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.
basant
BRFite
Posts: 212
Joined: 20 Mar 2020 20:58

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

Postby basant » 11 Apr 2020 23:34

Thank Gyan for the very informative post!

I have a little doubt. The advantage of FBW based longer range for the delta-winged LCA is true. However, as a design choice was it a factor? The design decision was made in early 90s (1990-91) whereas the study of F-16XL, if I am not wrong, was published in 2004 while the studies were done in 1990s. Was this relation between FBW to range was known during design phase before the selection was made?

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1434
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

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

Postby Gyan » 11 Apr 2020 23:49

Yes, two reasons:-

Mirage 2000

Second ADA can do their own research, I am referring to NASA study to support my argument. ADA was not waiting for public release of NASA study. Also BAE & Dassault Consultants to ADA had deep knowledge of Delta wing

basant
BRFite
Posts: 212
Joined: 20 Mar 2020 20:58

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

Postby basant » 12 Apr 2020 02:04

Gyan wrote:Yes, two reasons:-

Mirage 2000

Second ADA can do their own research, I am referring to NASA study to support my argument. ADA was not waiting for public release of NASA study. Also BAE & Dassault Consultants to ADA had deep knowledge of Delta wing

Thanks for the clarification! :)

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4525
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby JayS » 12 Apr 2020 11:45

basant wrote:Thank Gyan for the very informative post!

I have a little doubt. The advantage of FBW based longer range for the delta-winged LCA is true. However, as a design choice was it a factor? The design decision was made in early 90s (1990-91) whereas the study of F-16XL, if I am not wrong, was published in 2004 while the studies were done in 1990s. Was this relation between FBW to range was known during design phase before the selection was made?


FBW benefits are generic, not tied to the wing shape per se. FBW allows for statically unstable design reducing trim drag and possibly also improving L/D significantly with certain configurations. The principle and practical applications predates LCA by decades.

khan
BRFite
Posts: 830
Joined: 12 Feb 2003 12:31
Location: Tx

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

Postby khan » 12 Apr 2020 11:54

Will FBW reduce drag on conventional swept wing planes? If yes, how much - marginally or substantially?

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4525
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby JayS » 12 Apr 2020 12:30

khan wrote:Will FBW reduce drag on conventional swept wing planes? If yes, how much - marginally or substantially?

Difficult to say how much without specific configuration. For fighter it may and for civilian jets i may not. Also depends on Tail vs canard vs tailless config. But in general for fighters, FBW allows you to have relaxed static stability which allows you to trim, for same condition, at lower AoA and effectively lower total drag.

Just googled quickly. A good presentation of this phenomenon is on slide 12 of this F-16 related doc. See with relaxed static stability, how the Horizontal tail needs to produce less negative lift for trimming at both subsonic and supersonic cases. This means less reduction in total life, so wing can be trimmed at lower AoA for same lift requirement. Also less deflection of tail and less AoA of wing means lower overall drag.

http://www.dept.aoe.vt.edu/~mason/Mason_f/F16S04.pdf

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3579
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

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

Postby nam » 12 Apr 2020 13:35

One of the advantage of M2K delta wing over F16 wings is the ability to fly higher. This is very important in BVR. Needless to say LCA was designed for future BVR fights, so it makes sense to go for M2K style delta.

LCA is IAF's desire to have more M2K.

Then the question needs to ask is why didn't we just create a M2K sized delta figher with M2K engine? We wouldn't have faced with this "size" issue.

Well IAF wanted Mig21 replacement in Mig21 sized fighter, to prevent replacing shelters.

Afterwards IAF wanted more M2K to replace Mig21 before the infamous MMRCA 1.0. By that time, it was too late.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4525
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby JayS » 12 Apr 2020 14:36

I think the low wing-loading for LCA is result of two factors - high ITR and good hot and high performance specified. For the small size, there are little options left other than delta wing to achieve the required W/S.

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1434
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

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

Postby Gyan » 12 Apr 2020 14:51

nam wrote:
Then the question needs to ask is why didn't we just create a M2K sized delta figher with M2K engine? We wouldn't have faced with this "size" issue.

Well IAF wanted Mig21 replacement in Mig21 sized fighter, to prevent replacing shelters.

Afterwards IAF wanted more M2K to replace Mig21 before the infamous MMRCA 1.0. By that time, it was too late.


After 4000 word post, addressing only this issue, This is your question? :rotfl:

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9799
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

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

Postby Yagnasri » 12 Apr 2020 15:15

Great post Guanji.

Avtar Singh
BRFite
Posts: 144
Joined: 22 Jan 2017 02:07

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

Postby Avtar Singh » 12 Apr 2020 18:52

someone from my past

AUGURS WELL FOR TEJAS PLATFORM/LINE OF AIRCRAFT

Interview with Ian Black on the Lightning

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nerDSROnAc4

at 49.00 ===>>> Mirage 2000
starts exchange tour with French Air Force, only given manuals in French!!!

much more lax attitude compared to RAF
first day; solo in single seater/air combat in a single seater/solo in a dual seater/
solo night…
flying around the alps at 250 feet
How long would that take in RAF? probably about six years!!

Mirage 2000 is probably the ultimate fighter pilots aeroplane...
said not having flown typhoon/rafale/f22

mix between lightning and mirage with fly by wire... pull 9.5g all day long

similar to f16 it could turn 400kts 9.5g but left with only 200kts and out of ideas
DUE TO DELTA WING. could wax other aircraft very easily

FAF... always flew everyday some times twice a day

he did ACM (in mirage) with tornados F3s and harriers... unfair to comment because he does not want to embarass the RAF

FAF more gung ho compared to RAF... air to air gunnery at 400kts 9g
RAF only allowed air to air gunnery 200kts 2g

650 hours on the ultimate boys toy in south of france

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7655
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

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

Postby nachiket » 14 Apr 2020 01:07

Gyan wrote:Intention of Indian DRDO & IAF Brass :-

We always intended to develop an aircraft way more advanced than F-16/Mirage 2000 with “more range” We went about portraying it as little toy aircraft to avoid attracting attention during Cold War Era and subsequently to avoid getting the programmed derailed by competitors. Remember our polite non-threatening Dr. Abdul Kalam working on sounding rockets. The Aim to develop long range Ballistic Missiles was always his real intent.

My understanding is that LCA was intended to be 1000-1200km range aircraft, and even now its 800-900km range aircraft (due to weight gain)
In any case, the discussion is all the more pertinent because for LCA Mk-2 we are retaining the same Wingform with Canards.

To understand the design issues facing ADA (which was to develop a aircraft equivalent to F-16/Mirage 2000 while using GE F404 – 75kn engine),


nam wrote:LCA is IAF's desire to have more M2K.

Then the question needs to ask is why didn't we just create a M2K sized delta figher with M2K engine? We wouldn't have faced with this "size" issue.


Where are you guys getting this from? LCA was never intended to have Mirage-2000 levels of performance and it did not come out of some desire to "have more m2k". Show me any old news article or document which states that ADA set about creating a desi Mirage-2000 rather than a Mig-21 replacement.

When you start off with a completely incorrect assumption, the rest of your analysis will end up incorrect as well.

I'll make it simple, you cannot get M2k levels of performance (payload/range) with an LCA Mk-1 sized aircraft. It is not possible. Dassault would have had to do a very shitty job of designing the M2k if the same performance could be obtained from an aircraft much smaller and lighter and with a smaller engine. And we know Dassault did not do that. The M2k is a work of art as far as its design is concerned. And so is the F-16.

This is an incredible attempt at moving goalposts. First claim without proof that the LCA mk1 was supposed to have M2k/F-16 levels of performance and then conclude that it failed in its objectives based on the incorrect claim.

Even Mig-29 until recently has been very short ranged & maintenance heavy aircraft. Only when RD33/93 became powerful enough in this decade, its able to carry enough fuel using TWO Engines.

Where do you get your info from seriously? The RD-33 series 3 on our upgraded Mig-29's does not produce more thrust. The problem it fixes is the smokiness of the original RD-33. The Mig-29 never had problems with lack of thrust. It has a greater T:W ratio than most other fighters of its era. The original Mig-29 did not carry more fuel because it was not designed to. The Russians were designing the long range Su-27 in parallel. The Mig-29 was supposed to be a cheap, short range air defence fighter to be procured in large numbers. They were not waiting for more powerful engines to add more fuel to it.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7655
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

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

Postby nachiket » 14 Apr 2020 01:16

nam wrote:One of the advantage of M2K delta wing over F16 wings is the ability to fly higher.

Delta wings by themselves don't let the aircraft fly higher. The Mig-25 could fly higher than any delta winged aircraft around. The height ceilings are more dependent on engine and intake design. Perhaps you meant climb rate instead? Even that is not a simple comparison though.

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4548
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

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

Postby Manish_Sharma » 14 Apr 2020 02:50

^I thought Non-Delta like f16 and Jaguars are created to perform optimally at lower level flights to evade ground radars, while all Deltas perform best at high ceilings.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5249
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Kartik » 14 Apr 2020 03:00

No that's not true. F-15s and F-16s that are not delta wing fighters have significantly lower wing loading than the Jaguar that was designed to be a stable bomb carrying platform at low levels. It is the wing loading that matters more in relation to stable flight at low levels.

On the F-16 (as on the Mirage and other delta wing fighters with low wing loading) FBW compensates for it by alleviating wind gusts that could pitch the aircraft up or down suddenly and create a rough ride for pilots.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8161
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Postby Indranil » 14 Apr 2020 22:49

Gyan, I am happy to see that you are making a serious effort to learn. But some of the inferences that you are drawing are incorrect. It is part of learning.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4525
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby JayS » 14 Apr 2020 23:07

Free advice - don't get lost in the external looks of an Aircraft, if you are trying to understand how its designed. Shape comes later. First come Parameters like TWR and Wing loading. There are multiple ways of achieving same TWR and W/S combo (arrived at based on all SQR), and there is no one true superior way that the other. Plus dont get too bogged downed by certain characteristics you see, which may seem peculiar but often do not have as glorious technical rationale behind it as one may expect. Stick to the basics if you want to understand the fundamentals. Best read some Aircraft design book. Aircraft design books are typically fun to read and are not all that difficult to understand.

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3968
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby deejay » 15 Apr 2020 00:01

@nachiket @indranil @JayS @Kartik - My many pranaams to you for your patience. My fuse shorted when the first post on Delta vs Swept Wing. I was half expecting someone to ask about why do we not have an elliptical wing design on Tejas.

Please do discuss dihedral vs Anhedral wing design next but folks in the right thread. I am being cheeky Sorry.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17003
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 » 15 Apr 2020 00:45

Second JayS on the aircraft design book thingy. With my simple fyzziks background I found I could understand them to a decent level and thoroughly enjoyed it.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5249
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Kartik » 22 Apr 2020 05:20

From Vayu's March-April 2020 issue

-Preliminary design is almost done.
-Detailed design to begin from March 2020 (with Covid-19 most likely adding some schedule delay)
-Raw Material and LRU procurement has been started
-Development activities towards new LRUs started

The Tejas Mk.II for the Air Force was initially planned to have a higher thrust engine. However, in its new configuration it is no more a light combat aircraft but will be a Medium Weight Fighter (MWF).

This evolution of the MWF began with the IAF projecting a platform to replace the Mirage 2000, Jaguar and MiG-29 in the 2030s. The IAF wanted a multi-role fighter with improved range, endurance, lethality and increased payload carrying capacity. Based on these requirements, configuration optimisation studies were initiated by ADA in November 2016, a configuration with improved performance and increased internal fuel has thus evolved. Subsequently, the IAF also indicated their requirement for integrating heavier standoff weapons.The final configuration was agreed to in September 2018 to meet these capabilities.

Preliminary design of the MWF is at the final stages of completion and detail design activities are to begin from March 2020.

The procurement of raw material and LRUs has been initiated and development activities towards new LRUs initiated.
The engineering cockpit simulator of the MWF was on display at Defexpo 2020, with a Large Area Display (LAD), sleek Head Up Display (HUD) and side control stick.


neerajb
BRFite
Posts: 830
Joined: 24 Jun 2008 14:18
Location: Delhi, India.

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

Postby neerajb » 22 Apr 2020 13:40

JayS wrote:Difficult to say how much without specific configuration. For fighter it may and for civilian jets i may not. Also depends on Tail vs canard vs tailless config. But in general for fighters, FBW allows you to have relaxed static stability which allows you to trim, for same condition, at lower AoA and effectively lower total drag.

Just googled quickly. A good presentation of this phenomenon is on slide 12 of this F-16 related doc. See with relaxed static stability, how the Horizontal tail needs to produce less negative lift for trimming at both subsonic and supersonic cases. This means less reduction in total life, so wing can be trimmed at lower AoA for same lift requirement. Also less deflection of tail and less AoA of wing means lower overall drag.

http://www.dept.aoe.vt.edu/~mason/Mason_f/F16S04.pdf


Saw a documentary on F-16, narrator mentioned that F-16s horizontal tail provides +ve lift unlike conventional aircraft and hence the wing size can be reduced, tail size is reduced as well as compared to conventional aircraft because of less dependency on tail for pitch up. So the structural weight goes down for the same performance using relaxed static stability in addition to all the drag benefits that you mentioned. All these benefits were known to humans but I believe lack of computers earlier to control the aircraft was the reason behind conventional layouts.

MeshaVishwas
BRFite
Posts: 435
Joined: 16 Feb 2019 17:20

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

Postby MeshaVishwas » 24 Apr 2020 17:31

Finally, after years of tests the #OBOX for #Tejas have completed all ground-based trials at test rigs. It should fly on board one of the test variants, mostly PV3, for a series of of trials. #LCAMkII will be fitted with DEBEL #OBOX thereby adding another desi system.

https://twitter.com/writetake/status/12 ... 02753?s=19

OBOGS tests done!

RKumar
BRFite
Posts: 1246
Joined: 26 Jul 2009 12:29
Location: Evolution is invention, explosion is destruction.

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

Postby RKumar » 24 Apr 2020 23:27

MeshaVishwas wrote:
Finally, after years of tests the #OBOX for #Tejas have completed all ground-based trials at test rigs. It should fly on board one of the test variants, mostly PV3, for a series of of trials. #LCAMkII will be fitted with DEBEL #OBOX thereby adding another desi system.

https://twitter.com/writetake/status/12 ... 02753?s=19

OBOGS tests done!


Jolly good news!! Keep it up guys :D

Atmavik
BRFite
Posts: 725
Joined: 24 Aug 2016 04:43

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

Postby Atmavik » 24 Apr 2020 23:41

this might have been mentioned here before. but its worth noting that this project enabled DRDO to make ventilators real fast.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2309
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

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

Postby Vivek K » 25 Apr 2020 00:30

deejay wrote:@nachiket @indranil @JayS @Kartik - My many pranaams to you for your patience. My fuse shorted when the first post on Delta vs Swept Wing. I was half expecting someone to ask about why do we not have an elliptical wing design on Tejas.

Please do discuss dihedral vs Anhedral wing design next but folks in the right thread. I am being cheeky Sorry.

The more we educate, the fewer morons will question domestic systems.

agupta
BRFite
Posts: 302
Joined: 13 Oct 1999 11:31

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

Postby agupta » 25 Apr 2020 00:44

Vivek K wrote:
deejay wrote:@nachiket @indranil @JayS @Kartik - My many pranaams to you for your patience. My fuse shorted when the first post on Delta vs Swept Wing. I was half expecting someone to ask about why do we not have an elliptical wing design on Tejas.

Please do discuss dihedral vs Anhedral wing design next but folks in the right thread. I am being cheeky Sorry.

The more we educate, the fewer morons will question domestic systems.



:rotfl:

Did you all see that big truck drive by.... with license plates I. R. O. N. Y ? The dust sorta obscured it.....

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4525
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby JayS » 25 Apr 2020 20:37

neerajb wrote:
JayS wrote:Difficult to say how much without specific configuration. For fighter it may and for civilian jets i may not. Also depends on Tail vs canard vs tailless config. But in general for fighters, FBW allows you to have relaxed static stability which allows you to trim, for same condition, at lower AoA and effectively lower total drag.

Just googled quickly. A good presentation of this phenomenon is on slide 12 of this F-16 related doc. See with relaxed static stability, how the Horizontal tail needs to produce less negative lift for trimming at both subsonic and supersonic cases. This means less reduction in total life, so wing can be trimmed at lower AoA for same lift requirement. Also less deflection of tail and less AoA of wing means lower overall drag.

http://www.dept.aoe.vt.edu/~mason/Mason_f/F16S04.pdf


Saw a documentary on F-16, narrator mentioned that F-16s horizontal tail provides +ve lift unlike conventional aircraft and hence the wing size can be reduced, tail size is reduced as well as compared to conventional aircraft because of less dependency on tail for pitch up. So the structural weight goes down for the same performance using relaxed static stability in addition to all the drag benefits that you mentioned. All these benefits were known to humans but I believe lack of computers earlier to control the aircraft was the reason behind conventional layouts.


Bingo..!

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9058
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Postby Rakesh » 26 May 2020 18:55

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/12635 ... 28513?s=20 ---> Nice article @Chopsyturvey. Though, can't agree on way forward. "We need help" conclusion is not adequately supported by technical arguments. 'Help' is a 3rd world concept. Can't agree on that word at all. We crossed that stage years ago.

https://twitter.com/Skbanbotra/status/1 ... 08738?s=20 ---> It has been written that, "The realistic first flight time-line would be 2028 and induction will be at 2035 timeline." Will it push retirement of Jaguars and Mirage 2000 ahead if we consider that line?

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/12636 ... 37312?s=20 ---> Which aircraft?

https://twitter.com/Vamsina90252211/sta ... 03171?s=20 ---> I think he meant Tejas Mk2 sir.

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/12636 ... 16097?s=20 ---> It's not anticipated to take long. A perception that Mk2 will take tens of years, even after India has certified a 4th generation fighter aircraft could be borne out of some prejudices. Time now to grow out of that, engage with indigenous industry & realise it's suppressed potential.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5249
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Kartik » 26 May 2020 23:05

So good to have HVT back on Twitter. He single handedly can demolish almost any BS against the Tejas apart from the other gyan he gives.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4695
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

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

Postby srai » 27 May 2020 05:11

Part of the production and induction timelines is also dependent on the IAF. At what point is the IOC considered good enough to induct? And how many quantities will be procured at IOC?

The other part is the GoI funding for the production setup and execution. A big roadblock is their procurement red-tape.

From the design, development and production pov, DRDO/ADA/HAL sound very confident in the timelines announced.

sankum
BRFite
Posts: 828
Joined: 20 Dec 2004 21:45

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

Postby sankum » 28 May 2020 23:04

https://hal-india.co.in/Tender_Details.aspx?Mkey=63&lKey=&Ckey=MjYwNTk=&Divkey=MTY=

HAL tyre tender for Tejas mk2.

MTOW 18200kg
Normal TOW 17500kg
High Altitude TOW 13500kg

Normal landing weight 12500kg
Maximum landing weight 13000kg
Emergency landing weight 17000kg.

basant
BRFite
Posts: 212
Joined: 20 Mar 2020 20:58

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

Postby basant » 29 May 2020 00:02

srai wrote:Part of the production and induction timelines is also dependent on the IAF. At what point is the IOC considered good enough to induct? And how many quantities will be procured at IOC?

The other part is the GoI funding for the production setup and execution. A big roadblock is their procurement red-tape.

From the design, development and production pov, DRDO/ADA/HAL sound very confident in the timelines announced.

It is widely accepted that Indian Army was saved (in 1947) from the pacifist leader by Pakistan's aggression in Kashmir. China may save Tejas by helping decimation of bureaucratic roadblocks in procurement of indigenous equipment once and for all.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5249
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Kartik » 29 May 2020 00:24

As per Anantha Krishnan, the IAF now wants the term Medium Weight Fighter (MWF) to be dumped and go back to Tejas Mk2 or LCA Mk2.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9058
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Postby Rakesh » 29 May 2020 00:32

Did he tweet this or did he put out a news article? Any link?

RKumar
BRFite
Posts: 1246
Joined: 26 Jul 2009 12:29
Location: Evolution is invention, explosion is destruction.

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

Postby RKumar » 29 May 2020 00:36

Kartik wrote:As per Anantha Krishnan, the IAF now wants the term Medium Weight Fighter (MWF) to be dumped and go back to Tejas Mk2 or LCA Mk2.


Seems like they want to protect the imports of medium category fighter. if they name LCA Mk2 specifically as MWF, then no more imports. They are trying to open a gap for future, bright minds at work :lol:

Light category is exclusively Tejas so no imports for this category.
Last edited by RKumar on 29 May 2020 00:38, edited 1 time in total.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9058
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Postby Rakesh » 29 May 2020 00:37

Found the tweet!

We are 20 pages into this thread. I am not changing the title thread now. When a new thread is started, will revert to the term Tejas Mk2.

https://twitter.com/writetake/status/12 ... 26400?s=20 ----> The advanced version of LCA which was known as Medium Weight Fighter (MWF) will now be Tejas Mk II or LCA Mk II as called earlier. The name MWF has been dropped. Eventually, this programme will get an appropriate name at the right time.

Image

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3579
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

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

Postby nam » 29 May 2020 00:53

Rakesh wrote:https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/12636 ... 16097?s=20 ---> It's not anticipated to take long. A perception that Mk2 will take tens of years, even after India has certified a 4th generation fighter aircraft could be borne out of some prejudices. Time now to grow out of that, engage with indigenous industry & realise it's suppressed potential.


I always wondered about this trait of us. Very difficult for Indians to believe that Indians could create good things.
On the other side of the spectrum, you have a nation which was created from the same "race" of people, who are super confident that a Chinese jet was actually created by them and it is almost human civilization's greatest endeavor.

It amazes me that IAF is ready to keep flying 50 year old jet, than induct more of FOC version with a top notch radar, BVR, composite & engine.:roll:

Sometimes I feel, there is a fear in IAF that we might actually succeed in making a good jet and that would close the door to flying in a TFTA European or American fighter. Like a mango desi's dream of owning a Mercedes/BMW/Audi/Jag/RR etc..

agupta
BRFite
Posts: 302
Joined: 13 Oct 1999 11:31

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

Postby agupta » 29 May 2020 01:08

Kartik wrote:As per Anantha Krishnan, the IAF now wants the term Medium Weight Fighter (MWF) to be dumped and go back to Tejas Mk2 or LCA Mk2.

Puzzled by your inference that it was the IAF that drove this... Anantha's tweets do not ascribe any ownership re. this shift ! From a different source, then ?

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9058
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Postby Rakesh » 29 May 2020 01:18

agupta wrote:Puzzled by your inference that it was the IAF that drove this... Anantha's tweets do not ascribe any ownership re. this shift ! From a different source, then ?

https://twitter.com/ungliwallah/status/ ... 17893?s=20 ---> I suspect IAF panicked at calling it MWF because GoI would question need for MMRCA given indigenous medium weight fighter so asked for a rename back to innocuous Mk 2.

basant
BRFite
Posts: 212
Joined: 20 Mar 2020 20:58

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

Postby basant » 29 May 2020 01:34

Rakesh wrote:
agupta wrote:Puzzled by your inference that it was the IAF that drove this... Anantha's tweets do not ascribe any ownership re. this shift ! From a different source, then ?

https://twitter.com/ungliwallah/status/ ... 17893?s=20 ---> I suspect IAF panicked at calling it MWF because GoI would question need for MMRCA given indigenous medium weight fighter so asked for a rename back to innocuous Mk 2

It's too late to play such tricks, opposition will roast even if the move is sane, which isn't. Unless they are going to change the specs to previous Mk2 for which someone should take blame for getting models wrong, which neither ADA nor HAL will never do when we are already talking of metal cutting dates. If government wants to buy MRCA, it will say so and has been saying so.

Ironically, the biggest push for indigenization comes from falling GDP, necessity for MII and urgency due to tensions at the borders. Government will have to look for spending money within India.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: A Sharma, KL Dubey, Vamsee and 46 guests