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.
Raveen
BRFite
Posts: 577
Joined: 18 Jun 2008 00:51
Location: 1/2 way between the gutter and the stars
Contact:

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

Postby Raveen » 22 Mar 2019 08:11

Khalsa wrote:Gnat Ajeet influence ?


Yes that too

JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2604
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

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

Postby JTull » 22 Mar 2019 15:11

With EO sensors visibility should be a non issue. F-35's Distributed Aperture System (link) already solves the issue for 360deg 'virtual' visibility and missile cueing in day/night conditions.

Netra already has (somewhat bulky) EO/IR sensors.
AI19 showed Multi-Mission Maritime Aircraft (MMMA) models along with Netra variant based on C295 with EOIR
BEL recently won an order with ToT from Elbit Systems for "next generation EOIR payloads for Airborne operations" (CoMPASS etc)
CONTROP signed a deal with BEL for more EO systems
BEL is reportedly developing FLIR to replace OLS-30 for Su-30MKIs anyway


The core capability certainly exists in the country. It is just a question of miniaturising it and certifying it onboard fighter. Perhaps some of the Mk1 PV/LSP can be used.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4259
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Kartik » 22 Mar 2019 22:27

gpurewal wrote:I'm not a huge fan of non-retractable refueling probes, since they like an ugly wart on an otherwise beautiful object imo. Was this chosen over a retractable probe due to size limitations of the radome, weight savings, something else?


As a Cobham manager mentioned a long time ago, they explored retractable and non-retractable options for the Tejas. But it is too densely packed and too small an airframe to fit a retractable probe. Hence, to simplify the operation and integration, non-retractable probe was chosen. Which is what a lot of fighters use and given the Tejas' small RCS, isn't that big of a deal.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4259
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Kartik » 22 Mar 2019 22:32

Cain Marko wrote:I do wish that they'd done away with the canards and used the cool levcons that they have on the nlca. So much easier on the eyes.


That's a matter of personal choice I suppose. I prefer the canards. Much easier on my eyes.

The choice of the canards was obviously done with a lot of research work being put into it. IR and JayS have gone to great lengths to explain the reasons for the choice of the canard config. If you haven't read their article, please do. Besides which, they're designers, you and I are not. They have access to plenty of data, none of which we do. Trust them to make their decisions on the basis of data and a lot of analysis via CFD and wind tunnels.

Some day, we'll have someone from ADA explaining why the LCA Navy Mk2 design dropped the LEVCON and instead went with the delta/stabilator/vortex flap config. Clearly they know something we don't.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17897
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 22 Mar 2019 22:36

JTull wrote:BEL recently won an order with ToT from Elbit Systems for "next generation EOIR payloads for Airborne operations" (CoMPASS etc)
CONTROP signed a deal with BEL for more EO systems[/url]
The core capability certainly exists in the country. It is just a question of miniaturising it and certifying it onboard fighter. Perhaps some of the Mk1 PV/LSP can be used.


Apparently they have indigenized a lot of the COMPASS per BEL, and hence are re-exporting it back to Israel. Looks like our production costs are significantly lower & QA/QC are good. Hopefully, this is a proper deal, not just offset parking.

gpurewal
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 31
Joined: 20 Oct 2018 03:23

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

Postby gpurewal » 23 Mar 2019 01:05

Kartik wrote:
gpurewal wrote:I'm not a huge fan of non-retractable refueling probes, since they like an ugly wart on an otherwise beautiful object imo. Was this chosen over a retractable probe due to size limitations of the radome, weight savings, something else?


As a Cobham manager mentioned a long time ago, they explored retractable and non-retractable options for the Tejas. But it is too densely packed and too small an airframe to fit a retractable probe. Hence, to simplify the operation and integration, non-retractable probe was chosen. Which is what a lot of fighters use and given the Tejas' small RCS, isn't that big of a deal.


That's what I thought, and it is a well justified decision. In the end of the day, beauty comes second to functionality but, thankfully the Tejas has some beautiful lines and curves, and the probe will grow on me over time.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7394
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Postby Indranil » 23 Mar 2019 01:45

But, I have always wondered if a Mig-29UPG like solution is possible.

gpurewal
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 31
Joined: 20 Oct 2018 03:23

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

Postby gpurewal » 23 Mar 2019 03:14

Indranil wrote:But, I have always wondered if a Mig-29UPG like solution is possible.


You brought back memories that I have fought long to suppress. But functionality wise, I think the UPG version would make refueling a bit more challenging, since the probe is right beside the cockpit (left hand side I believe), instead of being in front of it. Would the Guru's have any insight to this?

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6809
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

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

Postby nachiket » 23 Mar 2019 03:16

Indranil wrote:But, I have always wondered if a Mig-29UPG like solution is possible.

Even if it was, would the effort be worth the payoff? ADA needs to finish up with the Mk2 as soon as possible and put every available resource into the AMCA.

khan
BRFite
Posts: 474
Joined: 12 Feb 2003 12:31
Location: Tx

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

Postby khan » 23 Mar 2019 08:43

nachiket wrote:
Indranil wrote:But, I have always wondered if a Mig-29UPG like solution is possible.

Even if it was, would the effort be worth the payoff? ADA needs to finish up with the Mk2 as soon as possible and put every available resource into the AMCA.

IMO, ADA shouldn’t bother with MK2, focus on AMCA & UCAV’s. Let HAL incrementally update LCA. By 2030, it will be a whole different world. Mk2 might be as obsolete as the MiG-21 today.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16761
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 » 23 Mar 2019 08:50

khan wrote:
nachiket wrote:Even if it was, would the effort be worth the payoff? ADA needs to finish up with the Mk2 as soon as possible and put every available resource into the AMCA.

IMO, ADA shouldn’t bother with MK2, focus on AMCA & UCAV’s.

would be a very bad move. Mk2 is a low hanging fruit, the pay-offs would be much larger than effort expended because how well ADA understands the platform. it is a low risk, high gain path, while AMCA is a high risk high gain path. Mk2 would give IAF a home grown mini-rafale, an aircraft that is capable, modern, reliable and that can be customised over the years. Mk2 is an inspired solution to a vexing problem, how to cater for IAF's increased requirements in 2020's compared to 1980's.
also, Mk2 would allow ADA to develop sub-systems that can be re-used in the AMCA, thus mitigating some of its risk.

incremental development is the best kind of development.

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13102
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

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

Postby negi » 23 Mar 2019 10:31

Karan on MWF my views are based on single point which is it's not the suite or systems that have come under criticism on the Mk1 for major ones are yet to even be operationalised ; the only repeated criticism in public domain is it lacking thrust . Now if you look at MWF specs even the max take off weight( clean) goes upto 12k that's ~2k(1700 kilos) more than the Mk1 , payload wise the new AC can carry about 4000 kg of wares . Now the catch is AB thrust is up by 14 kN however the military thrust difference between F404 and F 414 is hardly 8-9 kN (being optimistic there). If you see the weight gain % be clean or MTOW it's less than the % increase in installed thrust despite going by AB thrust numbers (if you go with mil thrust it's worse); if there is any weight creep it could get worse. Hence my point about everything about MWF being great except the engine .

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17897
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 23 Mar 2019 10:43

Yes more thrust won't hurt, but the public domain criticism of Mk1 lacking thrust has always been a bit shoddy. The comparable fighters all had engines with equivalent performance, so how did the Mk1 suddenly lack thrust. The answer IMHO lay in its aerodynamic tradeoffs forced on it by the IAS ASQR of forcing it into MiG-21 footprint, to fit into MiG-21 basing infra on airbases, such as HAS etc. Now those artificial limits have been taken off, so the designers can optimize to make maximum use of available thrust. Adding more thrust is not always the best way out because the SFC will be affected as will be the heat generated (IR missile vulnerability increases), plus the engine dimensions will scale up causing changes to entire outer mold line across the aircraft. So, all said & done, optimize the airframe, and manage the rest.
Add in a new engine later if need be, but go with a proven one in the first iteration so as to not delay the project.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17897
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 23 Mar 2019 10:45

khan wrote:
nachiket wrote:Even if it was, would the effort be worth the payoff? ADA needs to finish up with the Mk2 as soon as possible and put every available resource into the AMCA.

IMO, ADA shouldn’t bother with MK2, focus on AMCA & UCAV’s. Let HAL incrementally update LCA. By 2030, it will be a whole different world. Mk2 might be as obsolete as the MiG-21 today.


That is incorrect because the MK2 will come with state of the art avionics, weaponry and EW suite. These alone will be more than sufficient for the Rafales, EFs and Mk2s to remain relevant in a network centric environment.

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13102
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

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

Postby negi » 23 Mar 2019 10:55

Karan I am not arguing on whether Mk1's thrust is enough or not (it's not for me to have a say on that ) ; what I am arguing on is a fundamental fact i.e. a product has been classified as lacking in area 'x' it is but imperative that if we have anyways decided to make 'x2' it better address that criticism else why even bother , a more powerful engine would ensure there is enough margin to exactly prevent what happened with Mk1 , wings had to be redesigned because IAF asked for R73 later , be it request for installing the IFR the list is endless . If the growth in frame size and weight is being simply exactly matched by increase in thrust it means we now have a larger AC with same T/W as Mk1 it's not up-to you or me to like/buy that AC if there is any merit in the argument that IAF finds Mk1 lacking thrust it would find the same to be true for MWF as well .

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6809
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

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

Postby nachiket » 23 Mar 2019 11:17

negi there is no engine available with higher thrust. We would have to move into the F100/AL-31 class and that would basically mean designing a whole new aircraft because there is no way to build a slightly larger LCA Mk2 with an AL-31 sized engine.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17897
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 23 Mar 2019 11:24

My entire point is the claim the Tejas did not have sufficient thrust is a shoddy media manufactured argument. The IAF would not say the MK1 lacks thrust as a primary argument.

They would say ASRs mentioned X, Y, Z - Tejas Mk1 had shortfall of 5%, 8%, 12% respectively in say specific parameters. Now its up to the designers to fix that. IAF may suggest methods but its up to the designers to get it done.

So you can improve performance, either by optimizing the airframe - the real answer and an elegant one, or add a larger and more fuel hungry engine. Latter is the "easy" answer, though not from the time point of view. It too would lead to more work.

So, my point is this, if the ASR Performance has been met by Mk2 via aerodynamic improvements keeping in mind the weight growth, how do we know the Mk2 engine is not margin enough (Ge414 from Ge404).

The article by Indranil & Jay makes the same point, in essence the simulation test results (which have shown a very high fidelity match upto actual flight tests), show the aero improvements are resulting in a substantial improvement in performance & the thrust differential may actually be just "icing on the cake" or rather the buffer for unforeseen weight growth which you are mentioning.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7394
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Postby Indranil » 23 Mar 2019 11:45

Negi sahab,

You and I can feel things like not enough thrust etc. but ADA’s design which has been vetted by IAF is based on extensive simulations and wind tunnel simulations. It is finalized to the satisfaction of IAF. I think we should trust the men with the knowledge, experience and tools.

I have said this in the past. At clean TO weight, MWF has the just a tad lower TWR than Mk1, but a 50% higher fuel fraction. At cruise speeds it’s CD0 is quite a few counts lower than clean Mk1. The L/D of MWF is also lower than MK1 which allows higher STR.

Yes, at full weapon load, it’s a bomb truck. But sobis Rafale!

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13102
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

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

Postby negi » 23 Mar 2019 12:29

nachiket wrote:negi there is no engine available with higher thrust. We would have to move into the F100/AL-31 class and that would basically mean designing a whole new aircraft because there is no way to build a slightly larger LCA Mk2 with an AL-31 sized engine.

There are engines there but that is not for you or me to find out or finalise ; just for an arguments sake what engine will LM field with the f-21 ? There are better engines out there if one is switching to f414 so can one to something else now will there be work for sure there will be it is not anyways some car body job we are talking about .

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13102
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

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

Postby negi » 23 Mar 2019 12:34

Indranil I am not saying I believe that mk1’s thrust is less , I am saying that it has come out in too many forums from a lot of people there is a merit in that criticism . My point was simple if one builds a second iteration of a product it is sensible to address the core concern other bells and whistles are a bonus . As for IAF signing on to the design , that’s a formality, which indigenous platform for the armed forces did not have the target customer’s signatures ? Everything be it Trishul , LCA , Arjun , nlca they all had forces involved , they being involved doesn’t imply they will truly induct the platform and deploy them in numbers worthy of the investment . Now most of what everyone state's here is an opinion , I am of the view that we haven't inducted our domestic produce in enough numbers to put our money where our 'mouth' is . We are a country where everyone likes to sound and be nice that's why on every 15th Aug or 26th Jan there are praises for Arjun and Tejas and rest of the year we will hear criticism . My point was since we anyways have the capability we better aim higher because if MWF as you say is as good or even better bomb truck than the Rafale , then what light/medium weight interceptors do we deploy to replace Mig-21s specially when even Mig-29s are sort of long in tooth. IAF has lot of bomb trucks in MKI, M2K and even the Jaguar . My fear/hunch is if Tejas platform gets boxed into that category we will soon float a tender to import an interceptor (read the F-21 or something else)

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6809
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

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

Postby nachiket » 23 Mar 2019 13:20

negi wrote:There are engines there but that is not for you or me to find out or finalise ; just for an arguments sake what engine will LM field with the f-21 ? There are better engines out there if one is switching to f414 so can one to something else now will there be work for sure there will be it is not anyways some car body job we are talking about .

Which engines sir? The existence of engine programs is not a closely guarded secret. If there are suitable engines out there it is easy to find out. I'm all ears.

As for the F-21, first of all it is just a re-branded F-16 (LM taking a leaf out of the Russian playbook). All versions of the F-16 use some variant of the PW F100 or the GE-F110. Both engines are in a different size/weight class and will not fit in any version of the LCA. You would have to design a whole new aircraft for it, at which point you might as well just buy the F-16.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6809
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

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

Postby nachiket » 23 Mar 2019 13:27

TO my knowledge the IAF has never said the LCA Mk1 is underpowered. What they have said is that there is a shortfall in some performance parameters like STR, which can be remedied by a higher thrust engine (but not just that as others have pointed out. Aerodynamic refinements can do that as well). Just look at the pictures of hot-and-high trials at Leh and the combat load it is carrying. If it was underpowered, it would not be able to take off with that kind of payload from a high altitude airbase in the summer. It passed those trials mind you unlike some MRCA contenders.

As long as the MWF satisfies the STR and other performance issues that the IAF has with the Mk1, there is absolutely no need to talk about it being underpowered. Because if it is, then so are the Gripen, Mirage 2000 and even the Su-30 if you compare the T:W ratios. Even the Rafale's T:W ratio isn't anything to write home about. But that parameter by itself says nothing about the overall capability of the aircraft. Or else our entire fleet would be only Mig-29s.

Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7236
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

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

Postby Prasad » 23 Mar 2019 14:52

Indranil wrote:Negi sahab,

You and I can feel things like not enough thrust etc. but ADA’s design which has been vetted by IAF is based on extensive simulations and wind tunnel simulations. It is finalized to the satisfaction of IAF. I think we should trust the men with the knowledge, experience and tools.

I have said this in the past. At clean TO weight, MWF has the just a tad lower TWR than Mk1, but a 50% higher fuel fraction. At cruise speeds it’s CD0 is quite a few counts lower than clean Mk1. The L/D of MWF is also lower than MK1 which allows higher STR.

Yes, at full weapon load, it’s a bomb truck. But sobis Rafale!

To add, given the increase in internal fuel, coupled with aero refinements, ADA expects excellent range (nearly double). So lets not beat ourselves up. There is a lot of work that has been done and is being done as part of the mk2 work on the aero aspect.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23314
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

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

Postby Austin » 23 Mar 2019 18:26

negi wrote:My point was since we anyways have the capability we better aim higher because if MWF as you say is as good or even better bomb truck than the Rafale , then what light/medium weight interceptors do we deploy to replace Mig-21s specially when even Mig-29s are sort of long in tooth. IAF has lot of bomb trucks in MKI, M2K and even the Jaguar . My fear/hunch is if Tejas platform gets boxed into that category we will soon float a tender to import an interceptor (read the F-21 or something else)


What if the payload they carry is just 8 A2A missile 4 BVR and 4 WVR , 1 External jammer on one intake point and 1 Drop tank plus full internal fuel.

The pay load including the jammer wont exceed 1.5 T and Drop Tanks would be dropped for combat any ways.

See no reason why they cant turn out to be a good Air Dominance fighter in Mig-29 class unless flight test shows aerodynamic issue.

Most of the bomb truck thing is when they fully load the fighter which rarely happens in real combat most of its life a fighter wont carry more than 1/3 or even less of its advertised payload from Brochure

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7394
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Postby Indranil » 23 Mar 2019 21:26

Negi Sir,

There is no question of changing the engine now. It is in the same TWR as Mirage/Gripen E, and both Gripen E and MWF is more refined than Mirage 2000. Other than top speed, either of these aircrafts trumps Mirage.

Aerodynamically neither Gripen, nor MWF will be in Mig29 class, but avionics wise they are a generation ahead.
IAF did not just sign this time. They have been meeting monthly over the last two years to finalize the design. Air Force personnel are specially deputed in ADA for this purpose. It is not without reason that IAF has repeatedly said that they want a lot MWFs.

I believe there is some optimism that with so many 414 based platforms entering production in 2020s, there is enough incentive to develop the EPE.

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4053
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

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

Postby Manish_Sharma » 23 Mar 2019 23:20

GE 404:
Length: 154 in (391 cm)
Diameter: 35 in (89 cm)
Dry weight: 2,282 lb (1,036 kg)

GE 414:
Length: 154 in (391 cm)
Diameter: 35 in (89 cm)
Dry weight: 2,445 lb (1,110 kg) max weight

========================

F100-PW-220

Length: 191 inches (490 cm)
Diameter:
34.8 inches (88 cm) inlet,
46.5 inches (118 cm) maximum external
Dry weight: 3,234 pounds (1,467 kg)

F110 GE engine
Length: 182.3 - 232.3 in (463 - 590 cm)
Diameter: 46.5 in (118 cm)
Dry weight: 3,920 - 4,400 lb (1,778 - 1,996 kg)
Components
Compressor: 2 spool: 3 fan and 9 high pressure compressor stages

Negi ji, wouldn't using these above F16 engines for Tejas Mk2 MWF create much much more work for designers? While 404 vs 414 are same dimensions

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17897
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 23 Mar 2019 23:31

Indranil, as you have called Negi, BR's ertswhile scourge and most dangerous wrecker of rules and regulations, sir. He has fallen off his crate and spilled his beer, and I regret to inform you that you now owe him one. :mrgreen:

Negi, cant have MiG29s, Jaguars, Mirage 2000s competing with MWF as it will be replacing all of them. This link for your reading pleasure.
https://salute.co.in/military-modernisa ... air-force/

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23314
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

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

Postby Austin » 23 Mar 2019 23:54

Karan M wrote:https://salute.co.in/military-modernisation-indian-air-force/

The IAF’s Pichora system is rather old, about 40 years plus. We are now giving it a digitisation programme, after which it is likely to last us another 20 years.


Very interesting they are planning to upgrade the Pechora and keep them in service for 20 more years ! I was under the impression all Pechora will be replaced by Akash

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17897
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 24 Mar 2019 01:00

Two reasons to keep them around. Non traditional band radars. Second, likely to be replaced by Akash NG not Akash or another system. Very few Pechora firing units are left from the original 60.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7394
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Postby Indranil » 24 Mar 2019 01:10

Karan M wrote:Indranil, as you have called Negi, BR's ertswhile scourge and most dangerous wrecker of rules and regulations, sir. He has fallen off his crate and spilled his beer, and I regret to inform you that you now owe him one. :mrgreen:

My memory is very short. SHQ always complains about how I don't remember ANYTHING that she said :D

Being a teetotaler, I don't know much about beer. But I am known in my circles for good tea. I will continue to serve that.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3478
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

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

Postby Cain Marko » 24 Mar 2019 01:14

Kartik wrote:
Cain Marko wrote:I do wish that they'd done away with the canards and used the cool levcons that they have on the nlca. So much easier on the eyes.


That's a matter of personal choice I suppose. I prefer the canards. Much easier on my eyes.

The choice of the canards was obviously done with a lot of research work being put into it. IR and JayS have gone to great lengths to explain the reasons for the choice of the canard config. If you haven't read their article, please do. Besides which, they're designers, you and I are not. They have access to plenty of data, none of which we do. Trust them to make their decisions on the basis of data and a lot of analysis via CFD and wind tunnels.

Some day, we'll have someone from ADA explaining why the LCA Navy Mk2 design dropped the LEVCON and instead went with the delta/stabilator/vortex flap config. Clearly they know something we don't.

Have no issue with canards in terms of performance, whatever it takes. But looks wise, the nlca is hottest in my eyes although I feel a levcon version for the iaf might've given it a run...

Didn't know both Indranil and Jay were aero designers, excellent article btw.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7394
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Postby Indranil » 24 Mar 2019 02:22

I am not. Jay is.

Picklu
BRFite
Posts: 1927
Joined: 25 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Picklu » 25 Mar 2019 00:20

gpurewal wrote:
Indranil wrote:But, I have always wondered if a Mig-29UPG like solution is possible.


You brought back memories that I have fought long to suppress. But functionality wise, I think the UPG version would make refueling a bit more challenging, since the probe is right beside the cockpit (left hand side I believe), instead of being in front of it. Would the Guru's have any insight to this?


My wishlist:
The refueling probe moves to shoulder like mig29
The gun goes to the other should like mki

And voila, not only we reduce drag, we have one more hard point below

gaurav.p
BRFite
Posts: 217
Joined: 04 May 2018 23:02

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

Postby gaurav.p » 25 Mar 2019 00:30

^^ the gun has been shifted to one of the shoulders. There will be 11 hardpoints (4 + 3 + 4)

Picklu
BRFite
Posts: 1927
Joined: 25 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Picklu » 25 Mar 2019 00:43

gaurav.p wrote:^^ the gun has been shifted to one of the shoulders. There will be 11 hardpoints (4 + 3 + 4)


Excellent. Thank you

gaurav.p
BRFite
Posts: 217
Joined: 04 May 2018 23:02

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

Postby gaurav.p » 25 Mar 2019 00:49


Vips
BRFite
Posts: 1667
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

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

Postby Vips » 29 Mar 2019 01:14

Per the AV below(3:15 onwards), Tejas Mark 2 will have a new name. There will be no TD or PV production phase for this plane.Directly 4 pre production planes 2 in IOC and 2 in FOC configuration will be manufactured.


ArjunPandit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2440
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

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

Postby ArjunPandit » 29 Mar 2019 04:05

gaurav.p wrote:^^ the gun has been shifted to one of the shoulders. There will be 11 hardpoints (4 + 3 + 4)

I think the only thing left unarmed will be engine

nash
BRFite
Posts: 822
Joined: 08 Aug 2008 16:48

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

Postby nash » 29 Mar 2019 19:44

Medium Weight Fighter (MWF) to get a new name and 4 Pre-production aircraft

ADA has confirmed that unlike LCA-Tejas program there will not be any Technology Demonstrators (Phase-1) nor any prototype aircraft (Phase-II) of MWF and instead there will be four Pre-production aircraft. First Two of the four Pre-production aircraft will be of Initial Operation Clearance (IOC) configuration and the last two will be of final Operation Clearance (IOC) configuration. Direct development of Pre-production aircraft will help reduce development timeline and also accelerate flight testing and trial phase so that from the first flight of the first pre-production MWF aircraft till it cleared for production, whole program can be rounded up in five years time.

Work on the assembly of first Medium Weight Fighter (MWF) will start from 2021 on wards and it should be ready for first flight by end of 2022 or in 2023. If ADA manages to have its first flight by 2023 and also manages to wind up its developmental flight trials by 2028 it should be ready to enter production by 2029-30. ADA is yet to select a production partner, while HAL has been tasked to procure assemble jigs and other ground support equipment to start work on the development of first Medium Weight Fighter (MWF) aircraft it is still not clear if HAL will be in charge of manufacturing of first four pre-production aircraft.

http://idrw.org/medium-weight-fighter-m ... -aircraft/ .


What would be new name and will ADA/DRDO/HAL able to adhere to this time line?

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 » 29 Mar 2019 19:48

Ojas seems to be a good follow on name.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 28 guests