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

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 08 Nov 2021 23:29

Mig 29 is a non starter. MK2 is a stable future option. All others are reckless efforts to deliberately jeopardize national security(territorial security, economic security, sovereign decision making)!

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 08 Nov 2021 23:39

Mod Note: That is enough of off-topic discussion. I moved the Mig-29 related posts elsewhere. Please get back on topic.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 08 Nov 2021 23:53

Thanks Nachiket.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 09 Nov 2021 08:17

Thanks.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 10 Nov 2021 06:19

Tejas Mk2: CDR has been completed and fabrication has begun
https://chimniii.com/news/Defence/Defen ... begun.html
07 Nov 2021

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 10 Nov 2021 06:22

Which is what will likely happen....

https://twitter.com/AnirudhGB/status/14 ... 36334?s=20 ---> Anything over 36-54 Rafales will be detrimental to IAF CAPEX allowances and their other projects. Tejas Mk2 fits the bill perfectly and must be inducted in numbers to retain the squadron edge.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 10 Nov 2021 07:57

Both will happen. More than 72 and Mk2.
Its not like IAF earns the money.
It is allocated by the govt for national assets based on threat perception.

Atmavik · Post by **Atmavik** » 10 Nov 2021 09:17

ramana wrote:Both will happen. More than 72 and Mk2.
Its not like IAF earns the money.
It is allocated by the govt for national assets based on threat perception.

we have 3 yrs to get to 72. Mk2 will happen, let the bird fly

Cyrano · Post by **Cyrano** » 10 Nov 2021 12:29

I was watching a video by youtube analyst (Millennium 7*, an Italian aeronautical engineer and retired fighter maintenance crew) who spoke about Rafale's action over Libya, where Armee de l'Air's Rafales ingressed, bombed, loitered and exited from the Libyan theatre where the Libyan forces who were alerted and were expecting them, never ever got wind of Rafales' action. Very different doctrine and tactics compared to US which relies on heavy SEAD action to considerably degrade adversary's capabilities before flying missions into the theatre. Probably because France cant afford a long and expensive SEAD campaign, and that would also escalate the conflict before intended targets can be destroyed.

India would be in a similar situation wrt its neighbours. Fast attacks with minimum risks is what we need, not a big shock and awe circus. Hence the argument can be made that while Rafale is expensive, it allows the achievement of mission objectives with such efficiency that the overall cost, scale and nature of conflict can be much better controlled.

Such being the case, the money for Tejas Mk2s will come, not from buying less Rafales than what we need, but from avoiding purchases and resources needed for SEAD campaigns etc. Theatre Commands may actually make such efficiencies more obvious by joint mission planning and thus release more funds for impactful investments like Rafales & Tejas Mk2 and more indigenous missiles and munitions to equip them.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 10 Nov 2021 12:48

The analysis could be of use or it could be totally foolish.

The fact of the matter is that the Libyan military was coming out of decades long sanctions and was incapable of conducting modern warfare.

That's the difference between the Libyan campaign and the Syrian campaign.

Assad was able to hold off the Islamist assault because his military was in decent shape before the onset of the civil war. In terms of spare parts and availability of upgrades to the combat assets from Russians.

But Libyan government didn't have that. They had even give up on the WMD program for the lifting of sanctions.

That one of the reasons why the Libyan campaign ended the way it did.

Having said all that TSPF today is not coming out of a regime of global sanctions that has totally gutted it's ability to support it self.

Therefore, the French approach might not work against them in case of a full scale war.

Alternatively as was demonstrated by Balakot. It might not make any difference.

So take it for what it's worth.

Cyrano · Post by **Cyrano** » 10 Nov 2021 13:41

Balakot has demonstrated several things:

* Cooridinated aggressive manoeuvres by IA, IN & IAF will put Pakis under immense pressure and make their gernails shiver.
* IAF's mission planning and choice of fighters & munitions is top notch even without Rafales
* IAF's mission execution and situational decision making at pilot & controller levels is superb

Success of Balakot type missions will demoralise enemy forces and make them fold quickly. And Pakis are the first to surrender hoping to live and fight another day.

Rafales and hopefully Tejas MK2s can enable penetration & destruction missions on targets deeper and better defended than Balakot with least probability of detection. They enable, along with a public jhapad, reaching under the table and squeezing their grapes until their gernails wince and howl.

A couple of such attacks surprise across LAC will bring the Chinese to their senses as well. They are even less used to bloody fights and body bags than Pakis. Anyway, there are other threads for this line of discussion.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 10 Nov 2021 20:11

Cyrano wrote:I was watching a video by youtube analyst (Millennium 7*, an Italian aeronautical engineer and retired fighter maintenance crew) who spoke about Rafale's action over Libya, where Armee de l'Air's Rafales ingressed, bombed, loitered and exited from the Libyan theatre where the Libyan forces who were alerted and were expecting them, never ever got wind of Rafales' action. Very different doctrine and tactics compared to US which relies on heavy SEAD action to considerably degrade adversary's capabilities before flying missions into the theatre. Probably because France cant afford a long and expensive SEAD campaign, and that would also escalate the conflict before intended targets can be destroyed.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7625&p=2522925#p2522925

RishiChatterjee · Post by **RishiChatterjee** » 12 Nov 2021 15:21

LCA vs MWF fuselage & wings comparison..

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 12 Nov 2021 18:54

RishiChatterjee wrote:LCA vs MWF base size..

Where'd the canards go?

In all other respects it matches what we know of the MWF..

slightly smaller radome than the Tejas Mk1 and Mk1A,
intakes no longer shielded by the wing,
wing tip mounted missile pylons,
the bulge behind the cockpit for better area ruling.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 12 Nov 2021 19:45

Personally I would prefer the Canards are removed, they are radar reflectors

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 13 Nov 2021 00:39

Rakesh wrote:Tejas Mk2: CDR has been completed and fabrication has begun
https://chimniii.com/news/Defence/Defen ... begun.html
07 Nov 2021

A bit disappointing that a CDR was conducted and approved so late. Prototype won't happen until 2023 and first article won't be until 2024. If government changes at the center in 2024, then first article will likely be pushed back by the usual suspects.

KSingh · Post by **KSingh** » 13 Nov 2021 00:59

Mort Walker wrote:
Rakesh wrote:Tejas Mk2: CDR has been completed and fabrication has begun
https://chimniii.com/news/Defence/Defen ... begun.html
07 Nov 2021
A bit disappointing that a CDR was conducted and approved so late. Prototype won't happen until 2023 and first article won't be until 2024. If government changes at the center in 2024, then first article will likely be pushed back by the usual suspects.

I'm pessimistic about the chances this project has of mass induction but what you've written is't accurate. Rollout will happen in Q3 2022, fabrication actually commenced early 2021, this article is just rehashing things we've heard 6-8 months back. First flight likely early 2023 as per all official comments in recent weeks/month.

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 13 Nov 2021 02:50

^^^I hope you're right, but even having adequate funding still requires adequate production time. It seems optimistic to me.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 13 Nov 2021 03:29

The MWF should target 2030 for the first squadron fully equipped with all a/c and support hardware required to be operational. If they can begin serial production (beyond any test or training assets) by 2027 then this could be doable. If not then it gets pushed into the 2030s. For this to happen they must fully deliver the first operational Mk1A squadron by end of 2026 and then finish all of the current order by 2028 or so so that all production (SC and HAL) resources can be shifted over to the MWF. As things currently stand, it appears that HAL will be working to get the MK1A cleared for induction and then deliver those aircraft through most if not all of the 2020s and then transfer production focus to MWF for the next decade. But trying to squeeze the entire flight test program within 4-5 years is going to be something to watch out for given the risk involved (discoveries, correction and repeat testing).

ShivS · Post by **ShivS** » 13 Nov 2021 09:32

If this project sees production. That is under debate right now.

rajsunder · Post by **rajsunder** » 13 Nov 2021 10:21

ShivS wrote:If this project sees production. That is under debate right now.

as long as there is no change in the ruling party, i do not see any possibility of Mk2 project being put on hold.

ShivS · Post by **ShivS** » 13 Nov 2021 11:21

Debate is on. I am no politics person, but the IAF is looking at an option where the MMRCA permits a 34/35 squadron fleet till the mid 30s and then a direct shift to AMCA/Land based TEDBF.

It’s also quite possible that the IAF is using this to light a fire under ADA/HAL. Those guys are learning procurement beyond technical evaluation very fast.

pushkar.bhat · Post by **pushkar.bhat** » 13 Nov 2021 19:12

MWF is an insurance policy project so is OCRA (assuming its derived from the TEDBF). Funding will continue on MWF because its low risk and can quickly gather speed if AMCA fumbles. If AMCA remains of track then IAF may take a call based on the funding available to them.

Just my 2 cents worth.

m_saini · Post by **m_saini** » 13 Nov 2021 21:19

https://twitter.com/Kuntal__biswas/stat ... 6856066053

The "Pair kaanp rahe the" loadout !
@RAFAELdefense litening pod, 2x Spice 2000, and 1700L drop tank.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 13 Nov 2021 21:22

Aditya_V wrote:Personally I would prefer the Canards are removed, they are radar reflectors

Agreed. But more so because I prefer the cranked Delta look.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 13 Nov 2021 21:28

Just order more mk1a until orca/tedbf vibes along. A fleet of 250mk1a by 2030-35 will certainly help. The mk1a is >= jags, bison and in some respects, fulcrum and vajra.

Add 36 more rafale and 21 fulcrums, and the numbers issues is licked. At any given time, iaf will have 36-39 sqds.

Samay · Post by **Samay** » 13 Nov 2021 21:54

What is wrong with making a desi Rafale using Tejas technology. Lesser design testing would be required. The French could have given blueprints at least, with so much money. ?
Imagine if they really do that, with desi engine, radar, avionics etc. would save time and prolonged bureaucratic confusions at least .
They finally applied bofors tech in making a desi gun. Of course middlemen would argue with their life in not letting letting that happen ?

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 13 Nov 2021 21:57

Samay wrote:with so much money. ?

The MOD paid for what it asked for and that was Rafale, a 3 or 5 year support deal, India specific enhancements, and air-base modernization to support Rafale operations and weapons package. The price paid for these is what you'd expect given the base aircraft costs close to $100 Million fly-away.they didn't pay any extra for "blueprints" to build a desi Rafale in India. The entire reason to ditch the very expensive, and stuck original MMRCA deal was to remove some of those expensive components from the negotiation table and work something smaller and more affordable that would get a couple of squadrons in the IAF's hands within a reasonable timeframe.

Samay · Post by **Samay** » 13 Nov 2021 22:06

brar_w wrote:
Samay wrote:with so much money. ?
The MOD paid for what it asked for and that was Rafale, a 3 or 5 year support deal, India specific enhancements, and air-base modernization to support Rafale operations. The price paid for these is what you'd expect given the base aircraft costs close to $100 Million fly-away. No one paid any extra for "blueprints" to build a desi Rafale in India.

Sh!!t , so sad.
who can enhance these knuckleheads ? Whole procurement strategy (whatever if it even exists) suffers because of these, since long.

LakshmanPST · Post by **LakshmanPST** » 14 Nov 2021 01:52

I have a theory why IAF may not go for higher number of Single Engine jets... I might be right or wrong...
Just putting it here--->
-
PLAAF will be operating around 500 Single Engine Light-Medium J10s and nearly 1200 Twin Engine Heavy J11/J16/J20 by the end of this decade...
Up uptil now, the only thing that worked in our favour is geography... Geography was a huge advantage when PLAAF operated only J7s and J8s until 1990s... With induction of J11s and J16s/J20s subsequently, that advantage came down a lot, though I still believe that IAF holds the edge...
That advantage WILL be nullified in future as China builds more and more airbases and airstrips in Tibet...
I also believe J31 will replace J10s once it is ready...
-
My theory is, may be IAF wants to have Heavy-Medium Twin Engine Jets over Light-Medium Single Engine Jets...
A single Rafale can carry 1.5 times the Payload of Tejas Mk2 and twice the Payload of Tejas Mk1A... Rafale also has longer range and endurance...
May be (just may be), IAF want more 'Rafale ~~class~~jets'...
IAF also wants to speed up AMCA, as they do not want to fall behind in Tech...

I remember Bhadauriaji initially confirming 8 squadrons of Tejas Mk2... But as time passed by, he started saying that Tejas Mk2 numbers will be decided based on the progress of AMCA program...
-
Maybe IAF wants more no. of Twin-Engine Medium-Heavy jets now only becoz. of how PLAAF is rapidly changing, and I'm speculating that this decision was probably taken recently after China started making sudden and rapid moves in Tibet...
Tejas Mk2 seems to have transformed into an insurance policy for AMCA arrival...
I still believe Tejas Mk2 will come, but it may not be the first priority of IAF... More Mk1s is definitely out of question at this point...

Anyways, let's see...

m_saini · Post by **m_saini** » 14 Nov 2021 02:52

^ I'm not sure that's the case unless the PLAAF only recently (< 1year) decided to go heavy-medium. J16/20/31 weren't unveiled for the first time ever in 2021; they've been known for a while and IAF would've had (hopefully) a reasonable idea of how PLAAF would look like in the later part of this decade. On top of that IIRC the 42 squadrons magical number is based on a 2 front war so it's not like 'Hindi-Chini' were 'bhai-bhai' before the recent flareup.

Here's Air Chief Marshal Birender Singh Dhanoaji confirming not 8 but 12(!) Mk2 squadrons.
Looking At 12 Squadrons Of LCA Tejas Mk.2, IAF Chief Confirms

The above article also says

With a deal for 36 Rafales for her service at the heart of a political storm, the Indian Air Force chief was prepared for a barrage of questions that have lately seen his senior leadership at the frontlines of defending the deal.

So imo the gradual decline in Mk2 numbers is because of 1 of 2 reasons.
1) 12 squadrons were looked at because of the 'political storm' over the Rafale deal. As the storm fizzled, so did the commitment towards Mk2.
2) IAF has newfound confidence in desi MIC after Mk1/Mk1A that it was felt we could fast-track/speed up 5th gen AMCA with indigenous/jv engines and minimal Mk2 numbers.

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 14 Nov 2021 04:54

As a mango man, I think the entire idea of keeping LCA Mk2 to minimum numbers for a future AMCA is wrong. I also think that further imports of 4+ Gen aircraft of medium weight class without going for a large order of LCA Mk2 only is also wrong. My mango man reasons are
1. Money - We do not have money for imports now or make vast numbers of AMCA. Tejas Mk2 can be made and maintained with much lesser money. This and this alone shall ensure no imports and a large number of Tejas Mk2.

2. Tejas suitability - Tejas is a 4+ Gen one that can take on and overcome anything pakis can buy. Plus it can also have a suitable MWF lizard can create.
3. Can make required numbers and can have replacements.
4. Timely replacement - If there is a reasonable amount of investment - we can make many LCAs Mk2 in a much shorter period than imports.
5. AMCA is not a silver bullet- Stealth is not infallible. Already countermeasures for stealth are coming up as per reports
6. Cost of AMCA and requirement - Even the F35, which is being made in large numbers, is not cost-effective, and the US is going ahead and continuing to include 4th Gen aircraft in large numbers. Why? Cost wise and solution wise it makes to have a large number of 4th Gen aircraft around into the foreseeable future.
7. Need for large numbers than a projected requirement - We need a more significant number of fighters than the projected requirement of 35Sqs or 42 Sqs as China increases its capability. As of now, the entire peninsular Bharat has no aircover. Nor does the entire IOA and Bay of Bengal, Arabian sea areas. So we need those numbers for all that when the Chinese ( or the US) carrier sail into the Bay of Bengal.
arrier sail into Bay of Bengal.

ShivS · Post by **ShivS** » 14 Nov 2021 12:13

I think timing is the issue with the MK 2, it’s not capability.

Apart from the Mig 21s, 5/6 squadrons of Jags and Mig 29s need phasing out before 2030. The MK2 won’t be available in significant numbers before that. If it’s available only around 2030, why not wait for 3-5 years and go for the ORCA or the AMCA.

Anyway we will need 5/6 squadrons inducted till 2030 - whether it be a new type or a mix of Mk 1a and Rafales. That’s now critical.

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 14 Nov 2021 13:33

I think we may need single-engine 4+ Gen aircraft that can do most of the work that doesn't need long-range heavy hitters like Su30 mki, twin-engine fighters, or 5th Gen fighters to take on pakis and lizards at once.

A 21st Century Mig 21. Cheaper, very capable and in large numbers. LCA Mk2 fits that requirement very well.

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 14 Nov 2021 16:15

Most of the time, there will be peaceful flying duties, for these roles 5 gen fighters are overkill. Chinese send their F-7 or whatever flying junk against Taiwan or Japan - it is degrading their air power with minimal cost on their side. Now imagine, every time we sending Rafale (which is noclear delivery platform) to chase their shitty planes.

Military is a risky business, We understand twin engines increase safety but it increases the cost of operations as well. So there has be a balance - LCA MK1/1A/2 fits those roles and can stand alone in case shooting starts. We have seen CAS bombing accuracies and A2A capabilities will get a major jump with induction of 1A + Astra series integration.

So I am baffled with IAF choice of waiting for AMCA - which is supposed to replace Su-30MKI. Since when they have again changed the goal posts? Not very apt leadership from my PoV.

YashG · Post by **YashG** » 14 Nov 2021 16:54

If we cant do Mk2 with aggressive timelines we wont be able to do AMCA in reasonable time.

The level of supplychain, vendor management, program management, funding mechanisms and whole lot of related capabilities - something i will call aircraft development capability matrix - required to do develop and deploy advanced technology jet will just not be there. If Mk2 can de done in timelines better than projected currently than it will be proof that aircraft development capability matrix exists. If this exists expect AMCA can be done. or else forget it.

Mk1 -> Mk1A -> Mk2 is 0.5 gen gap. Mk1 -> Amca is one gen gap. You cant do 0.5 jump in 5 years, you wont be able to do 1 gen gap in even 12 years.
J10 Started flying in 2006, J20 started in 2016. Vis-a-vis, J20, AMCA will be a better platform. I fully expect AMCA to flatten J20 in the skies, IF it flies.

Tejas FOC production started 2019 -- If we aint starting to produce Mk2 in 2024 ( which we are not) then we aint starting to produce AMCA by 2030. Its easy to see why Tejas & AMCA timelines should be more aggressive.

ShivS · Post by **ShivS** » 14 Nov 2021 17:42

Fleet operating costs are important - roughly every USD 1000 increase in fleet operating costs is a USD 100 million increase in annual operating costs and twin engines do drive up cost by several thousand usd per hour. The point that we need a lower operating cost component is well taken. The IAF went thru some serious indigestion when the MIG 21/23 /27 fleets were largely replaced by the MKI.

That said we will have 120+ Tejas MK1 till the 40s and the upgraded Mirages till mid 30s. The combined fleet is nearly 9 squadrons.

Prasad · Post by **Prasad** » 14 Nov 2021 19:51

The IAF needs both. Mk2 & AMCA. There's no either or.
IAF can't afford an entirely AMCA fleet for the future as it's lower end. The Mk2 is a Mirage2000 equivalent. That's not a light medium fighter.

We need 120 Mk2 & 120 AMCA. Plus the Mk1 & 1As. AMCA timelines are suggestive. We need a lot of things to come together to work. Plus the big ? Of the engine.

Haridas · Post by **Haridas** » 14 Nov 2021 23:52

Kartik wrote:
RishiChatterjee wrote:LCA vs MWF base size..

Where'd the canards go?

In all other respects it matches what we know of the MWF..

slightly smaller radome than the Tejas Mk1 and Mk1A,
intakes no longer shielded by the wing,
wing tip mounted missile pylons,
the bulge behind the cockpit for better area ruling.

1. Significant wing area addition due to increase in length at base of delta.
2. Trim being done by canards, eliminate penalty on delta wing based trim. So delta wing optimally generating lift (with least drag or best L/D)

Overall wing dynamics greatly improved, also designed for greater AUW.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 15 Nov 2021 04:14

Yagnasri wrote:As a mango man, I think the entire idea of keeping LCA Mk2 to minimum numbers for a future AMCA is wrong..

Wrong? No. I think it is more sinister than that. Tejas mk1 numbers were kept to a minimum until it was ready, then goalpost moved to mk1a. When mk1a is coming along, mk2 is the new goal. When mk1a is ready, orca will be new goal. When orca is ready, amca will be set up as new goal. After that, it will be some other thing.

Basic goal is to keep numbers at minimum. In the meanwhile mrca ityadi will be ordered to "make up"for numbers.

I'm sorry but I've lost faith. The day foc came along and no extra orders of mk1 followed, that should've cleared it up. There are 3 possibilities to this:
1. Iaf couldn't care less for Desi maal/industry
2. Their strategic requirements have changed and so the emphasis is on larger birds
3. The LCAs engine has them worried.