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

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 29 May 2020 04:32

or maybe the MWF name is being reserved for TEDBF/ORCA twin engine 33 ton plane.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 29 May 2020 05:22

agupta wrote:
Kartik wrote: Can you think of a good reason why ADA or DRDO would ask that the program be again called Tejas Mk2 after they themselves were calling it MWF saying it was no longer a light fighter? As someone replied on Twitter, it would seem that the IAF may not want an impression that the MWF could replace the MRCA program and hence the shift back to the Mk2 terminology.

But of course, we could be wrong and it could simply be an ADA/DRDO thing.

OK... so if there's no other input or source than "mr. ungliwallah" speculating on Twitter with the side benefit of running down the IAF, then I think we can surmise this is pure speculation.

The MWF and "No longer a light fighter" bit came from ADA/HAL (hard to say who or when).. as a way to signal how different it is; I could also speculate on why the differences need to be emphasized (so hard, so new, so much more money and patience required etc) but it would also be speculation. I don't think the IAF cares 2 horse's ass's hairs what its called as long as it gets delivered on the time line its promised.

It came from the IAF as well. It was called out by Air Marshal Nambiar in one of his lectures that was also published.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 29 May 2020 09:07

agupta wrote:
Kartik wrote: Can you think of a good reason why ADA or DRDO would ask that the program be again called Tejas Mk2 after they themselves were calling it MWF saying it was no longer a light fighter? As someone replied on Twitter, it would seem that the IAF may not want an impression that the MWF could replace the MRCA program and hence the shift back to the Mk2 terminology.

But of course, we could be wrong and it could simply be an ADA/DRDO thing.

OK... so if there's no other input or source than "mr. ungliwallah" speculating on Twitter with the side benefit of running down the IAF, then I think we can surmise this is pure speculation.

The MWF and "No longer a light fighter" bit came from ADA/HAL (hard to say who or when).. as a way to signal how different it is; I could also speculate on why the differences need to be emphasized (so hard, so new, so much more money and patience required etc) but it would also be speculation. I don't think the IAF cares 2 horse's ass's hairs what its called as long as it gets delivered on the time line its promised.

https://saluteindia.org/military-modern ... air-force/

Our aircraft of the future, as we perceive it as of today, is the LCA Mark II. This aircraft, we believe, will replace the MiG 29 in the next ten years, the Jaguar in the next 15 years and the Mirage 2000 in the next 20 years. All combined, this adds up to a total of twelve squadrons.

The requirements of the IAF for the LCA Mark II are centred on two crucial points. First, it has to be cutting edge, to the tune of its best electronic warfare capability and best weapons. As far as performance goes, we have pegged the performance to the level of the Mirage 2000, which is an aircraft already 35 years in our inventory. We are therefore not aiming for the moon, but for space at best. Therefore, our requirements have already been crystallised, our designers are at it, and given the fact that we have pitched ourselves at a level at which they are capable of generating and making, we will have an aircraft which will be in time in the next ten years or so. It will be the Mark II and will be a different breed of aircraft — probably bigger, probably more powerful and definitely capable of lifting much more load. We are envisaging an aircraft that can lift at least 6.5 tons of weapon load as compared to the LCA and LCA I which lifts about 3.8 tons.

Its basically a MMRCA. Mirage 2000 class payload range performance, but with cutting edge avionics etc.

srai · Post by **srai** » 29 May 2020 10:13

The next differentiation will be on how many engines it has

SE-MWF vs TE-MMRCA (rules out SE competitors)

D.Mahesh · Post by **D.Mahesh** » 30 May 2020 07:22

Useless speculation. No toleration for any more of this scope creep & I Want Phasor Drive Warp III Wormhole Craft
Those days are over.

A good deal of this nonsense was being run out of Delhi Gymkhana and a certain ****puri. There are many otherwise honourable folks who had their paws in this loot.

Over.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 30 May 2020 11:27

Maybe, just maybe the meaning of medium for the IAF has gone up, what with using mki, rafale and such?

Now 6 tons = light? Not too different from how naval assets have gone up in weight with time despite the same nomenclature. Today's frigate is easily heavier than yesterday's destroyer.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 30 May 2020 12:57

D.Mahesh wrote:Useless speculation. No toleration for any more of this scope creep & I Want Phasor Drive Warp III Wormhole Craft
Those days are over.

A good deal of this nonsense was being run out of Delhi Gymkhana and a certain ****puri. There are many otherwise honourable folks who had their paws in this loot.

Over.

I agree with you Sir. The nomenclature MWF was triggering unnecessary scope creep pressures. I think there is a broad understanding on the GSQRs of LCA MKII and that is how it should remain.

The whole MWF was a sure way to delay the project.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 02 Jun 2020 11:14

Karan M wrote: Its basically a MMRCA. Mirage 2000 class payload range performance, but with cutting edge avionics etc.

Exactly, it will have a similar or better payload and range capability as the M2k and the Gripen E/F. IAF considers the M2k a medium category fighter considering that that was their original demand for the MMRCA and the vaporware Gripen E was a contender in the actual MMRCA contest. So whether it is called MWF or not, we know what it is.

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 03 Jun 2020 01:05

The delay due to weight scope creep is already done (Mk2 was planned over 10 yers ago), now that they are actually making the think let's not leave a gap for another MMRCA import.

ashishvikas · Post by **ashishvikas** » 04 Jun 2020 17:31

A pack of 4 Tejas Mk-2 armed with long-range BVR missiles getting ready for a morning CAP in the western sector.

https://twitter.com/Kuntal__biswas/stat ... 92773?s=20

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 05 Jun 2020 02:13

Eye-poppingly good renderings! I do believe that the landing gear will be taller, given the requirement for SCALP sized ALCM to be carried on the centerline. I think his landing gear design is influenced by the Super Hornet's landing gear, which doesn't match with the design shown on an ADA brochure.

But overall, his renderings are incredibly good!

Now praying that HAL doesn't screw up Tejas Mk2's color scheme like it has for the Tejas Mk1. This simple and effective color scheme looks amazing on the Tejas.

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 05 Jun 2020 02:42

Saar you are doing too much, they can paint them in any colour. I will eat crow soup(admin's favourite dish nowadays) if they release a full scale MK2 mock up even in band party livery by 2022.

Overall, back in 1999 we had a dream to have one aircraft project done and my mind is not able to believe that we now have seven concurrent fighter programs going on(Mk1, MK1A, MK2, AMCA, TEDBF, N-LCA, Ghatak-UAV). Koti koti salutations to ADA/HAL/DRDO and GoI under Namo to make this day possible

bharathp · Post by **bharathp** » 05 Jun 2020 03:08

suryag wrote:Saar you are doing too much, they can paint them in any colour. I will eat crow soup(admin's favourite dish nowadays) if they release a full scale MK2 mock up even in band party livery by 2022.

Overall, back in 1999 we had a dream to have one aircraft project done and my mind is not able to believe that we now have seven concurrent fighter programs going on(Mk1, MK1A, MK2, AMCA, TEDBF, N-LCA, Ghatak-UAV). Koti koti salutations to ADA/HAL/DRDO and GoI under Namo to make this day possible

I am a newbie interms of number of posts here. but just wanted to add dont forget the efforts of Manohar Parrikar. the guy deserves a lot of praise.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 05 Jun 2020 03:12

Indeed. None of this would've been possible without his stellar efforts in bringing the IAF fully on board the Tejas program and HAL in bringing the Mk1A variant.

basant · Post by **basant** » 05 Jun 2020 09:34

Kartik wrote:Indeed. None of this would've been possible without his stellar efforts in bringing the IAF fully on board the Tejas program and HAL in bringing the Mk1A variant.

So true! RIP Parrikar ji! I was horrified when he was moved back to Goa. We lost 10+ years courtesy UPA in defense, and any new minister would take a year or more to get a grip on a ministry. However Nirmala Sitharaman did a great job as well in ensuring orders for desi products as well as during Doklam.

Arun Jaitley on the other hand did as much for defence as he did for finance. *sigh*

It is ironical that despite Finance Minister(s) being associated with Defence Ministry, the latter got lowest spending in years (as a fraction of GDP) during their times.

la.khan · Post by **la.khan** » 05 Jun 2020 11:58

Kartik wrote:Eye-poppingly good renderings! I do believe that the landing gear will be taller, given the requirement for SCALP sized ALCM to be carried on the centerline. I think his landing gear design is influenced by the Super Hornet's landing gear, which doesn't match with the design shown on an ADA brochure.

But overall, his renderings are incredibly good!

Now praying that HAL doesn't screw up Tejas Mk2's color scheme like it has for the Tejas Mk1. This simple and effective color scheme looks amazing on the Tejas.

Awesome renderings! I know LCA Mk2 is still on the drawing board. I also know it is heavier than Tejas Mk1/Mk1A. But LCA Mk2 as it exists (on the drawing board) designed to carry Brahmos ALCM (the one as it exists today and that can be delivered by Su-30MKI)? I hope that capability is built from the ground up for LCA Mk2 and not as an afterthought (as in the case of Su-30MKI). Anything available on this in the public domain?

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 05 Jun 2020 12:15

Manohar Parrikarji's loss is one of the greatest losses in the recent past. A great son of Ma Bharathi.

SRajesh · Post by **SRajesh** » 05 Jun 2020 16:29

** Post Deleted **

SidSoma · Post by **SidSoma** » 05 Jun 2020 19:03

** Deleted **

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 05 Jun 2020 19:17

How are the above 2 posts related to Tejas Mk2?

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 05 Jun 2020 19:31

Rear ward visibility is an issue in these renders.

ashishvikas wrote:A pack of 4 Tejas Mk-2 armed with long-range BVR missiles getting ready for a morning CAP in the western sector.

https://twitter.com/Kuntal__biswas/stat ... 92773?s=20

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EZqcTYpWAAA ... name=large
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EZqcUm1WkAA ... name=large
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EZqcVmXWAAI ... name=large
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EZqcWdHXQAA ... name=large

Manish_P · Post by **Manish_P** » 05 Jun 2020 20:50

Karan ji, very noob question perhaps. Aren't there any rear cameras on fighters. I don't mean the super advanced ones like the F35 helmet types. Simpler ones like there are on cars and trucks nowadays.. with some features like zoom, wide-angle. Have seen them also on airliners

I am not suggesting that they would replace the Eyeball Mk1. But they might be helpful especially if the image could be projected (on demand) on the display/HUD

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 06 Jun 2020 02:36

They use mirrors.

Manish_P · Post by **Manish_P** » 06 Jun 2020 11:52

Am aware of the mirrors, sir. Obvious benefits being very cheap and non-powered (don't need much maintenance) and they do the job fine. I just wondered if cameras (as they get cheaper) might also feature (like on modern cars, trucks, airliners) on future fighters, providing display on MFD, HUD, Helmet Visor etc as a pilot assist feature. To cover the blind spots in the rear where the pilots would need to crane their necks, maybe while pulling some G's.

F16 and F22 don't have even mirrors on their single piece canopies, do they?

srai · Post by **srai** » 06 Jun 2020 15:15

^^^
EF Typhoon Helmet By BAE systems

chola · Post by **chola** » 06 Jun 2020 15:51

ashishvikas wrote:A pack of 4 Tejas Mk-2 armed with long-range BVR missiles getting ready for a morning CAP in the western sector.

https://twitter.com/Kuntal__biswas/stat ... 92773?s=20

Beautiful! A bit of observation. The MWF is about a meter longer than the Tejas not quite seeing that here? But great work!

srin · Post by **srin** » 06 Jun 2020 16:13

Manish_P wrote:Am aware of the mirrors, sir. Obvious benefits being very cheap and non-powered (don't need much maintenance) and they do the job fine. I just wondered if cameras (as they get cheaper) might also feature (like on modern cars, trucks, airliners) on future fighters, providing display on MFD, HUD, Helmet Visor etc as a pilot assist feature. To cover the blind spots in the rear where the pilots would need to crane their necks, maybe while pulling some G's.

F16 and F22 don't have even mirrors on their single piece canopies, do they?

There is one more advantage of a mirror - no latency. At the speeds a fighter flies, you don’t want the display to show what the camera captured a few hundred milliseconds ago. Next time you are on one of these new passenger jets, try to observe the taxi,takeoff and landing with the onboard camera. You’ll observe the painful delay between real situation and the display.

Now, such a rear view camera is going to be helpful (think night vision) but it’ll take very good engineering to make it practical enough to provide net positive situational awareness.

ashishvikas · Post by **ashishvikas** » 06 Jun 2020 19:05

Kartik wrote:
nachiket wrote:Is an IRST confirmed for Mk2? I see it in Kuntal's CG image.
Yes it is. Was always shown in the ADA MWF model as well.

I think HVT had twitted once - we don't need a separate nose mounted IRST as Lightning Pod takes care of all IRST functionality.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 06 Jun 2020 21:46

The only drawback using lightening pod is its location, compared to a traditional IRST, can't cover targets above the aircraft, and on the one side the entire fuselage will be blocking the aircraft
So aircraft will have to get into an optimal position to use lightening as IRST.

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 06 Jun 2020 22:58

Also with advent of LO, if radar cannot catch, perhaps IRST will. IRST has exceptional directional ability and poor range (in fact cannot determine range without a laser ranger, laser ranger limited to some 10 kms, while reportedly IRST can do 90 kms), two of the planes with IRST can triangulate and find a LO plane, perhaps two IRST suitably placed on the same plane can(can it?). It would be prudent to carry integral IRST in LCAMK2, even if Litening can do this function. A fused SA with radar, IRST, EW + data integration with other planes/systems will be good to find LO planes and other threats.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 28 Jul 2020 01:29

TWITTER

@Nambitiger1

Question: Sir, are u sure Tejas MK2 will beat Rafale which is 2 engine aircraft with semi-stealth capability + 5th gen avionics + SPECTRA EW ??

My Answer: The Rafale first flew in 1986, and the Tejas Mk 2 will probably fly in 2026, Forty years later... I’m certain we can!

https://twitter.com/Nambitiger1/status/ ... 20544?s=19

@akashgupta646:
Sir but the SPECTRA and 5th Gen technologies were not there in 1986 right? These F3R standard avionics and jamming capabilities are new.

@Nambitiger1

What is flying today is over three years old technology, what will fly 6 years from now will incorporate technologies which are on the design board right now....

@Nambitiger1

Please don’t underestimate time....40 years is a long time in aviation....The HF-24 Marut first flew in 1961, and the LCA Tejas 40 years later in 2001....the difference is awesome!
https://twitter.com/Nambitiger1/status/ ... 80257?s=19

Sumeet · Post by **Sumeet** » 28 Jul 2020 01:43

Well why speculate on whether Tejas MK2 can beat Rafale or not. By the time it comes out Rafale will be at F4 standard. It's silly to talk whether Tejas can beat Rafale or vice versa. I sincerely hope IAF is closely involved and feedback on aerodynamics of M2K, Rafale and Tejas Mk1 experience all come in together to make Tejas Mk2 a success for us. This will be the backbone of our force in foreseeable future (~25 years) flying along side Rafale, Super 30, AMCA. We should be focussing on what we need to do to get there in time.

basant · Post by **basant** » 28 Jul 2020 14:32

HVT's tweet

Big shoes to fit in.
Tejas Mk-2 will probably be more up-to-date than Rafale, when it enters service. It's really the TEDBF-like, twin-engine-cousin of Mk-2 that'll exceed the teering performance of Rafale.

1:38 PM · Jul 28, 2020

Optimistically cautious! Love it!

sankum · Post by **sankum** » 28 Jul 2020 15:58

HAL tender for Tejas mk2 wing assembly
Length of wing 6.5m
Width 3.4m
Thickness 30cm
Weight 750kg
https://hal-india.co.in/Tender_Details. ... ivkey=MTY=

sudham · Post by **sudham** » 28 Jul 2020 18:25

Posting link since it relates to GE414 engine.
Kindly delete or move to appropriate thread if that helps.

https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/ ... 3cad38460e

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 28 Jul 2020 18:44

^^ There are already around 1500 F-414's that the USN has bought. The global number will be close to 2,000 by the time they are done with the SH (and factoring in the Gripen E) program. So by the time the MWF ramps up, and the early AMCA, the large installed base would likely mean that GE can offer a number of component level performance of reliability upgrades because if it isn't already, a large majority of its F414 engines would have been supported via capitated performance based sustainment constracts.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 28 Jul 2020 19:04

sankum wrote:HAL tender for Tejas mk2 wing assembly
Length of wing 6.5m
Width 3.4m
Thickness 30cm
Weight 750kg
https://hal-india.co.in/Tender_Details. ... ivkey=MTY=

Interesting, thanks for sharing the link.

I was looking at the technical specs, and it has rough specs. Does anyone know if the design has been frozen? If I remember previous discussions, there were multiple wind tunnel models displayed in various airshows, not sure if its frozen or not.

Also, was thinking that for MK-II onwards, HAL might outsource the wing assembly too to tier-1 suppliers like Tata advanced materials etc who are doing work on wing for Mk-I too. Looks like HAL is keeping it inhouse. They wanted to be integrators with various assemblies/sub-assemblies coming from tier-1/2 suppliers. Looks like it will just be similar to Mk-1/IA for Mk-II too.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 28 Jul 2020 19:34

I wonder seriously whether its worth by 2030 or thereabouts reinventing the wheel with the Tejas-2, when it is acknowledged that it will only be as good as the 35 yr. old M2K! Reports of frantic work on the AMCA makes better sense and personally I feel that all our efforts should be on the AMCA as a future stealth fighter,esp.as the reports indicate a slightly larger aircraft design is required because of a larger internal weapons bay requirement to house planned for AAMs and ASMs.

The USAF has started work on an 18 month " autonomous" fighter ( unmanned) concept which will be able to take decisions in flight thanks to AI,faster than any human bring. It will be superior to anything flying today. Assuming the prototypes arrive by the decade end, the Tejas-2 will be an antique generation wise,conceptually 45 yrs. old barring some composites,a new radar and better EW .It won't even match the Rafale. While new stealth fighters manned and unmanned ,plus so-caled 6th.-gen fighters proliferate the skies, Tejas-2 will look like its " back to the future"!

Current stealth fighters and new 5th- gen fighter programmes in the works in some countries will remain relevant . For a nation like ours that has such a small defence budget, still battling with Tejas-1/1A development and meaningful series production, the T-2 appears to me as a waste of time and money. If we need more medium fighters for the inventory of 4+ or 4++ generation then there are existing options from the list of those competing for MMRCA 2.0. Extra Rafales though a v.expfnsive option would still ssve a lot of time and money and more MIG-29UGs even cheaper in no way inferior to an M2K,superior if you ask AM Masand retd.

It would also add to the number of types in the inventory defeating standardisation which was a requisite to make it easier for the IAF to have greater nos. combat available .The AMCA is supposed to replace all med. fighters and Jaguars barring the Rafale post 2030. Perfecting Tejas 1A and accelerating its production rate should be the objective for a programme yet to meet its 3 decade old performance parameters thanks to stuffing too much additional eqpt. into its small airframe. The difficulty of doing that with composites unlike metal airframes was illustrated in a review of the LCA in a recent VAYU edition. If Tejas is built in large numbers swiftly and economically,replacing legacy MIG-21s
the programme would've met its original purpose and ensured enough numbers in the IAF's fleet in the light category.However,it cannot " punch above its weight". For the medium type performance, and survivability in the eta of stealth post 2030. it requires a new contemporary aircraft looking towards the future,not towards the past!

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 28 Jul 2020 20:00

Philip Sir - kindly consider this as an unofficial warning for your reversion back to one single theme of creating a case for out of place Russian wares. Kindly cease and desist

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 28 Jul 2020 20:50

Philip wrote:Current stealth fighters and new 5th- gen fighter programmes in the works in some countries will remain relevant . For a nation like ours that has such a small defence budget, still battling with Tejas-1/1A development and meaningful series production, the T-2 appears to me as a waste of time and money. If we need more medium fighters for the inventory of 4+ or 4++ generation then there are existing options from the list of those competing for MMRCA 2.0. Extra Rafales though a v.expfnsive option would still ssve a lot of time and money and more MIG-29UGs even cheaper in no way inferior to an M2K,superior if you ask AM Masand retd.

There are tactical and logistical reasons that tie directly into READINESS and the ability to fight when called upon to do so. Even the USAF is buying as many as 200 F-15 EX's because they slot right in into the retiring F-15C fleet, use the same infrastructure and logistical/depot base and the training and support is already baked in. Huge financial savings as opposed to transitioning to a completely new type and most importantly huge savings in the time it takes to transition a unit to new tails and get it up to speed to fight if called upon. It is very easy to underestimate the operational impact of having a unit to a completely new type especially one that is coming out of its development with the schedule uncertainty associated with that. You could be looking at anywhere from 18 months to 3 years to get the unit fully kitted and fully trained and equipped (FOC) to fight. Shaving half or more of that TIMES the number of transitioning units directly ties into maintaining high rates readiness and the ability to "fight tonight".

The same is going to be true when the MWF comes in given its based on the LCA. Easier transition and easier for HAL to support frontline squadrons. That equates to a boost in readiness and the ability to fight. Waiting for the AMCA to mature while continuing to use inferior (to the MWF) aircraft till such time directly makes IAF's capability and capacity (brand new MWF's will maintain higher readiness rates) worst. MWF comes in and replaces types when it is ready and AMCA can begin replacing fighters retiring in the second half of the 2030's. Risking a large chunk of IAF modernization on the success of a 5GFA is extremely problematic given how hard it has been for the US, Russia and China in fully mastering 5GFA technology. This is hard stuff and a 15-20 year process to get to FOC and high maturity. Not modernizing at scale over that time frame is just bad at so many different levels, especially given the greater assertiveness of China and the global security situation in general.