. Highly likely is wingtip mounted CCM too. I am waiting for annual report release for previous year to be released. That on will have quite a lot of info.



I think if they are going back to the drawing board to add canards, all the work that has been done so far to make it better will end up in mk2. IMO i think all the work NLCA and IAF mk2 will end up in this new version. It is very highly likely Navy will join the effort as well given the marked improved range and fuel carrying capacity.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15485
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 22 May 2018 03:12

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

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

We had a problem, when the [Navy] chief made the statement.... We had a meeting then. I understood their problem. Their carrier could not take LCA, because the lifts [to the deck] were smaller. The carrier was built independent of the aircraft....

Anyway, it happened. The question was: how to circumvent the problem. Change the aircraft or change the design of the lifts? Which is simpler? It has been changed now. The navy has agreed not to stop the programme.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3193
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

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

Postby Cain Marko » 22 May 2018 03:14

Cybaru wrote:[It is very highly likely Navy will join the effort as well given the marked improved range and fuel carrying capacity.


The biggest reason the Navy ditched the mk1 was a lack of power for stobar ops. How does that change with the mk2, which is likely to gain 2 tons of additional weight? The increased engine thrust is clearly offset with this increase in weight. All the increased fuel and range won't help if you can't get the bird off the deck with a halfway decent load.

If the Navy joins the program, it will be sheer political/pr pressure, nothing else.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15485
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 22 May 2018 03:15

Its amazing how aware you are of the LCA Mk2s performance even before it has flown.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3193
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

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

Postby Cain Marko » 22 May 2018 03:47

True that but the past hasn't exactly been a great cause to give one confidence in performance has it? Be it he gripen ng or the nlca.

In any case I'm not talking about the mk2, which I'm sure will be fine for the iaf. Its the nlca that concerns me.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3399
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby JayS » 22 May 2018 09:02

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.

We had a problem, when the [Navy] chief made the statement.... We had a meeting then. I understood their problem. Their carrier could not take LCA, because the lifts [to the deck] were smaller. The carrier was built independent of the aircraft....

Anyway, it happened. The question was: how to circumvent the problem. Change the aircraft or change the design of the lifts? Which is simpler? It has been changed now. The navy has agreed not to stop the programme.


Thanks for posting this Karan. A lot of good stuff from the article. Especially the new inter-organisational synergy seen.

Quick comment. Just look at the negative tone of the questions and utter lack of knowledge on current status of programs by the reporters. Every single question has a negative tone. Made me puke.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3399
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby JayS » 22 May 2018 10:55

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.

We had a problem, when the [Navy] chief made the statement.... We had a meeting then. I understood their problem. Their carrier could not take LCA, because the lifts [to the deck] were smaller. The carrier was built independent of the aircraft....

Anyway, it happened. The question was: how to circumvent the problem. Change the aircraft or change the design of the lifts? Which is simpler? It has been changed now. The navy has agreed not to stop the programme.


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.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7823
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

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

Postby Pratyush » 22 May 2018 12:21

Has anyone stated that 414 will still be able to make the mk2 perform in the most cabaple manner.

I mean that in order to make sure that mk1 performed at the peak potential, HAL proposed to add 414 to it. That was without any weightgain for the plane. With the weight gain will the 414 still be sufficient for the mk2.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: VickyAvinash and 45 guests