Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

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.
ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 976
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby ks_sachin » 28 Feb 2019 15:30

Indranil wrote:Nachiket,

Missed your question above. The internal volume of MWF is about 3m^3 higher than Mk1. So adding about 1m^3 of extra fuel is par for the course (actually pretty close to rule of thumb for fighters).

IR may I complement you and your partner in crime on an excellent set of write ups.
May I suggest that a follow on piece could also be different pieces of the aviation jigsaw we have mastered.
Followed by lessons learnt piece on what as a nation state we could have done to better deliver this child. After all it was not an immaculate conception!

The reason is that both you gents have enough knowledge to weave all of these aspects into a meaningful story that can perhaps be the basis of a book.

The drumbeat have to continue...

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4076
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby JayS » 28 Feb 2019 18:26

Karan M wrote:
Kartik wrote:
The wind tunnel model is clearly not a Mk1. See the location of the air intake and the length of the forward fuselage. It is much longer than a Mk1. Don’t know how Vijainder Thakur couldn’t make out that easily visible fact.


I saw people pointing out stuff to him on twitter which he missed. He gets angry at them and blocks them. :lol:
Too fixed in his opinions IMHO, though I could be mistaken.


Agreed. The other day bunch of people corrected him on Rafale deal with documentary evidences from DA, he annoyed-ly asked to be untagged from the discussion. :lol: I take his words with pinch of salt. One cannot expect old people to change their opinions, especially when they have lived proud life of fighter jocks.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16768
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby Rahul M » 28 Feb 2019 23:44

As an oldtimer I remember him and his blog as one of the most vehement naysayers of tejas program, in the league of that iitb prof prodyut das and Adm. Nadkarni.

I don't know when brfites suddenly started turning to him for gyan on desi aircraft projects.

Theeran
BRFite
Posts: 185
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby Theeran » 01 Mar 2019 00:32

Not relevant to any recent discussion. I was going through old lca posts and found this. Nice intuition by Austin.

Austin wrote:Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions
Post04 Jun 2015 15:24

I think Folks are confusing the need for MMRCA and then bring in Tejas into the debate to beat the MMRCA.

MMRCA process was initiated by ABV post Kargil war and at that time IIRC Tipnis was the CAS and an inprincipal approval for 126 M2K was accepted by GOI of the day , since the M2K performed quite well during Kargil it was logical choice.

Due to the fear that out right purchase or lic prod of M2K ( old BRF folks will remember French offer to set lic production in India and even local maintenance facility to refurbish/maintain M2K for Global customers )in India would cause Opposition to call it scam ABV decided to go for multi-vendor process.

The fact that it took 16 years to select Rafale among the contendor speak badly about our procurement process and decision making in GOI where terms were changed mid way on Offset and new DPP came into effect etc delaying the whole thing.

Now that we got the Rafale selected for 2 years it appears our coffers are not good to buy the 126 needed so just settling down for 36 which may change Parikar keep changing his statement.

But Rafale purchase and Tejas procurement which was originally pegged at 220 to replace Mig-21 still stands on this own feet and are mutually exclusive.

Tejas Mk2 is no where in sight and wont get into production before 2020 and by that time we will have many squadron of 21 and 27 number plated or decommisioned.

Be that it may be IAF will have to stay with lower squadron for some time till Tejas production takes off which is another mystery on what sustained rate HAL can deliver.

Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2477
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby Katare » 01 Mar 2019 10:43

Tejas Mk2 program completion date was december 2018. Since than a half breed (mk1a) has appeared oncthe horizon and scope creep has turned the original into a mwf which is at least a decade away from induction in FOC standards.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23315
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby Austin » 01 Mar 2019 10:58

JayS wrote:
Karan M wrote:
I saw people pointing out stuff to him on twitter which he missed. He gets angry at them and blocks them. :lol:
Too fixed in his opinions IMHO, though I could be mistaken.


Agreed. The other day bunch of people corrected him on Rafale deal with documentary evidences from DA, he annoyed-ly asked to be untagged from the discussion. :lol: I take his words with pinch of salt. One cannot expect old people to change their opinions, especially when they have lived proud life of fighter jocks.


when I gently pointed out to Sir that neither the R-73 or its latest variant RVV-MD has IIR seeker and gave him OEM link , He told me IIR seeker is generally called IR seeker and told me not to intrude else I get blocked

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4076
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby JayS » 01 Mar 2019 12:44

Austin wrote:
JayS wrote:
Agreed. The other day bunch of people corrected him on Rafale deal with documentary evidences from DA, he annoyed-ly asked to be untagged from the discussion. :lol: I take his words with pinch of salt. One cannot expect old people to change their opinions, especially when they have lived proud life of fighter jocks.


when I gently pointed out to Sir that neither the R-73 or its latest variant RVV-MD has IIR seeker and gave him OEM link , He told me IIR seeker is generally called IR seeker and told me not to intrude else I get blocked


Saw that. Its very un-gentleman like behavior. Anyway.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7405
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby Indranil » 01 Mar 2019 23:03

Okay. you guys are going to hate me for doing this. But, let me stick my neck out for Thakur sahab here.

He has got it quite wrong on the Mk2/MWF. And it would just help if he would just realize that and not try to swim upstream. I think what he is struggling with is how come MWF can have huge advantages with the canards, while Mk1 did not. The answer is size, especially length.

But, he has been very supportive of desi projects including the LCA for the past 3-5 years. H has been openly asking for more Mk1 orders. So, on that aspect he is on our side!

JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2615
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby JTull » 01 Mar 2019 23:12

Instead of picking bones, it helps to be constructive with fellow patriots.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17952
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby Karan M » 01 Mar 2019 23:53

Agree, I am sure all of us (Jay, me, Austin) respect his service and support for our programs and of course he is a patriot. It's just that engaging with him in a discussion is not easy. But that's ok.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4076
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby JayS » 02 Mar 2019 02:39

I still follow him and RT/like tweets based on content. Ignore if its indigestible. Only that I do not engage in any discussions. If the gent wants to be left alone, so be it.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7405
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby Indranil » 02 Mar 2019 03:01

Dkhare,

Spent a little more time looking at the models displayed at AI-19. I think the elevon actuators would stay where they are on Mk1/Mk1A.

Image

Image

srin
BRFite
Posts: 1727
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby srin » 02 Mar 2019 10:26

A question for the aero gurus here. Regarding the shape of the intakes, what are the tradeoffs of roundish intake (Tejas, Mirage-2K, Harrier) vs rectangular intakes (Mig 29/25, Sukhoi 27/30, F15, F18) ?

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7405
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby Indranil » 02 Mar 2019 11:56

Intake design is black magic. It is difficult to say anything definitive without very well developed intuitions and/or extensive testing. I have none of these. So, I will just share the little I know.

If the airflow has to change shape from a polygon-shaped cross section (at entry) to circular (at exit), then it is difficult to keep a completely laminar flow throughout the intake. However, there are other parameters. For example, what are the compression ratios? There are many aspects which pull in opposite directions. Given an engine, designers chose a design point (in the flight envelop) for which the intake is optimized, such that the off-design points are not compromised too much. For example, long-range civilian aircraft inlets are optimized for best cruise performance. Regional jet intakes are optimized for climb and descent. Generally, fighter aircrafts are optimized for 0.7-0.9 Mach. That makes them suboptimal for low speeds. That's why you see all these auxiliary doors.

LCAs intake has complications too. Not only is it serpentine, but also bifurcated at the Y join. A lot of studies have been down to see airflow at different angle of attacks, speed and sideslip.

Zynda
BRFite
Posts: 1648
Joined: 07 Jan 2006 00:37
Location: J4

Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby Zynda » 02 Mar 2019 12:01

Not an air intake or aero expert but I believe for intakes, the 3 key parameters are mass flow rates (MPR) at different Mach, alpha, betas & combinations, the pressure recovery and distortion (especially at AIP interface if I am right). I can try to find out more in the next few weeks about intake design (not LCA/MWF intake design choices) but no promises.

I want to add a small disclaimer to the above. I think the above is valid for intakes that operate mainly in subsonic region. For intakes that need to operate in supersonic, in addition to the above, shock waves formation inside the intake is also there. Currently, I don't know much beyond this :) Will try to find out though...

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7405
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby Indranil » 02 Mar 2019 12:35

Thanks to dkhare's instigation, I stared at the wings of LCA Mk2/MWF a little longer. They have done something very chankian. They hardly have to change anything on that wing. The inboard, midboard and outboard stations are exactly where they were. It was already ascertained that these stations were capable of carrying more. For example, the current OB station is capable of carrying two A2A missiles without any changes. On the MWF, all they have done is split this load between the wingtip and the current OB pylon. No wonder, ADA is so sure.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7405
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby Indranil » 02 Mar 2019 13:07

Zynda, your findings will be great to learn from. By the way, I was wrong in my initial thoughts about the new intake design on MWF. I thought that the new cant was to improve area curve, decrease RCS and increase ram effect at high AoA (given that the shielding by the wing is absent on the MWF). I was wrong on all counts. Jay spoke to somebody who was instrumental in conducting a lot of the CFD studies. The new shape is for better supersonic performance. Also, the cant has different effect for rectangular intakes!

So yes, I have a lot to learn.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23315
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby Austin » 02 Mar 2019 13:10

I think it would be better if they use the wing tip point to carry 1 RF decoys and 1 Wing Tip Jammer Pod like EF carries it. I havent seen any where mention they use internal jammer

They still have 6 Pylons on Wings and 3 under Fuselage for Weapons and DT loads

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7405
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby Indranil » 02 Mar 2019 13:24

It will have internal RWR and jammers.

srin
BRFite
Posts: 1727
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby srin » 02 Mar 2019 13:32

Indranil wrote:Zynda, your findings will be great to learn from. By the way, I was wrong in my initial thoughts about the new intake design on MWF. I thought that the new cant was to improve area curve, decrease RCS and increase ram effect at high AoA (given that the shielding by the wing is absent on the MWF). I was wrong on all counts. Jay spoke to somebody who was instrumental in conducting a lot of the CFD studies. The new shape is for better supersonic performance. Also, the cant has different effect for rectangular intakes!

So yes, I have a lot to learn.


My understanding so far was that because of the wing shielding, the air was subsonic and there was no need for the Mirage 2K-style inlet cone. But in the MWF, there is no shielding, nor is there an inlet ramp or an inlet cone. So, how would this work ?

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7405
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby Indranil » 02 Mar 2019 13:39

Not knowledgeable enough to answer this with authority.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23315
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby Austin » 02 Mar 2019 15:09

JayS wrote:I still follow him and RT/like tweets based on content. Ignore if its indigestible. Only that I do not engage in any discussions. If the gent wants to be left alone, so be it.


I think he prefers using the PM route to communicate rather then being told in public about wrong and right it can be hurtful at times ....Some of our elderly folks at home too prefer private communication then some kind of public discourse. Fair Enough , I think I get what he is trying to say

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4076
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby JayS » 02 Mar 2019 19:52

srin wrote:
Indranil wrote:Zynda, your findings will be great to learn from. By the way, I was wrong in my initial thoughts about the new intake design on MWF. I thought that the new cant was to improve area curve, decrease RCS and increase ram effect at high AoA (given that the shielding by the wing is absent on the MWF). I was wrong on all counts. Jay spoke to somebody who was instrumental in conducting a lot of the CFD studies. The new shape is for better supersonic performance. Also, the cant has different effect for rectangular intakes!

So yes, I have a lot to learn.


My understanding so far was that because of the wing shielding, the air was subsonic and there was no need for the Mirage 2K-style inlet cone. But in the MWF, there is no shielding, nor is there an inlet ramp or an inlet cone. So, how would this work ?


There is a shock wave at the nose tip itself which will make the flow subsonic post nose tip itself for low supersonic speeds. But later flow should be continue to be supersonic.There is a normal shock wave at the inlet after which the flow going in becomes subsonic.

Normal shock means big loss of energy, but the normal shocks at speeds like M1.4 (ahead of inlet not Aircraft speed) or so are weak relatively. The loss of energy more acceptable than the complexity in design and weight of supersonic intakes, with moving ramps and all the paraphernalia. After M2.0 speed of aircraft, the complex supersonic intake like what F15, Su/MiG have make sense. Mirage is designed for >M2.0 and the intake is ahead of wings it sees higher Mach than what LCA intake would see at same speed of Aircraft. But we have to keep in mind that Mirage design is from the 60s era where higher, faster, bigger was the mantra of the day. DA might not have designed the same type of intakes for the same plane in today's time. Mirage would not be a >M2 aircraft if designed today.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36301
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby SaiK » 03 Mar 2019 01:01

So, this wing shielding you are all are talking about for noise reduction or RCS? confused. krupaya explain

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17952
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby Karan M » 03 Mar 2019 03:47

Austin wrote:
JayS wrote:I still follow him and RT/like tweets based on content. Ignore if its indigestible. Only that I do not engage in any discussions. If the gent wants to be left alone, so be it.


I think he prefers using the PM route to communicate rather then being told in public about wrong and right it can be hurtful at times ....Some of our elderly folks at home too prefer private communication then some kind of public discourse. Fair Enough , I think I get what he is trying to say


Best to leave him be. If you guys message him too much etc, he may even deactivate his account and leave. And sometimes its useful to have his perspective.

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1173
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby Gyan » 03 Mar 2019 08:23

Anyone Checked out the design of Lavi? It seems to have Canard layout similar to LCA MK2 where Trailing edge of canard overlaps the leading edge of main wing.

Also how many degree of movement is required from canards for effective use? Some Rafale pics show canards turned almost at 60° while LCA MK2 canards will have movement of 15-30°?

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36301
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby SaiK » 03 Mar 2019 11:08

on the hz plane. but, at the worst it might scratch the wing rotating on it's axis.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... ail_b2.jpg
https://milaviate.files.wordpress.com/2 ... 921l-2.jpg

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7405
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby Indranil » 03 Mar 2019 11:33

Gyan wrote:Anyone Checked out the design of Lavi? It seems to have Canard layout similar to LCA MK2 where Trailing edge of canard overlaps the leading edge of main wing.

Also how many degree of movement is required from canards for effective use? Some Rafale pics show canards turned almost at 60° while LCA MK2 canards will have movement of 15-30°?

Boss, yeh tum ghum phir ke F-16 XL aur Lavi pe kyun aatak jaate ho? May be, you should see our write up on MWF. They tried many configurations for MWF. Some in which the trailing edge of the canard had a forward sweep. Others, where the TE of the canard and the LE of the wing was completely matched.

At 60 degrees, any canard would stall. Are you sure those kind of deflections are affected in the air.

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1173
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby Gyan » 03 Mar 2019 15:18

It is my first post mentioning Lavi. In any case, if we are using well researched ideas then it's good & not bad thing.

I have no idea about what is required from Canards, so I was asking.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4076
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby JayS » 03 Mar 2019 20:57

SaiK wrote:So, this wing shielding you are all are talking about for noise reduction or RCS? confused. krupaya explain


Wing shielding as I understand is mainly to do with flow alignment ahead of the inlet at high AoA, which reduced effective AoA for the inlet and thereby have better intake performance with reduced separation and higher Pressure recovery. F16 uses fuselage for such shielding, one of the reason why intake duct could be shortened. Similar for F18.

Noise is not of any importance. If you want RCS reduction you would like to put intake above the wings not below, as some UCAV designs try to do (actually it doesn't matter that much).

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7405
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby Indranil » 03 Mar 2019 21:44

F16 uses the fore body and so does Rafale. Rafale’s forebody is actually shaped for this purpose.

Bharadwaj
BRFite
Posts: 274
Joined: 09 Oct 2006 11:09

Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby Bharadwaj » 04 Mar 2019 14:08

At a press conf in Coimbatore ACM Dhanoa said 6 squadrons of mk2 will be bought to replace mig-29,mirages etc.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23315
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby Austin » 05 Mar 2019 16:01

Bharadwaj wrote:At a press conf in Coimbatore ACM Dhanoa said 6 squadrons of mk2 will be bought to replace mig-29,mirages etc.


Here is the full interview


dkhare
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 39
Joined: 10 Feb 2009 03:30

Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby dkhare » 08 Mar 2019 03:55

Indranil wrote:Dkhare,
Spent a little more time looking at the models displayed at AI-19. I think the elevon actuators would stay where they are on Mk1/Mk1A.


Thanks for taking the time Indranil. It was a possibility.

I thought I saw that within the AMCA drawings where the actuators are placed within the fuselage-wing blending for reduced RCS that lead me to think along those lines - I am now wondering if it is true on the AMCA?

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7405
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby Indranil » 08 Mar 2019 04:10

Nope. On the renditions of AMCA shown at AI'19, both the actuators are on the wing.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4279
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby Kartik » 08 Mar 2019 05:05

fanne wrote:I do not want to be the one to whine first in this very new and auspicious thread, all power to MWF. We have truly made a copy of Mirage 2000 (-9 avionics wise, which is just now entering service). But the MWF is almost performance wise very same like Mirage 2000 (a 40 year old design, ours is little more modern than that), it is a multi-role fighter just like Mirage2000, a very good bomb truck and a very decent range, but suffers from the same shortcoming that Mirage 2000 has, slightly underpowered and not a great A-A fighter (it can not convincingly win against Mig 29, maybe LCAmk1a, f-16, j-10 etc.). Can we not bake in the space (for bigger engine and airflow required for it) so that at a later date it can be up engine? (It is going to serve for another 30-40 years with IAF?)


Here are some key take-aways from the combat that was seen recently between the IAF and PAF:

- Electronic warfare capabilities must be top notch. All IAF fighters need a very capable EW suite that includes MAWS, RWR and SPJ.
- A Towed Radar decoy is no longer going to be a luxury. It will become a necessity and I would expect the IAF to look hard into available options if an indigenous option is not available soon.
- Heavy electronic jamming is a must for a strike package going into enemy territory. A suitable capability needs to be developed so that the IAF can suppress enemy radars, both in the air (AWACS) and on the ground. IAF and DRDO must closely examine the possibility of using the Su-30MKI platform and developing an indigenous Growler equivalent.
- Longer range missiles are needed. The lack of R-77 use in the melee is worrying for me. Multiple AMRAAM shots from the PAF side but no reported BVRAAM shots from the IAF side. Why? If the R-77 needs to be phased out fast, then so be it. Rush the Astra into full scale production.
- More missile rounds required for the Tejas. We saw 24 PAF fighters in multiple packages trying to overwhelm or decoy our CAP or intercepting fighters. In the event of a couple of CAP fighters being the only defence in the air, they must have adequate number of missiles to take on at least 4 enemy fighters. A twin-rack pylon is a must for the Tejas Mk1 and Mk1A to increase its max BVRAAM loadout to 4 plus 2 CCMs.
- The excess emphasis on dog-fighting maneuverability needs be tempered. While maneuvering matters, it is not the be-all and end-all. the MiG-21 Bison's max G-load is 7Gs. yet it managed to shoot down a 9G rated F-16. Top notch cockpit avionics including HMDS, EW suite and a great radar and weapons matter more.
- R-73E works, so its not as urgent a situation to replace it with ASRAAM, but the IAF needs its Mirage-2000Is quickly. Pushing Matra Magic-II equipped Mirage-2000Hs across is dangerous to say the least.

And so the Tejas Mk2 MWF goals IMO would be:
- Have a great AESA radar that has a range of at least 160-180 km for a 5 sqm RCS target and a sub meter SAR resolution so SAR imagery can be quite detailed and allow for more precise targeting
- IRST that can help to positively ID it at a range of 50-60 km+
- EW suite with a fail-safe RWR and MAWS and internal SPJ and a towed radar decoy as mandatory equipment. if need be, import these but don't send fighters into battle without them
- An extremely pilot friendly cockpit and MFD or Smart Display layouts that minimise pilot workload and enable the pilot to stay focused on the mission.
- Multiple sensors inputs to be fused to present a single battlefield picture to the pilot. Towards that, I loved the LCA SPORT Large Screen Display pages that were showing up SAM bubbles in elevation.
- It should feature a next generation Datalink. The ODL (Op Data Link) should be developed into a fleet wide DL with enough bandwidth and speed to enable sharing ground target coordinates, aerial target radar tracks, large images, enemy emitter locations, etc. The Su-30MKI with its WSO would be an invalueable asset there, with 2 or 3 of them acting as a command post in the air.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36301
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby SaiK » 10 Mar 2019 10:35

How many hard points?

Image

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1379
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby Thakur_B » 10 Mar 2019 12:01

:wink: ^^ One more than the Scandinavian Blondie

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 976
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby ks_sachin » 10 Mar 2019 14:40

Scandinavian blondes!!
Nice one.
No comparison to our Durga Mata!

ashishvikas
BRFite
Posts: 393
Joined: 17 Oct 2016 14:18

Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby ashishvikas » 10 Mar 2019 20:05

SaiK wrote:How many hard points?

Isn't this LCA MK2 / MWF ? OR NLCA got Canards as well?


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 41 guests