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.
Post Reply
V_Raman
BRFite
Posts: 1380
Joined: 04 Sep 2008 22:25

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

Post by V_Raman »

Why is LCA Mk 2 again absent from the list? It seems very specific. I guess it has to come from 114 MRFA - split between Rafale and MK2!
Atmavik
BRFite
Posts: 1987
Joined: 24 Aug 2016 04:43

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

Post by Atmavik »

What is amca mk 2 ???
m_saini
BRFite
Posts: 767
Joined: 23 May 2020 20:25

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

Post by m_saini »

^ mk2 is with indigenous/jv engines
RishiChatterjee
BRFite
Posts: 125
Joined: 19 Jun 2021 09:15

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

Post by RishiChatterjee »

Rakesh wrote:
RishiChatterjee wrote:Some of the trial renders by Kuntal..
Please provide links to pictures when posting.
Didn't post, rejected experimental stuff.. It's from my WhatsApp.

Image
Image
Last edited by RishiChatterjee on 24 Nov 2021 08:55, edited 2 times in total.
enaiel
BRFite
Posts: 114
Joined: 28 Oct 2004 07:13

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

Post by enaiel »

From the same article above:
Manish K Jha: Could you please share the IAF's projected roadmap for having 42 squadron as defined under the possible two front war? It is speculated that IAF will not be able to achieve the strength of 42 squadrons as planned.

CAS: IAF has planned for a steady build-up of its fighter fleet over the coming two decades. This includes 83 LCA MK1A, 12 Su-30 MKI, 21 Mig 29s, 114 MRFA, and the seven Squadrons of AMCA. The plan caters to a force build up along with filling of gaps when older types and squadrons are phased out.
The IAFs plan for the next two decades does not include even 1 squadron of LCA MK2. Trickle funding, late disbursement of funds, not even token orders. The program is being killed, if it is not already dead. Even if it is revived after failure to order MRFA, it would be again too many years lost. We already lost 2 years before the MK1A was ordered. And we lost even more when more orders for the MK1 FOC was not given. For someone following the LCA saga since 2001, it's a sense of Deja Vu. History being repeated over and over again.
ks_sachin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2906
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

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

Post by ks_sachin »

enaiel wrote:From the same article above:
Manish K Jha: Could you please share the IAF's projected roadmap for having 42 squadron as defined under the possible two front war? It is speculated that IAF will not be able to achieve the strength of 42 squadrons as planned.

CAS: IAF has planned for a steady build-up of its fighter fleet over the coming two decades. This includes 83 LCA MK1A, 12 Su-30 MKI, 21 Mig 29s, 114 MRFA, and the seven Squadrons of AMCA. The plan caters to a force build up along with filling of gaps when older types and squadrons are phased out.
The IAFs plan for the next two decades does not include even 1 squadron of LCA MK2. Trickle funding, late disbursement of funds, not even token orders. The program is being killed, if it is not already dead. Even if it is revived after failure to order MRFA, it would be again too many years lost. We already lost 2 years before the MK1A was ordered. And we lost even more when more orders for the MK1 FOC was not given. For someone following the LCA saga since 2001, it's a sense of Deja Vu. History being repeated over and over again.
The LCA Mk2 is a multi-role fighter aircraft...is it not?
- A Light (Multi Role) Fighter Aircraft...
astal
BRFite
Posts: 185
Joined: 07 Jul 2005 03:06
Location: virtual back bench

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

Post by astal »

enaiel wrote:From the same article above:

The IAFs plan for the next two decades does not include even 1 squadron of LCA MK2. Trickle funding, late disbursement of funds, not even token orders.
We should all collectively chill about what the current says regarding LCA MK2. Right now the goal of the current ACM is to facilitate the purchase of MRFA by getting the best deal. If he tom-toms MK2, foreign manufacturers will lose interest and the government will cancel plans. He is being a good soldier of the force.

Here are some relevant observations.
1. General Rawat said that we can only afford to procure in small numbers at a time. The entire MRCA was scrapped as it required too much cap-ex. We will probably see follow-up numbers of Rafale or either 18 or 36 at a time.
2. If the MK2 is late, we may see additional squadrons of Rafale but India cannot afford another 114 foreign fighters in one go.
3. Once MK2 flies and proves itself the IAF will come around to it. Especially when it sees the window to procure MRFA (multi role foreign aircraft) closing down due to political and financial costs.
4. Meanwhile vested interests will try to use every tool available to scuttle LCA MK2. The engine dependency argument is ridiculous. MRFA's be it Rafale or any other foreign bird will also have a foreign engine and everything else. Just because it is French does not mean it is sanction proof. Who could forget the episode of the exocet codes and Argentina during the conflict in the Malvina islands/Faulklands. Many other specious arguments and even Arjun like sabotage (torsion bar failure) will be raked in. The MOD, ADA and HAL have to stand strong and execute. There will already be a production line for LCA working at full capacity when MK2 comes along. It will be much easier to retool it to make Mk2 than to chase after a TEDBF based omni role fighter. (Omnirole fighter will also find its place in IAF. Hopefully with an Indian engine. Probably after 2032 or beyond that time.)
basant
BRFite
Posts: 894
Joined: 20 Mar 2020 20:58

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

Post by basant »

If we have to choose what Gen Rawat thinks about it over ACM, then it can be done by foreign manufacturers too. The time required for qualifying Mk2 (for IOC) is at least 6 years, but potentially it could be more. Somehow, given our situation in terms of political support (including the IAF), finances involved, concurrent programs and engineering/production challenges, I always thought opting for Mk2 with an engine upgrade (and whatever little else it entails) to Mk1 (which was probably the first proposed Mk2 version) was the safest and wisest option that cuts risks, time and costs and provides more benefits. On a parallel track, a the twin-seat Gripen Demo did the same during 2007-8, and had 4T increase in playload and 40% increase in internal fuel capacity, plus a bonus 1.2M supercruise capability (in empty configuration). The additional power could also be used for EW. However, with a new design, the time for realization increases beyond comfort levels given our neighbours and precarious strength. That even today vanilla Tejas has higher range than DPSA Jaguar makes the issue of range moot.
ChanakyaM
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 33
Joined: 22 Feb 2018 05:39

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

Post by ChanakyaM »

brar_w wrote:The MOD/IAF inked a contract for 83 MK1As just this calendar year. This is more than 2 times the number of aircraft that they ordered from Dassault. So there shouldn't be any doubt that they do not want to operate the Tejas in quantity, and in much higher numbers than any new foreign MMRCA at this point (including the Rafale). Once the MK1A deliveries are complete or nearing completion, there should be little doubt that the MOD would order more in case MWF isn't ready or would arrange so that they transition to the MWF without significant disruption. But things will take time and many members here are running way ahead of where the reality actually is around types, or mission systems. MK1A hasn't yet flown, and the first squadron won't be fielded till well into 2026 (still five years away). Despite that they have 80+ firm orders in hand. Once the MWF reaches a similar point, I'm confident that the MOD will order aircraft to keep production smooth. But things will take time. MK1A will be delivered in quantity in the second half of the 2020s. Same for the MWF will be in the first half of the 2030s, and for AMCA will be mid 2035 or later.
One basic question
Why do we need to pay an arm and leg for LCA's which are manufactured by our own PSU's? something like $35-$40 million a piece? Isn't the GOI paying the salaries ? GOI owns major share in HAL right? Am i missing something?
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12195
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

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

Post by Pratyush »

ChanakyaM wrote:
One basic question
Why do we need to pay an arm and leg for LCA's which are manufactured by our own PSU's? something like $35-$40 million a piece? Isn't the GOI paying the salaries ? GOI owns major share in HAL right? Am i missing something?
The question shows an ignorance of accounting. Regardless of the nature of the organisation, it pays the salary of its employees out of the revenues that it generates.

It also has to pay for plant and machinery and finance costs.

Along with the cost of raw materials.

If the input costs are high. Then you cannot complain about high cost of output.

Even the government as a shareholder requires dividends from the PSU.

If the PSU is making a loss, then it is the taxpayer who bears the losses.


Actually the cost quoted by you are actually quite competitive with the rest of the world. In terms of a leading edge fighters of today.

The only saving would be in terms of the lower salary structure. Every thing else would be identical to the costs paid for the leading economies in the country.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12195
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

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

Post by Pratyush »

Too much is being read into IAF Chief not speaking about mk2.

I have a much basic question. What is it about the MRFA, that has effectively ruled out the Mk2 as a contender for the program.

Because I haven't seen the IAF specifically saying that MRFA is a Rafale by other name.
Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4218
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

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

Post by Prem Kumar »

Its because the IAF Chiefs know about MK2 and can refer to it by name, just like they do for MK1A, AMCA-1 etc. MRFA has a different & well known meaning altogether - its the imported fighter with a combination of fighters fully imported & those locally manufactured under license assembly.

So, any notion that the term MRFA includes MK2 is speculation on our part, unless explicitly said so by the IAF. MRFA can include Rafale, of course because it was one of the MMRCA contenders.

This is what the IAF Chief said in his interview in the BW article linked above in the thread. Only foreign aircrafts are in the MRFA fray.
CAS: IAF plans to induct 114 MRFA in phased manner for which Qualitative Requirements are being finalised. The program would be progressed under 'Make in India' initiative of DAP-2020 focusing on transfer of key technologies to Indian Production Partners.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12195
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

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

Post by Pratyush »

So the ASQR could also include F35. If they have not been finalized.

I guess let's wait and watch how this topic is closed.

I have certain degree of optimism regarding domestic aviation programs.

Therefore, I tend to believe, if the IAF doesn't explicitly stated the requirements for F35. The MRFA could well include the Mk2.

Because it will satisfy practically every requirements the IAF might come up with.
Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4218
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

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

Post by Prem Kumar »

Not a single reporter has thought it worthwhile to ask about MK2 in these interviews. I hope someone like an Ananth Krishnan will do so.
basant
BRFite
Posts: 894
Joined: 20 Mar 2020 20:58

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

Post by basant »

Prem Kumar wrote:Not a single reporter has thought it worthwhile to ask about MK2 in these interviews. I hope someone like an Ananth Krishnan will do so.
Probably the questions are pre-screened.
Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10390
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

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

Post by Yagnasri »

This is far more open thing than what IA did to Arjun. Chief is openly ignoring LCA Mk2 by without even mentioning it. IA at least used to give some reasons for not buying Arjun and done years of useless trials. That being said, the end result will be the same in both the cases.
basant
BRFite
Posts: 894
Joined: 20 Mar 2020 20:58

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

Post by basant »

It would be a good idea to now transfer the R&D costs and penalty to IAF if it does not procure the a/c. Should be followed by investigations and disciplinary action(s) for sunken development costs. Contrary to the popular belief, it is the politicians and bureaucrats (including CAG) who have been serving the country better in the defense matters with better vision.
Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10390
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

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

Post by Yagnasri »

May be time to send a clear message that there is no place for top brass which does not support bharathiya systems in this manner. Plus also it would be better we take to task the chiefs asking for this and that with clear knowledge about the non availability of funds or the proposal is not finding support or being opposed by MoD or elected leadership of the nation or is not in line with the stated policy of GoI like Atmanirbhar Bharat. .
ChanakyaM
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 33
Joined: 22 Feb 2018 05:39

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

Post by ChanakyaM »

Pratyush wrote:
ChanakyaM wrote:
One basic question
Why do we need to pay an arm and leg for LCA's which are manufactured by our own PSU's? something like $35-$40 million a piece? Isn't the GOI paying the salaries ? GOI owns major share in HAL right? Am i missing something?
The question shows an ignorance of accounting. Regardless of the nature of the organisation, it pays the salary of its employees out of the revenues that it generates.

It also has to pay for plant and machinery and finance costs.

Along with the cost of raw materials.

If the input costs are high. Then you cannot complain about high cost of output.

Even the government as a shareholder requires dividends from the PSU.

If the PSU is making a loss, then it is the taxpayer who bears the losses.


Actually the cost quoted by you are actually quite competitive with the rest of the world. In terms of a leading edge fighters of today.

The only saving would be in terms of the lower salary structure. Every thing else would be identical to the costs paid for the leading economies in the country.
even supposing I was ignorant of accounting practices and not withstanding the funding HAL and others get from the govt and also by way of new orders for existing line and upgrades and maintenance why should GOVT expect profits from a key institution like HAL which is vital to our nation?

COST of inputs +
Maintenance +
other fixed costs +

This should be final price

Don't expect profits from HAL and other critical industries for now, not that they have generated profits consistently in last few decades, did'nt HAL borrow 1000 crores in the recent past to pay salaries?

bottom line is - if we need our own MI complex HAL is more than a vital cog in the wheel
rajsunder
BRFite
Posts: 855
Joined: 01 Jul 2006 02:38
Location: MASA Land

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

Post by rajsunder »

Yagnasri wrote:This is far more open thing than what IA did to Arjun. Chief is openly ignoring LCA Mk2 by without even mentioning it. IA at least used to give some reasons for not buying Arjun and done years of useless trials. That being said, the end result will be the same in both the cases.
Assembling AMCA is going to be a far bigger task than LCA Mk1. And it is going to take a hell a lot longer than the optimal timelines that are being given by HAL/ADA. We need MK2 to lessen the burden of the delay in AMCA.

Intel has been using this model of tik-tok(long before that name became a online short video streaming service). Where in chips dies are shrunk in the TIK cycle and optimized in the TOK cycle.

Our TIK cycle was the LCA MK1 and our TOK cycle would be Mk2. MK2 is going to bring us to near 5th Gen assembling techniques.
ks_sachin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2906
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

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

Post by ks_sachin »

ChanakyaM wrote:
Pratyush wrote:
The question shows an ignorance of accounting. Regardless of the nature of the organisation, it pays the salary of its employees out of the revenues that it generates.

It also has to pay for plant and machinery and finance costs.

Along with the cost of raw materials.

If the input costs are high. Then you cannot complain about high cost of output.

Even the government as a shareholder requires dividends from the PSU.

If the PSU is making a loss, then it is the taxpayer who bears the losses.


Actually the cost quoted by you are actually quite competitive with the rest of the world. In terms of a leading edge fighters of today.

The only saving would be in terms of the lower salary structure. Every thing else would be identical to the costs paid for the leading economies in the country.
even supposing I was ignorant of accounting practices and not withstanding the funding HAL and others get from the govt and also by way of new orders for existing line and upgrades and maintenance why should GOVT expect profits from a key institution like HAL which is vital to our nation?

COST of inputs +
Maintenance +
other fixed costs +

This should be final price

Don't expect profits from HAL and other critical industries for now, not that they have generated profits consistently in last few decades, did'nt HAL borrow 1000 crores in the recent past to pay salaries?

bottom line is - if we need our own MI complex HAL is more than a vital cog in the wheel
Please speak to the GOI. BRF cannot help you with such fundamental questions..
AkshaySG
BRFite
Posts: 412
Joined: 30 Jul 2020 08:51

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

Post by AkshaySG »

ChanakyaM wrote:
bottom line is - if we need our own MI complex HAL is more than a vital cog in the wheel
Your points counteract each other... One cannot expect HAL or any other PSU to simply give major discounts on its orders and keep making losses while simultaneously expecting it to grow and become a "vital cog" in the MI Complex

If you want a more robust military industrial complex you allow the players to innovate and become a more financially viable company and the government has to usher that with orders and support.

I'll give you a simple example.. If HAL worked in the way you wanted it to it would never have had enough money of its own to take the LCH project as far as it currently is

It wouldn't have been able to resurrect the HTT and other trainer programs to what they are today.

It wouldn't have been able to compete with other private firms for export orders and confidently showcase Tejas to Argentina and Egypt.

Being "profit oriented" isn't just an accounting thing it's a mindset and something that is crucial for a company's growth, Look at the other successful defense companies and how they rose to where they currently are.

In fact it was a lack of profit focused mindset that was plaguing DPSU's for so long.. Because they knew no matter what happened the government would take care of the debts and they would continue to get orders.


---
Mods feel free to move this discussion to the appropriate thread if too OT
SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 25087
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

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

Post by SSridhar »

ChanakyaM, do not persist with that line here. Take it as an Admin warning.
Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5722
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Post by Kartik »

ADA Director General Dr Girish Deodhare is very specific when he says that IAF teams are embedded in both the Tejas Mk2 and AMCA programs. We also know that they were fully involved in the CDRs for Tejas Mk2 systems/sub-systems.

From Aeromag's latest edition

ADA has a strong relationship with the IAF since its inception. How do you look at the association on the occasion of IAF Day and what is the future of the collaboration?


ADA has been fortunate to have the active support of IAF in its programs right from the beginning. Top test pilots and test engineers from IAF were deputed to ADA as part of NFTC. They not only flew the prototype aircraft but also participated in all aspects of design be it Avionics, FCS, Cockpit Ergonomics and many more areas. As a result, LCA is a dream for the pilots to fly as it is an aircraft designed with the pilots for the pilots. The IAF team ensured that best features of both Western and Russian aircraft were incorporated in LCA. Later, the IAF PMT Team was formed in 2007. This team not only monitored the programs but also has played a major role in giving critical inputs towards maintenance and training aspects. They
helped build these features in the design of the aircraft and its systems.

Over the years, the relationship between ADA and IAF has sustained and has grown stronger. Today both the teams of IAF are working with ADA for the design of LCA AF Mk2 and AMCA aircraft to ensure that the IAF gets cutting edge products in the future customised for their needs.

How does the fifth-generation Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA) project progress?


Both the LCA AF Mk2 and AMCA programs are progressing as planned. LCA AF Mk2 program has completed all the activities towards Critical Design
Review, and roll out is planned in 2022. Subsequently the first flight is planned in 2023. AMCA program, after completing Preliminary Design Review, is progressing rapidly towards CDR which is planned early next year.
Clearly, the IAF is fully aware of what's going on with the Tejas Mk2, and is fully involved. But, the IAF leadership is hedging it's bets that if they overtly commit to the Tejas Mk2, the GoI and MoD will not accord AoN to the 114 MRFA and without that, the RFP cannot be released.

The argument from the GoI and MoD then may be to just hold on, consider ordering 36 more Rafales OTS and then switch to ordering Tejas Mk2s to replace older Jaguars, MiG-29UPGs and Mirage-2000s from the Tejas Mk1A assembly line. That is something the IAF leadership is not inclined to do, given how they view the Rafale's capabilities against the rapidly growing PLAAF 5th gen and 4th gen fleet of fighters. Hence the stubborn refusal to let MRFA die out and focus on the Tejas Mk2 and a possible IAF version of the TEDBF to be introduced into service in the 2030s.

Also, the IAF leadership's POV may be that since they decided to drop out of the Sukhoi T50 program, the Rafale/MRFA is their only bet to get mature 4.5 gen technology into service this decade.
Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4218
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

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

Post by Prem Kumar »

Kartik: if what you say is true (& it very well might be), that's a sad state of affairs, where there is no alignment of goals at the highest level between the GOI & the IAF.

Also imagine the knock-on effects. We have scores of engineers, designers etc in ADA/HAL/IAF-test-pilots etc who are putting their heart and soul into Tejas-MK2. What kind of message is sent to them when the aircraft which they consider as the soon-to-be-backbone of IAF's medium-weight fleet is not even mentioned by the IAF chief repeatedly?
Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4218
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

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

Post by Prem Kumar »

This tweet by @hvtiaf captures perfectly what will happen to our hard-earned MIC (aviation ecosystem) if we let the MRFA kill Tejas-Mk2. This was his response to ex IN Chief Arun Prakash's tweet bemoaning lack of indigenization.

The AMCA notwithstanding, if the IAF kills MK2, it will leave a gaping void in our Medium Weight category that'll be filled only with imports. If anything, it will increase AMCA's risks because so many techs that will be proved in the MK2 will not be. Precious men & money will be spent doing screwdriver-giri of the Gripen-E (whose first SP fighters were handed over today & which I am willing to bet is what the IAF is after)

And what was attempted with Tejas-MK1 (3 legged cheetah) & what is being attempted with MK2 today (MRFA) will be repeated with AMCA. By that time, once our own tech shows signs of maturity, an F-35 or some other stealth platform will be offered. The IAF will jump onto that citing squadron shortage and dump AMCA (or the 7 squadron AMCA plan today will become a 2 squadron order).

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/1462708502636285952
Sir.

An Indigenous fighter was designed as early as 1950s. 145 Maruts were operational. But enhancements were shunned to slip-in imports & deals sweetened with ToT.

Considering the effort put in to kill Indian industry, we've emerged rather well from the imports stranglehold.
uddu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2091
Joined: 15 Aug 2004 17:09

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

Post by uddu »

MK-2 will come in handy to further the low cost MWF space and will make India to be the export market for such Medium weight fighters. The World is not yet ready to buy or utilize AMCA for their use. So MK2 and MK2A (possibly with Indigenous engine) will be the one that India will be able to sell to friendlies. So its important that the IAF buy it in good numbers along with other variants. There should not be this or that. Everything that they could get must get in the Tejas series must get inducted. I forsee a stealth variant MKIII as well once the Mk2s start getting inducted, possibly 10 years from now. IAF chief may be thinking pragmatically about the timeframe to induct more Tejas fighters. Thats why the Mark1B talk is also going on. I'm sure as the MK2 starts flying, his viewpoint will be positive on inducting MK2 as well. And also Chiefs change and their approach also changes, hopefully for good.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12195
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

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

Post by Pratyush »

While I appreciate the noise made in favour of the MK2. I am not quite sure that it will just be abandoned by the IAF.

Simply because it is every thing they have been asking for for nearly 12 years at this point in time. The aircraft has been through CDR as well. Which shows that IAF has not been able to come up with any objections to further delay the program. The first prototype is also under construction.

It is also clear at this time the inspite of IAF creating an MRFA program they have not come up with ASQR for it.

Taking all the above points in consideration. I would be surprised if the IAF places any order other than a repeat of the Rafale for perhaps 36 to 72 units.

Followed by the Mk2 from 2026-27 at the latest.

This can always be upended if the IAF decided that it needs F35 and will order 114 of the aircrafts.

But I don't see any possibility of that in the near future.
Kailash
BRFite
Posts: 1083
Joined: 07 Dec 2008 02:32

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

Post by Kailash »

Pratyush wrote:Simply because it is every thing they have been asking for for nearly 12 years at this point in time. The aircraft has been through CDR as well. Which shows that IAF has not been able to come up with any objections to further delay the program. The first prototype is also under construction.
By the time MK2 production begins, they would have been through complete test cycles of Mk1 and Mk1A. Is they any way to speed up and simplify the testing - to say 2-3 years ?

There is no doubt regarding additional Rafales - it is the simplest decision, and their delivery rates have been stellar so far.
basant
BRFite
Posts: 894
Joined: 20 Mar 2020 20:58

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

Post by basant »

Testing airframes is different from testing the internals. However, the experience would help cut the time. Prima facie there is no reason to believe it to be lesser than that of Gripen E (6-7 years). (For comparison, Tejas had first flight in Jan 2001 and obtained IOC (II) in Dec 2013. That's 14 years.)
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12195
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

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

Post by Pratyush »

This is completely OT for the topic.

The issue was not what you think we're questions.

1) The issue is that you were asking it in the wrong thread.

2) it is generally accepted that when people posts on topics. They have done some basic reading on the topic. Your questions were more in the nature of a rant and not interested in learning more about the topic.

Your response to the replies from different users confirmed that. Which is the reason why bradmin unofficially cautioned you.

Once again, if you want to learn. A nube thread exists where a lot of topics are covered. A few questions can also be asked.

From time to time, even I use the thread to learn more about topic I am unable to learn more about elsewhere.

Let this be a fresh start ans sweep things under the rug.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18272
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Post by Rakesh »

No caption to the tweet, but I believe this is the Mk2 cockpit.

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf_/status/1471 ... 87810?s=20 --->

Image
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18272
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Post by Rakesh »

From Air Marshal Raghunath Nambiar (retd), former C-in-C Western Air Command, Indian Air Force. Date of tweet is 27 July 2020.

https://twitter.com/Nambitiger1/status/ ... 20544?s=20 --->

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!
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18272
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Post by Rakesh »

Drag & drop this picture into a new browser window. Just do it :)

https://twitter.com/Kuntal__biswas/stat ... 03584?s=20 ---> Your wings already exist, all you have to do is fly!

Image
disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 8242
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

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

Post by disha »

^Is it Mk2 Taxi Test?
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18272
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Post by Rakesh »

Disha-ji, that is artwork and not the real thing.

But Kuntal Biswas' artwork is so beautifully rendered, it looks like the real thing! :)
Barath
BRFite
Posts: 474
Joined: 11 Feb 2019 19:06

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

Post by Barath »

Air force clears Tejas Mark 2 design, production begins in 2023

https://www.ajaishukla.com/2021/12/air- ... n.html?m=1

The Indian Air Force’s (IAF’s) acceptance of the Comprehensive Design Review clears the way for Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) to start releasing drawings for fabricating the Mark 2’s first prototype.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18272
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Post by Rakesh »

https://twitter.com/amanroutray7/status ... 49216?s=20 ---> For all those ADA haters, I have a bad news for you. The Tejas Mk2 is moving at a swift and steady pace. Here's the big update about the project: ADA has issued a RFP (Request for Proposal) for procurement of Quartz Radome for AESA Radar of Tejas Mk2.

https://twitter.com/amanroutray7/status ... 39552?s=20 ---> It will consist of two airworthy radomes and 1 Quartz radome. British firm Meggitt Aerospace Limited will supply the said radome. Meanwhile an indigenous project is also in progress for Quartz Radome, ToT clause is OPTIONAL, but the firm have to collaborate with DPSUs/OFB/RURs/or any other Indian Private Companies for setting up maintenance infrastructure for providing base repairs and requisite spares for the entire life cycle. The IPR will stay with ADA.

https://twitter.com/amanroutray7/status ... 25568?s=20 ---> Radome integrated with AAAU (Active Array Antenna Unit).

https://twitter.com/amanroutray7/status ... 55680?s=20 ---> The specs for the radome is from the indigenous radome.

Image

https://twitter.com/amanroutray7/status ... 56385?s=20 ---> Project Timeline:

Image
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18272
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Post by Rakesh »

Indranil's tweets in response to the tweets above. If there is anything I have learnt about Indranil, is that he only responds when it is his worth his time. And when Indranil does respond, he responds with facts and figures. Your jingo heart will be happy after reading below.

https://twitter.com/Indrani1_Roy/status ... 20033?s=20 ---> LCA Mk2’s nose cone is smaller in length (~10%) and diameter (~10%) than Mk1s even though it will house a more powerful radar and internal IRST. In this thread, I want to show you how this is ONLY possible by build, learn, repeat. Instead of read (papers/brochures), think, repeat.

https://twitter.com/Indrani1_Roy/status ... 36966?s=20 ---> But first, what does a slimmer nose mean for a single-engine fighter aircraft? 10% reduction in diameter means 21% reduction in cross sectional area. Although this seems small, it has a large impact on aerodynamics. And it is not easy to achieve. More on that later.

https://twitter.com/Indrani1_Roy/status ... 31681?s=20 ---> Narrow fuselages needs to displace less air to move through it. Hence, power-constrained SE fighters gain most from such optimizations. They can travel faster and sometimes even turn faster. Also, smaller radome means smaller weight which also translated to lesser drag.

https://twitter.com/Indrani1_Roy/status ... 18176?s=20 ---> But as I said earlier achieving 10% reduction in nose diameter is no small achievement. It takes 3 huge steps which would not have been possible without going through the Tejas Mk1 and Mk1A design and operationalization cycle. Allow me to elaborate.

https://twitter.com/Indrani1_Roy/status ... 73763?s=20 ---> Optimization #1 comes from the basic design itself. Tejas Mk1 was designed for a mechanically scanned array (MSA) radar. Such radars have rotating antenna disks and radomes that must be large enough to provide sufficient internal clearance for the antenna disk to rotate.

https://twitter.com/Indrani1_Roy/status ... 08801?s=20 ---> AESA radars in principle have no such mechanically rotating elements. Some antenna’s do rotate a bit, but not to the extent of MSAs. Hence the clearance required is less. Look at the space between Uttam and Mk1s radome and compare that with that of Mk2.

https://twitter.com/Indrani1_Roy/status ... 40163?s=20 ---> Optimization #2 comes from fielding Uttam AESA in Mk1-prototypes. They measured all dispersion patterns in the field to calibrate their simulation systems. Now, they can confidently simulate the minimum clearance required for given nose geometry and radar signals.

Image

Image

https://twitter.com/Indrani1_Roy/status ... 93446?s=20 ---> Finally, optimization#3 comes from optimizing the radar itself. Their latest elements to be fielded in Mk2 are smaller and can be packed tighter, hence the diameter of the antenna itself is smaller even though it is more powerful!

https://twitter.com/Indrani1_Roy/status ... 35008?s=20 ---> Another improvement that is easy to miss is that Mk2 radome won’t have a pitot tube. Pitot tubes are critical to flying. Inaccurate readings from pitot tubes can lead to critical failures. They should be placed in clean airflow, What better place than the nose tip for that?

Image

Image

https://twitter.com/Indrani1_Roy/status ... 60163?s=20 ---> People do place them at wingtips, etc. But there are some problems associated with doing so fighter aircrafts (keeping it short here). If you place a pitot tube anywhere on the fuselage, airflow around the body change the readings a little.

https://twitter.com/Indrani1_Roy/status ... 99202?s=20 ---> For example, IFR probe creates asymmetry around the pitot tube on one side and it must be compensated for by the flight computer. These are relatively easy for ADA now on a proven platform and gained expertise. But in 1983, it had neither. Could it have taken a chance?

https://twitter.com/Indrani1_Roy/status ... 97376?s=20 ---> But a pitot tube at the nosetip means metallic wires & structures must go through the radome. This is detrimental to the radar’s performance! Mk2 does way with this loss in performance. Its flight control is robust enough. This maturity couldn't have come without flying Mk1s for 1000s of hours.

https://twitter.com/Indrani1_Roy/status ... 00934?s=20 ---> And all these benefits are not limited to Tejas Mk2! They will apply to AMCA and TEDBF. In fact in the latter two, you might not see any external pitot tubes at all! Learn once apply as many times as needed. This is why DRDO is churning out missiles like hot cakes!

https://twitter.com/Indrani1_Roy/status ... 63073?s=20 ---> This is the beauty of crawl-walk-run (or build-test-refine) model. Every successful product to date is built on this philosophy. Sitting on hands, theorizing that some alternative setup or transfer of (hard-earned strategic) technology will magically solve your problem is naïve.

https://twitter.com/Indrani1_Roy/status ... 94786?s=20 ---> People are technology, technology is people. To build technology, one must first build the people who can build that technology. They must start somewhere. It takes time! It takes doing! There is nothing magical about it!
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18272
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Post by Rakesh »

Rakesh wrote: https://twitter.com/Indrani1_Roy/status ... 20033?s=20 ---> LCA Mk2’s nose cone is smaller in length (~10%) and diameter (~10%) than Mk1s even though it will house a more powerful radar and internal IRST. In this thread, I want to show you how this is ONLY possible by build, learn, repeat. Instead of read (papers/brochures), think, repeat.
https://twitter.com/joe_sameer/status/1 ... 33216?s=20 ---> Made possible by use of gallium nitride (GaN) in the Uttam AESA radar. GaN’s efficiency nearly doubles the TR modules here; components that use it emit approx five times the RF power of previous tech. For radars, that means better search capability at a lesser SWAP. Great upgrade.

The above tweet in response to IR's tweet above. The author of the tweet is Sameer Joshi, a former IAF pilot who flew the Mirage 2000.
Post Reply