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
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18274
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Post by Rakesh »

I hope this info - in the last few posts - gives all BRFites much needed respite from the Air Chief NOT talking about the Tejas Mk2.

Rest assured, Tejas Mk2 will come. You cannot have AMCA/TEDBF/ORCA without Tejas Mk2. Tejas Mk2 will come.
Barath
BRFite
Posts: 474
Joined: 11 Feb 2019 19:06

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

Post by Barath »

Rakesh wrote:
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.
I'm not sure how reliable this is. Current Uttam is Gallium Arsenide, and is not yet certified. GaN seems a bit of a stretch for this timeline, (WAG); there used to be erroneous information before that Uttam was GaN in the first place.

In fact, Alpha defense suggested a GaN iteration based on Uttam for AMCA https://alphadefense.in/alpha-exclusive ... -gan-aesa/
Others have suggested different configs ..https://idrw.org/what-we-know-of-growin ... ar-family/

-----

Also to Indranil's point on Mk2 radome :

Aman Routray tweeted A couple of days ago that ADA hs issued an RFP for 3 radomes for Mk2 , and gave dimensions. He also suggested that the quartz radome will be supplied by cobham's UK competitor Meggit aerospace and that there are indigenous radomes also in development. I would assume the change in supplier may be related to change in spec of the Mk2 radome and the performance

https://mobile.twitter.com/amanroutray7 ... 4915849216

Which still leaves open how LRDE tested the Mk2 radome/radar if the RFP just went out - was it entirely simulation, did they get a cobham sample from Mk1A or a one-off purchase for the testing.
nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9102
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

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

Post by nachiket »

Barath wrote: Also to Indranil's point on Mk2 radome :

Aman Routray tweeted A couple of days ago that ADA hs issued an RFP for 3 radomes for Mk2 , and gave dimensions. He also suggested that the quartz radome will be supplied by cobham's UK competitor Meggit aerospace and that there are indigenous radomes also in development. I would assume the change in supplier may be related to change in spec of the Mk2 radome and the performance

https://mobile.twitter.com/amanroutray7 ... 4915849216

Which still leaves open how LRDE tested the Mk2 radome/radar if the RFP just went out - was it entirely simulation, did they get a cobham sample from Mk1A or a one-off purchase for the testing.
But who is saying that LRDE has already tested Mk2 radar in the new Mk2 radome? Indranil talked about design changes for Mk2 based on the data gathered from testing the Uttam in the Mk1 testbed in the old radome which the Mk1A will use.
Barath
BRFite
Posts: 474
Joined: 11 Feb 2019 19:06

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

Post by Barath »

That error was mine. Thanks for pointing it out

The previous suggestion holds - possibly the change in performance might also have something to do with new quartz radome spec and even the change in supplier. Ie radome changes might not be restricted to dimension alone.

Anyway, the new design won't be done done until it is tested and validated.
Neela
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4102
Joined: 30 Jul 2004 15:05
Location: Spectator in the dossier diplomacy tennis match

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

Post by Neela »

Air force clears Tejas Mark 2 design, production begins in 2023
https://www.ajaishukla.com/2021/12/air- ... esign.html

By Ajai Shukla

Business Standard, 29th Dec 21
A major landmark in that evolution was passed on November 15, when the Deputy Chief of Air Staff (DCAS), Air Marshal Narmdeshwar Tiwari, accepted the comprehensive design review (CDR) of the LCA Mark 2.


A CDR is a multi-discipline, technical review that is a critical step in designing an aircraft. It involves examining the air frame design to ascertain that the aircraft is ready for fabrication and testing and it would achieve its stipulated performance within cost, schedule and risk.

The Indian Air Force’s (IAF’s) acceptance of the CDR clears the way for Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) to start releasing drawings for fabricating the Mark 2’s first prototype.
nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9102
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

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

Post by nachiket »

Barath wrote:That error was mine. Thanks for pointing it out

The previous suggestion holds - possibly the change in performance might also have something to do with new quartz radome spec and even the change in supplier. Ie radome changes might not be restricted to dimension alone.

Anyway, the new design won't be done done until it is tested and validated.
A new radome was necessitated because of the requirement to include an IRST sensor which takes up space in the nose. I don't know if the aerodynamic advantages of a smaller radome is merely a beneficial side-effect or a primary design consideration for the Mk2. Otherwise they might have used the same larger radome from the Mk1A while incorporating the improvements like smaller and tighter packed T/R elements that Indranil talks about. Could have led to even better performance albeit with the disadvantages of no IRST and no aerodynamic improvements. The path they have taken seems to be much more balanced and useful.
Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8428
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Post by Indranil »

I don't understand the confusion.

Uttam mk1 for Tejas mk1a, GaAs based. Nose radome is bigger than required. Changing it at this time will delay Mk1A production.

Uttam mk2 for Tejas mk2, GaN based. Nose radome optimized for optimal clearance. The smaller radar and lower clearance means that the radar is placed about 250mm ahead of where it is placed in Mk1A. Opening up space for internal IRST.

Mk1A can be optimized at MLU!
Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8428
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Post by Indranil »

For various tenders it is clear that GaN based Vivaldi TRMs, QTRMs, planks and arrays are entering manufacturing. And these are not just for Uttam Mk2.

When Uttam mk2 is fabricated, it will most probably enter testing with the new radome fitted on business jet, and then Tejas mk2 prototype.
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 »

Indranil: is the reason for the smaller radome in MK2 to reduce aerodynamic drag that you mentioned in your Twitter thread?

Otherwise, why not have a larger radome (or at least the same size as Mk1) with a more powerful Uttam?

Would you happen to know the radome size of MK2 vs Gripen-E by any chance?
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18274
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Post by Rakesh »

How Tejas Mark 2 is evolving into a bigger, powerful fighter
https://www.ajaishukla.com/2021/12/how- ... -into.html
30 Dec 2021
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18274
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Post by Rakesh »

I added both the recent articles from Ajai Shuka onto Page 1 of this thread.

Does anyone know to work that Twitter Thread Reader App? I want to condense all of IR's recent tweets (on the previous page) into a single link and post it on Page 1 for reference.
Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17168
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

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

Post by Rahul M »

Prem Kumar wrote:Indranil: is the reason for the smaller radome in MK2 to reduce aerodynamic drag that you mentioned in your Twitter thread?

Otherwise, why not have a larger radome (or at least the same size as Mk1) with a more powerful Uttam?

Would you happen to know the radome size of MK2 vs Gripen-E by any chance?
even without the aerodynamic issue, I think the electrical power drawn only goes up with the smaller but more powerful version and they must have reached a sweet spot beyond which the radar would draw more on board power than available(keeping in mind other possible susbsystems in future) or required for acceptable performance.
nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4712
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

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

Post by nam »

The number of TRM on the MK2 radar is dependent on the power availability on the platform and the power rating of the TRM.

GaN TRMs has higher power rating. A 20W GaN TRM, if used on MK1 Uttam would technically require only 370 odd TRM, instead of 740+. The radar will become half in size!

So a Uttam MK2 with 900 TRM ( say of 20W TRM) has almost 2.5 times the power output of MK1 Uttam! Theoretically it can handle 18KW, although I would assume in regular ops it will around 9 to 10KW.

LCA MK1 can provide around 3 to 4KW of power. Which is exactly half of 7.8KW theoretical power rating of Uttam = 780 TRM X 10W
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 »

Rakesh wrote:Does anyone know to work that Twitter Thread Reader App?I want to condense all of IR's recent tweets (on the previous page) into a single link and post it on Page 1 for reference.
Here you go https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1476 ... 20033.html

The website is https://threadreaderapp.com/ and if you're on twitter you just have to reply to (or quote) any tweet of the thread you want to unroll and mention @threadreaderapp with the "unroll" keyword.
Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8428
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Post by Indranil »

Rahul M wrote:
Prem Kumar wrote:Indranil: is the reason for the smaller radome in MK2 to reduce aerodynamic drag that you mentioned in your Twitter thread?

Otherwise, why not have a larger radome (or at least the same size as Mk1) with a more powerful Uttam?

Would you happen to know the radome size of MK2 vs Gripen-E by any chance?
even without the aerodynamic issue, I think the electrical power drawn only goes up with the smaller but more powerful version and they must have reached a sweet spot beyond which the radar would draw more on board power than available(keeping in mind other possible susbsystems in future) or required for acceptable performance.
Correct. The Mk2s radar is much more powerful than that of Mk1A. In fact generating so much power from a single engine and also cooling is the constraint.
fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4282
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

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

Post by fanne »

Can that be ported to LCAMK1A after few tranches?
Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8428
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Post by Indranil »

I don't understand why Uttam Mk2 + smaller radome + IRST can be added to Mk1/Mk1A at MLU.
Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7793
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

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

Post by Prasad »

Due to the very same constraints. Power & thermal management.
ShivS
BRFite
Posts: 142
Joined: 19 Apr 2019 23:25

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

Post by ShivS »

Indranil wrote:I don't understand why Uttam Mk2 + smaller radome + IRST can be added to Mk1/Mk1A at MLU.
Adding a new radar during the MLU and an IRST is possible. Changing the just the radome size with no other changes is unlikely to achieve benefits. A larger radome makes thermal management much easier.
k prasad
BRFite
Posts: 962
Joined: 21 Oct 2007 17:38
Location: Somewhere over the Rainbow
Contact:

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

Post by k prasad »

nam wrote: GaN TRMs has higher power rating. A 20W GaN TRM, if used on MK1 Uttam would technically require only 370 odd TRM, instead of 740+. The radar will become half in size!

So a Uttam MK2 with 900 TRM ( say of 20W TRM) has almost 2.5 times the power output of MK1 Uttam! Theoretically it can handle 18KW, although I would assume in regular ops it will around 9 to 10KW.

LCA MK1 can provide around 3 to 4KW of power. Which is exactly half of 7.8KW theoretical power rating of Uttam = 780 TRM X 10W
Array size is as important as power since that will decide the achievable beamwidth. This has major implications for LPI requirements (a wider beam means more dispersed power => increased chance of emissions being picked up by passive sensors => Higher probability of intercept). Furthermore, the directivity gain offered by a larger array can help improve radar sensitivity and probability of detection with a lower peak power. This again reduces the prob. of intercept.

So making the radar smaller in size might not be the best idea if that means the array size is reduced. A smaller overall size is better for real-estate management in the nose of the aircraft. On the flip side, a larger array makes for a higher RCS, so it's all a big trade-off.
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 »

Indranil wrote:I don't understand the confusion.

Uttam mk1 for Tejas mk1a, GaAs based. Nose radome is bigger than required. Changing it at this time will delay Mk1A production.

Uttam mk2 for Tejas mk2, GaN based. Nose radome optimized for optimal clearance. The smaller radar and lower clearance means that the radar is placed about 250mm ahead of where it is placed in Mk1A. Opening up space for internal IRST.

Mk1A can be optimized at MLU!
Thanks for confirming IR.

However, one question regarding Uttam Mk2 for the Tejas Mk2. With the news that LRDE is considering a repositioner for the Uttam Mk2, similar to that used by Selex for the ES-05A Raven, will the tight clearances for the Mk2 radome be adequate to allow for swiveling the radar face by any worthwhile degree?
Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8428
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Post by Indranil »

I had the same thought. But they must have considered it Kartik.
la.khan
BRFite
Posts: 467
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 05:02

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

Post by la.khan »

Rakesh wrote:How Tejas Mark 2 is evolving into a bigger, powerful fighter
https://www.ajaishukla.com/2021/12/how- ... -into.html
30 Dec 2021
If Shuklaji is extolling the virtues of LCA Mk2, I can only imagine how good LCA MK2 will turn out to be :twisted: Now that 2022 is here, I can't wait to see the prototype in flesh & blood :) Normally, I don't pay much attention to Shuklaji but the blog did not mention Brahmos NG, though there is a reference to Mica & Scalp. Are Scalp & Brahmos NG in the same class?

To me, the single biggest advantage of LCA Mk2 is that it is designed to carry & deliver a lot of ordnance, especially Brahmos NG. This capability was not an afterthought (like the air launched Brahmos from Su30MKI). Just imagine the options for IAF having 120-150 LCA Mk2s in the inventory :twisted:
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18274
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Post by Rakesh »

m_saini wrote:Here you go https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1476 ... 20033.html

The website is https://threadreaderapp.com/ and if you're on twitter you just have to reply to (or quote) any tweet of the thread you want to unroll and mention @threadreaderapp with the "unroll" keyword.
You rock! Thank You :) Added on Page 1.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18274
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/RAFIndia_/status/14 ... 53122?s=20 ---->

Incorporating all the technology developed and experience gained, a more powerful and bigger version Tejas Mk2 is under development.

• Tejas Mk2 roll-out is planned later this year
• First flight by 2024 and production by ~2027
• Six squadrons of Tejas Mk2 are planned

PIC - Kuntal Biswas

Image
bharathp
BRFite
Posts: 453
Joined: 24 Jul 2017 03:44

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

Post by bharathp »

@Rakesh ji - on the page 1, can you please update:
Future Milestones
• First flight expected in 2022

to "roll out in 2022, first flight 2024" ? (based on the inputs from above post)
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18274
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Post by Rakesh »

bharathp wrote:@Rakesh ji - on the page 1, can you please update:
Future Milestones
• First flight expected in 2022

to "roll out in 2022, first flight 2024" ? (based on the inputs from above post)
Bharat-ji, I have updated it. But I hope IR can confirm this.

The author of this tweet needs to confirm some data (not-related to the Tejas Mk2).

Please see the Tejas Mk1 thread ---> viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7878&p=2529288#p2529288
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Post by ramana »

From Ajai Shukla's article
Furthermore, the Tejas Mark 1 is burdened with 300 kilos of ballast --- dead weight inserted incrementally while designing the fighter, to correct its centre of gravity. If the internal LRUs are re-arranged and the ballast removed, the Tejas Mark 2 could instead carry 300 kg more of useful payload.
Or become more agile with the removal of ballast.

andd
Meanwhile, the DRDO’s Armament Research & Development Establishment is developing a range of bombs for the Tejas Mark 2, such as the Tara (high speed, low drag) bomb that is mounted on the pylons.
I think it might be the 1000 kg that is missing from the HSLD menu:
500 kg, 450kg, 250 kg etc.
The Inertial Guided Bomb is not called HSLD.
putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4665
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

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

Post by putnanja »

Wasn't it planned to rearrange the LRUs for Mk1A itself to reduce the ballast to 75kg or similar?
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Post by ramana »

Yes rearranging LRUS in Mk1A itself and reducing some ballast is one of the goals.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Post by ramana »

DFI has a sketch that shows, Tara, as a guided bomb in the same location as Brahmos airborne.
Brad Goodman
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2426
Joined: 01 Apr 2010 17:00

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

Post by Brad Goodman »

ramana wrote:Yes rearranging LRUS in Mk1A itself and reducing some ballast is one of the goals.
How easy is that? Would that also mean re doing all the wirings? Also would have create a maintenance issue with LRU's becoming inaccessible /complicated to get to?
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Post by ramana »

The wiring harness is the cheapest to change out is they can relocate the LRUs for ease of maintenance.
Look at Dilip's post linked in the first post of Tejas thread.
About 34 LRUs have frequent breakdowns.
8. High failure rate of 34 types LRUs which is still being worked on.
So dual strategy would be better reliability and relocation for swap out.
Haridas
BRFite
Posts: 879
Joined: 26 Dec 2017 07:53

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

Post by Haridas »

nam wrote:..So a Uttam MK2 with 900 TRM ( say of 20W TRM) has almost 2.5 times the power output of MK1 Uttam! Theoretically it can handle 18KW, although I would assume in regular ops it will around 9 to 10KW.

LCA MK1 can provide around 3 to 4KW of power. Which is exactly half of 7.8KW theoretical power rating of Uttam = 780 TRM X 10W
What limits Tejas available power?
What are low hanging choice to increase available power for radar?
I know F404 has built in generator with specific output rating and there would be few options.

What about RAT on tail side?
Haridas
BRFite
Posts: 879
Joined: 26 Dec 2017 07:53

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

Post by Haridas »

k prasad wrote:
nam wrote: GaN TRMs has higher power rating. A 20W GaN TRM, if used on MK1 Uttam would technically require only 370 odd TRM, instead of 740+. The radar will become half in size!

So a Uttam MK2 with 900 TRM ( say of 20W TRM) has almost 2.5 times the power output of MK1 Uttam! Theoretically it can handle 18KW, although I would assume in regular ops it will around 9 to 10KW.

LCA MK1 can provide around 3 to 4KW of power. Which is exactly half of 7.8KW theoretical power rating of Uttam = 780 TRM X 10W
Array size is as important as power since that will decide the achievable beamwidth. This has major implications for LPI requirements (a wider beam means more dispersed power => increased chance of emissions being picked up by passive sensors => Higher probability of intercept). Furthermore, the directivity gain offered by a larger array can help improve radar sensitivity and probability of detection with a lower peak power. This again reduces the prob. of intercept.

So making the radar smaller in size might not be the best idea if that means the array size is reduced. A smaller overall size is better for real-estate management in the nose of the aircraft. On the flip side, a larger array makes for a higher RCS, so it's all a big trade-off.
And overall diameter determines beamwidth ( antenna gain). Inter-element spacing has to be less then 0.5 labda(wavelength), smaller spacing (higher density TRM) allows scaling up power output at expense of cost, complexity and reliability, in addition to worsening mutual coupling impacting drive impedence, phase response and bandwidth that changes for each beam forming weight.

Hence reducing radome antenna aperture in TEJAS MK2 seems jarring.
Haridas
BRFite
Posts: 879
Joined: 26 Dec 2017 07:53

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

Post by Haridas »

la.khan wrote:
Rakesh wrote:How Tejas Mark 2 is evolving into a bigger, powerful fighter
https://www.ajaishukla.com/2021/12/how- ... -into.html
30 Dec 2021
If Shuklaji is extolling the virtues of LCA Mk2, I can only imagine how good LCA MK2 will turn out to be :twisted: Now that 2022 is here, I can't wait to see the prototype in flesh & blood :) Normally, I don't pay much attention to Shuklaji but the blog did not mention Brahmos NG, though there is a reference to Mica & Scalp. Are Scalp & Brahmos NG in the same class? ..
Most have forgotten Ajai Shukla sustained vitriol against LCA Tejas at behest of lifafa from Chandigarh mafia lobby.
Exemplary Presstitutes.
Nalla Baalu
BRFite
Posts: 153
Joined: 24 Aug 2006 07:16
Location: Yerramandi, Dhoolpeta

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

Post by Nalla Baalu »

Likely building credibility/google rank of his bs blog with clickbait content for jingos.
Haridas wrote:
la.khan wrote: If Shuklaji is extolling the virtues of LCA Mk2, ...
Most have forgotten Ajai Shukla sustained vitriol against LCA Tejas at behest of lifafa from Chandigarh mafia lobby.
Exemplary Presstitutes.
fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4282
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

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

Post by fanne »

what people have further forgotten is this -
1. The same guy along with other retd IA officers like him were on a UPA-sponsored panel to give away Siachen to TSP. I guess they stopped when other officers threatened revolt which Sonia Maino may not be able to handle
2. He was the one rejoicing our CDS Shri Bipin Rawat's demise.

His list of follies are endless. But based on the above it is sufficient that I will not read his blog or link it anywhere. It does not matter what info he brings. More importantly how/why the establishment grant him access/interview
Dalla
John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3447
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

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

Post by John »

la.khan wrote:
Rakesh wrote:How Tejas Mark 2 is evolving into a bigger, powerful fighter
https://www.ajaishukla.com/2021/12/how- ... -into.html
30 Dec 2021
If Shuklaji is extolling the virtues of LCA Mk2, I can only imagine how good LCA MK2 will turn out to be :twisted: Now that 2022 is here, I can't wait to see the prototype in flesh & blood :) Normally, I don't pay much attention to Shuklaji but the blog did not mention Brahmos NG, though there is a reference to Mica & Scalp. Are Scalp & Brahmos NG in the same class?

To me, the single biggest advantage of LCA Mk2 is that it is designed to carry & deliver a lot of ordnance, especially Brahmos NG. This capability was not an afterthought (like the air launched Brahmos from Su30MKI). Just imagine the options for IAF having 120-150 LCA Mk2s in the inventory :twisted:
Brahmos NG hasn’t even been test fired for ground launch I highly doubt an air launch version will even be tested before 2030 so it make sense why he left out. Brahmos NG will be in same class so if it can carry Scalp it can carry NG.
Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5352
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

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

Post by Cain Marko »

fanne wrote:what people have further forgotten is this -
1. The same guy along with other retd IA officers like him were on a UPA-sponsored panel to give away Siachen to TSP. I guess they stopped when other officers threatened revolt which Sonia Maino may not be able to handle
2. He was the one rejoicing our CDS Shri Bipin Rawat's demise.

His list of follies are endless. But based on the above it is sufficient that I will not read his blog or link it anywhere. It does not matter what info he brings. More importantly how/why the establishment grant him access/interview
Dalla
Second that. From his pissing on the arjun to his latest celebration at CDS' demise, this dude is.......(fill in the blank)
Post Reply