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

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 12 Mar 2019 01:37

^

Its the Tejas Mk2 MWF.

the LCA Navy Mk2 has stabilators in place of canards and the compound delta wing has been changed to a delta wing with same sweep angle.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 12 Mar 2019 03:52

SaiK wrote:How many hard points?

What is the source and/or link of this image?

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 12 Mar 2019 16:54

Ayyoo, lost that tweet rak bhai. I will update when I get to it

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 12 Mar 2019 16:59

A different pic, but colorful!

http://forceindia.net/ada-rolls-mwf-version-tejas/

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 12 Mar 2019 17:19

First time somebody talks about Tejas RCS.

Why Tejas Mk2 (MWF) Will Be Important
https://defenceforumindia.com/forum/thr ... ant.81477/

VinodTK · Post by **VinodTK** » 12 Mar 2019 20:42

SaiK wrote:First time somebody talks about Tejas RCS.

Why Tejas Mk2 (MWF) Will Be Important
https://defenceforumindia.com/forum/thr ... ant.81477/

Very good artical with lots of details; provides a detailed description of MK2.

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 12 Mar 2019 23:05

SaiK wrote:First time somebody talks about Tejas RCS.

Why Tejas Mk2 (MWF) Will Be Important
https://defenceforumindia.com/forum/thr ... ant.81477/

Worth archiving! Just like the other 2 DDR articles by Indranil and Jay

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 13 Mar 2019 00:23

Yet another look from Jai's post

https://twitter.com/band318/status/1099609643414970368

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 13 Mar 2019 00:45

Here you go rak bhai! https://twitter.com/China_SCS_info/stat ... 2842728448
The trick for searching is, if you can't find it.. check your enemies.. they are darn good at it.

there are pretty cool pics of AMCA as well, I'll update AMCA dhaaga as well after this (or someone can)

It is a wealth of pics there, and from those: [I hope all are Mk2. Inadvertently Mk1 is possible in these pics].

UTTAM

jaysimha · Post by **jaysimha** » 20 Mar 2019 12:05

for records
[ mbd-if-rp]

Kashi · Post by **Kashi** » 20 Mar 2019 13:12

So Tejas MWF will actually have a bubble canopy?

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 20 Mar 2019 22:25

All 3rd and 4th gen fighters have a bubble canopy. Most have a frame but that doesn't mean that those aren't bubble canopies. Are you referring to a frame-less canopy as on the F-16? If that is the question, then no, the MWF will have a frame. The bird hit requirements will be as stringent as those now imposed on the Tejas Mk1, which means there is no escaping having a canopy frame.

Raveen · Post by **Raveen** » 20 Mar 2019 23:02

Kashi wrote:So Tejas MWF will actually have a bubble canopy?

It is reshaped to have a slightly higher bump to help with aero - it was found to improve area ruling by adding this bump helped to the tune of 2-3% in transonic drag iirc from the NAL/DRDO study that was published

Kashi · Post by **Kashi** » 21 Mar 2019 05:33

Kartik wrote:All 3rd and 4th gen fighters have a bubble canopy. Most have a frame but that doesn't mean that those aren't bubble canopies. Are you referring to a frame-less canopy as on the F-16? If that is the question, then no, the MWF will have a frame. The bird hit requirements will be as stringent as those now imposed on the Tejas Mk1, which means there is no escaping having a canopy frame.

You are right. I thought, it would be a frameless canopy, on second look, I noticed the frame.

I am not quite sure I understood the link between canopy frame and bird hit requirement.

jpremnath · Post by **jpremnath** » 21 Mar 2019 16:03

How does the F16 get away with bird hits?...iirc some article decades back quoted an IAF officer saying one of the highlights of F16 was its canopy which let the pilot get a good view all round...

NachiketM · Post by **NachiketM** » 21 Mar 2019 16:38

I have been thinking and it beats me as to why our designers of fighter aircrafts from LCA to AMCA have compromised on rear visibility ???
The dogfights are the order of the day especially after being proved so in the recent skirmishes on the border with hilly terrain and where all future air battles will majorly take place ...

All other countries have recognized this and have accordingly designed the cockpits with great 360 degrees visibility but not us ...

"Loose Sight Loose Fight" is what the fighter pilots live by...
Cockpits with such bad visibility is not a heartening thing me thinks ...
Infact its compromising ...

Anyone who ever flew in a real simulator or have played DCS (https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/) will know how difficult it is to spot a bogey and keep track of it while maneuvering the aircraft in different planes... More so in real life dogfight ...

Now that our designers are over the initial designing and developmental curve they should atleast be designing a good visibility cockpit for AMCA ... But the AMCA cockpit is also lacking in 360 deg visibility ...

Am I missing something here ?

negi · Post by **negi** » 21 Mar 2019 17:20

My theory is that F-16 has some design elements which make it easier imo to have the pilot higher up on the spine , the intake bulge and canopy are diametrically opposite to each other the weight distribution is easier to manage , even the newer Gripen doesn't have as well placed canopy as the 16 specially with that prominent spine . The pilot's visibility on the 16 also becomes better because there are no engine inlets that flank the pilot . Actually if you do a google for F-35 and F-16 single seat versions you will appreciate how high pilot gets to sit on the 16 as compared to even the new F-35 same is true when you compare it with Gripen . Then you can look at the EF typhoon and you will see pilot sits pretty high (the glass section meets the fuselage below his neck even in the aft section). Rafale, F-22 and F-35 have moved the side intakes slightly and even angled them to get that hexagon type frontal cross section but they all add to the width of the main fuselage so when pilot will look down & behind he will have limited visibility as compared to a 16 , in fact a Rafale pilot will be staring at the huge canards if he looks down and behind . However in a turning fight one would be mostly looking behind and upwards or worse case directly behind and I think the difference in these platforms is marginal there.

negi · Post by **negi** » 21 Mar 2019 17:32

I personally don't understand MWF much if IAF has specified a mission profile for this fighter then it would be easier to talk in those terms else it is at most a Tejas MK X because you cannot get a lot done by just moving from GE F 404 to GE F 414 specially when current platform has been criticised for being underpowered , the thrust difference is not huge ; I see additional wares also being added to the MWF , add to it the fact that most weapons and even the onboard radar and avionics are either in deign/dev stage or might be procured later we should easily consider 5-10% weight creep. If it has to be a single engine fighter , knowing the IAF and how their demands increase over the period of development I think an engine in 125 kN class or higher should be the basis for this fighter , otherwise it's better to go the two engine route and build something that will have a better growth and upgrade potential. If F414 is being finalised it would suit a twin engine platform better as against a single engine for amount of investment it will take to make MWF how much more capable would it be than the Tejas Mk1 ?

NachiketM · Post by **NachiketM** » 21 Mar 2019 18:09

From what our designers have designed it seems that this visibility issue is either lost on them or they haven't prioritised it enough...

negi · Post by **negi** » 21 Mar 2019 18:12

I don't think static displays are high fidelity representation of final thing anything worse than Tejas Mk1 and the thing will go into the dustbin.

NachiketM · Post by **NachiketM** » 21 Mar 2019 18:36

When they upgraded MiG-21 to Bison std they included a bubble canopy for better visibility so I wonder why they wouldn't improve the visibility on MWF and the subsequent AMCA ...
This shld have been a priority in planning phase itself...

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 21 Mar 2019 20:14

will it be a blocker at some viewpoint using HMD cueing system?

souravB · Post by **souravB** » 21 Mar 2019 20:53

negi wrote:I don't think static displays are high fidelity representation of final thing anything worse than Tejas Mk1 and the thing will go into the dustbin.

IIRC this design is not yet freezed and it has been already said somewhere they are still tinkering with the design. But I do not think the final design will include a bubble canopy where the pilot sits almost on top of the fighter.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 21 Mar 2019 20:59

NachiketM wrote:From what our designers have designed it seems that this visibility issue is either lost on them or they haven't prioritised it enough...

Or may be they know what they are doing?

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 21 Mar 2019 21:15

What we surely need is an alternate engine to GE414 with similar specs and an enhanced engine for AMCA. For a while EJ 200 was making noise, but haven't heard anything in a while.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 21 Mar 2019 21:30

Cybaru wrote:What we surely need is an alternate engine to GE414 with similar specs and an enhanced engine for AMCA. For a while EJ 200 was making noise, but haven't heard anything in a while.

An indigenous engine is the only option. An imported engine has been selected (F-414) so no alternate engine will be required. Integrating a new engine on a fighter is not easy or cheap for that matter. On the AMCA, the plan is again to start off with the F-414 and gradually move up to a more capable indigenous engine when that happens. There is unlikely to ever be an advanced Next Gen. engine in this thrust class to choose from (as an import) so there is a ton of incentive to develop one at home.

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 21 Mar 2019 21:33

brar_w wrote:
NachiketM wrote:From what our designers have designed it seems that this visibility issue is either lost on them or they haven't prioritised it enough...
Or may be they know what they are doing?

Sacrilege!

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 21 Mar 2019 22:09

brar_w wrote:
Cybaru wrote:What we surely need is an alternate engine to GE414 with similar specs and an enhanced engine for AMCA. For a while EJ 200 was making noise, but haven't heard anything in a while.
An indigenous engine is the only option. An imported engine has been selected (F-414) so no alternate engine will be required. Integrating a new engine on a fighter is not easy or cheap for that matter. On the AMCA, the plan is again to start off with the F-414 and gradually move up to a more capable indigenous engine when that happens. There is unlikely to ever be an advanced Next Gen. engine in this thrust class to choose from (as an import) so there is a ton of incentive to develop one at home.

Ej200 is getting a 15% bump from 13500 lbs (60kn) dry thrust..that kind of puts it in the 70kn sry and 115kn wet thrust region. I think that would be great alternative to f414 at the moment.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 21 Mar 2019 22:15

Cybaru wrote:
Ej200 is getting a 15% bump from 13500 lbs (60kn) dry thrust..that kind of puts it in the 70kn sry and 115kn wet thrust region. I think that would be great alternative to f414 at the moment.

Define "is getting". A somewhat liberal use of the term can also be used to describe the F-414 E with an advertised 116 kN of wet thrust. GE actually has done some actual USN funded work to mature some of what it will take to get there, and it has a couple of 5th gen. programs it is supporting and also has the largest and most diverse installed base which bodes better if it comes down to who will "fund" the product development through to its end.

But it too is a proposal with no firm customer backing at the moment. EJ-200 is essentially something that needs to support the Phoon and as far as the TVC or higher thrust variants there really does not seem to be a thrust to get into that with strong $ backing. Amongst its western peers, the F-414 has the most mature path to both higher thrust (EPE/EDE tech. development contracts and component level demonstrations already performed) and thrust vectoring (AVEN designed, and developed in the 80's, early 90's, flight tested in the 90's and a scaled variant offered for the F404/414 family around the late 90s). AdA and HAL are familiar with the engine (this matters) and have repeatedly selected the family at various design decision points moving from LCA through to MWF and then on to AMCA. There is probably a good reason for this.

Any alternate engine plans MUST focus on an Indian engine, not a second or third imported one which will offer no tangible performance benefits but will be a costly, and time consuming distraction from the efforts underway on Kaveri and its follow on. At the moment the best utilization of resources would be to develop an indian engine for late MWF and bulk of the AMCA variants..

https://www.geaviation.com/sites/defaul ... hanced.pdf

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 21 Mar 2019 22:21

Guys no pilot is going to crane his neck to look behind himself. That's a good way for him to ensure his neck starts hurting after a while.

For that view directly behind him, he has large rear view mirrors.

Check the overall cockpit view here:

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 21 Mar 2019 22:26

negi wrote:I personally don't understand MWF much if IAF has specified a mission profile for this fighter then it would be easier to talk in those terms else it is at most a Tejas MK X because you cannot get a lot done by just moving from GE F 404 to GE F 414 specially when current platform has been criticised for being underpowered , the thrust difference is not huge ; I see additional wares also being added to the MWF , add to it the fact that most weapons and even the onboard radar and avionics are either in deign/dev stage or might be procured later we should easily consider 5-10% weight creep. If it has to be a single engine fighter , knowing the IAF and how their demands increase over the period of development I think an engine in 125 kN class or higher should be the basis for this fighter , otherwise it's better to go the two engine route and build something that will have a better growth and upgrade potential. If F414 is being finalised it would suit a twin engine platform better as against a single engine for amount of investment it will take to make MWF how much more capable would it be than the Tejas Mk1 ?

Did you see Indranil and Jay's article about the aero tweaks - it won't be thrust alone which decides the issue (we won't be reinventing the F-105).
http://delhidefencereview.com/2019/02/2 ... er-part-i/
http://delhidefencereview.com/2019/02/2 ... t-fighter/
A lot of the onboard systems are in a pretty advanced shape already, see the Mk1A thread for the new 'pit from HAL and also the SPORT, plus the LRDE AESA has met its A2A performance goals. We also have the 2052 to play backup.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 21 Mar 2019 23:38

brar_w wrote:
NachiketM wrote:From what our designers have designed it seems that this visibility issue is either lost on them or they haven't prioritised it enough...
Or may be they know what they are doing?

I was going to write a long and boring rebuttal. This is way better.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 21 Mar 2019 23:46

NachiketM wrote:From what our designers have designed it seems that this visibility issue is either lost on them or they haven't prioritised it enough...

Not true at all. See the visibility for a Tejas Mk1 pilot. Clearly, pretty much everything is visible except directly behind the pilot and that is where rear view mirrors come into the picture, since the pilot is not an owl and cannot turn his head all the way around.

Rest assured that rear visibility will be catered to. Basically the pilot should be able to turn his neck around and see anything in his 4 o'clock to 7 o'clock position. Especially given that the IAF is now very involved in the requirement definition and they will be involved in okay'ing the design.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 22 Mar 2019 00:01

NachiketM wrote:When they upgraded MiG-21 to Bison std they included a bubble canopy for better visibility so I wonder why they wouldn't improve the visibility on MWF and the subsequent AMCA ...
This shld have been a priority in planning phase itself...

The MiG-21bis' and earlier variants' cockpit was an ergonomic mess. The pilot position was such that while seeing to the side was somewhat ok (canopy line was pretty high up, close to the pilot's shoulder) and visibility out the front was hopeless, thanks to the big frame and the large cluster of instruments in front. The Bison improved that by removing the big frame and put a small bubble canopy in place of the earlier one. Compared to what the Bison has, the Tejas Mk1 itself is better, with the pilot sitting higher up. See Shiv Aroor's pic below. the canopy line is right above his legs. Basically affording excellent visibility to the sides and even to the front.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 22 Mar 2019 00:13

NachiketM, did you bother to do at least a cursory google search for Tejas cockpit pictures before making the ridiculous statements you have made here?

gpurewal · Post by **gpurewal** » 22 Mar 2019 00:15

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

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 22 Mar 2019 00:26

Even the Rafale has a non retractable probe. For the same reasons the LCA does.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 22 Mar 2019 00:29

Just makes you realize how small and well engineered the LCA is. Everything from the avionics, to the LRUs have to perform to the utmost and yet be super compact. Amazing engineering and learning experience, and will be a handful in combat. Hard to pick up visually and has 8 pylons of payload plus state of the art sensors and weapons.

Kartik wrote:

Khalsa · Post by **Khalsa** » 22 Mar 2019 04:53

Gnat Ajeet influence ?

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 22 Mar 2019 08:10

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