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
Atmavik
BRFite
Posts: 1985
Joined: 24 Aug 2016 04:43

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

Post by Atmavik »

V_Raman wrote:Since when did Mk2 need a new engine - I thought it was being designed with F414-GE-INS6 as the engine. Is that not correct?

GE F414 was always the plan
ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2616
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

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

Post by ldev »

The engine for the Mk2 should have at the outset been an outsized engine capable of supporting future growth in power hungry systems, besides providing higher payload capacity and better thrust to weight resulting in faster acceleration. Instead of the GE-414 with ~60KN dry thrust and ~ 100KN with afterburning, what should have been chosen is the GE-110-132 with ~85KN dry thrust and 145KN with afterburning. This would have given the Mk2 a better thrust to weight ratio than the F-16 (this engine powers the UAE F-16 Block 60) and made the IAF jockeys happy with the resulting hot-rod!! The GE-110 is 181 inches long and with a diameter of 46 inches vs the GE-414 at 154 inches length and a diameter of 35 inches. An LCA Mk 2 powered by the GE-110-132 with an AESA radar, a comprehensive EW suite and a state of the art IRST and FLIR to combat PLAAF 5th gen LO fighters is all that the IAF needs on the domestic front. It would be a single engine fighter and hence low on maintenance and yet with an engine with power to spare.The AMCA is effectively redundant because technology and changes in warfighting are advancing so fast that the AMCA as envisaged currently will be obsolete by the time it is ready for production.
skumar
BRFite
Posts: 244
Joined: 30 Nov 2008 08:22

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

Post by skumar »

Rakesh wrote:...
We have to understand what Air HQ is looking for in the MRFA purchase. Peel away the layers that Air HQ loves phoren fighters (and they do!), that Air HQ is staffed with fighter jocks (which it is) that love hot rods, that Air HQ has little to no faith (which is true) in HAL to deliver a quality product....what is left? ...
So what Air HQ wants no OEM on Planet Earth can provide. They will decide on orders based on how capable the platform is and on the production rate. But they will take *ZERO* ownership on developing the platform. They want a ready-made solution just delivered to them in a tricolour bow. If they want X capability, then they have to partner with said agency to develop that capability. This zero ownership attitude that Air HQ has is why local platforms never succeed (or reach their full potential) in the IAF.
...
And that commitment needs to be made TODAY, so the platform can become a reality in the high triple digits that it needs to be inducted in. This is why the PMO needs to step in. This is now an issue that goes beyond the Ministry of Defence or even the Defence Minister himself. Air HQ's vacillation over the Tejas Mk2 is not a strategy that the PMO can rely on. Like I said earlier....the IAF will lose 10 squadrons (MiG-29s, Jaguars and MiG-29s) over the next two decades. And there is already a 10 - 12 squadron shortage as of today. Therefore, sufficient room is there for the induction of imported and local aircraft. Heck, there is even room for additional Mk1A units.
...
+1000 :)

Rakesh ji, you are at liberty to say this and if you take this one step further, it leads to an inevitable conclusion that is not easy to be stated on this forum.

PMO needs to step in and now. Else we will be begging for engines and building fighters when the war comes and it is coming.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Post by Rakesh »

While the Indian Navy continues to march ahead, the IAF is fine tuning the RFP for 114 MRFA.

https://twitter.com/TheLegateIN/status/ ... Qq9mhDD9EA ---> Indian Navy upgrades Naval Design directorate. Now renamed as Warship Design Bureau for catering to New Generation warships designs and warfighting capabilities.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20772
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Post by Karan M »

ldev wrote:The engine for the Mk2 should have at the outset been an outsized engine capable of supporting future growth in power hungry systems, besides providing higher payload capacity and better thrust to weight resulting in faster acceleration. Instead of the GE-414 with ~60KN dry thrust and ~ 100KN with afterburning, what should have been chosen is the GE-110-132 with ~85KN dry thrust and 145KN with afterburning. This would have given the Mk2 a better thrust to weight ratio than the F-16 (this engine powers the UAE F-16 Block 60) and made the IAF jockeys happy with the resulting hot-rod!! The GE-110 is 181 inches long and with a diameter of 46 inches vs the GE-414 at 154 inches length and a diameter of 35 inches. An LCA Mk 2 powered by the GE-110-132 with an AESA radar, a comprehensive EW suite and a state of the art IRST and FLIR to combat PLAAF 5th gen LO fighters is all that the IAF needs on the domestic front. It would be a single engine fighter and hence low on maintenance and yet with an engine with power to spare.
And what of things that we dont know of like maintenance requirements and cost to operate? What ADA has delivered is in line with what IAF has asked for. As we have seen with ATAGS, applying their "own thinking" and over-delivering is no guarantee Indian designers will have a product that is readily accepted.
The AMCA is effectively redundant because technology and changes in warfighting are advancing so fast that the AMCA as envisaged currently will be obsolete by the time it is ready for production.
This is completely mistaken. The AMCA design will remain viable for several decades to come as most of today and tomorrow's fighters rely on radars, especially X-Band FCR for long range acquisition and targeting. As long as that is the case, AMCA remains highly viable. For instance, if it were to hit fairly conservative 0.3 sq mtr targets (as that report stated for the J-20), radar range would be reduced by a whopping 40% against it vis a vis a "small MiG-21" class fighter. In reality its RCS will likely be far lower & it will have EW too. Future variants will allow it to control UAVs and UCAVs, and optional pilots are being talked of. In short, it is a highly viable design that can be and will be leveraged heavily for more variants.
ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2616
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

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

Post by ldev »

Karan M wrote: And what of things that we dont know of like maintenance requirements and cost to operate? What ADA has delivered is in line with what IAF has asked for. As we have seen with ATAGS, applying their "own thinking" and over-delivering is no guarantee Indian designers will have a product that is readily accepted.
The video linked below gives some cost per hour figures for IAF fighters in USD converted at the prevailing exchange rate when the video was made ~@Rs 73 to the USD:

SU-30MKI 10,000
Mirage 2000: 2700-3700
Mig 29: 6500
LCA: 4000 (presumably Mk1)
Rafale: 16,000

The engine in question the GE-110 132 is used to power the F-16 and the F-16 in US Airforce service has a cost per hour of USD 8000. Since the rest of the aircraft will be largely of Indian origin the cost per hour in IAF service for a GE-110 132 powered Mk2 should not exceed USD 8000, in fact it should be lower as manpower costs as well as consumable stores should be priced lower. As far as IAF acceptance is concerned, one attribute of such a fighter which the the IAF should love will be it's thrust to weight ratio which will be greater than either the F-16 or the Rafale. That in itself again is no guarantee of acceptance....but the IAF fighter jockeys should love it!!



This is completely mistaken. The AMCA design will remain viable for several decades to come as most of today and tomorrow's fighters rely on radars, especially X-Band FCR for long range acquisition and targeting. As long as that is the case, AMCA remains highly viable. For instance, if it were to hit fairly conservative 0.3 sq mtr targets (as that report stated for the J-20), radar range would be reduced by a whopping 40% against it vis a vis a "small MiG-21" class fighter. In reality its RCS will likely be far lower & it will have EW too. Future variants will allow it to control UAVs and UCAVs, and optional pilots are being talked of. In short, it is a highly viable design that can be and will be leveraged heavily for more variants.
The issue with Indian fighter aircraft development is the time scale from inception to delivery as compared to what India's primary foes are doing is inordinately long. As you would have noticed in that J-20 article the Chinese have taken great pains to reduce the time lag between introduction of a fighter by the US and the first flight of a fighter with comparable technology by China e.g. they compared the F-16s first flight in 1974 and the J-10 in 2003.....they were 29 years behind the US for a basic 3rd generation fighter, both fighters in their later iterations were upgraded into the 4th generation. Therefore they made a lot of effort to reduce this technology gap with the US for the 5th generation i.e. F-22 first flight in 1997 vs the J-20s first flight in 2011.....14 years later. Now one can argue convincingly that the J-20 is a pale imitation of the F-22 but credit the Chinese with getting at least the fundamentals of stealth shaping reasonably right in what is their first attempt. Their second effort the J-35 is a work in process, in fact photographs have emerged of the J-35s first flight a couple of weeks ago. As you are well aware the US is already in an active test program of deploying laser pods on F-16s as test beds, initially as defensive aids to disable AAMs and SAMs targeting the fighter. The effort is on for later versions with more power to be used as offensive weapons. The first pods have been delivered to the US Airforce.

As far as rcs goes, the detection range between an rcs of 0.1m^2 and .001m^2 is immense e.g. Almaz-Antey, the Russian manufacturer of S-400 claims that its S-band 91N6E which is the primary search radar can detect a 4 m^2 target from 390 km while the X-band 92N6E targeting radar can track a 4 m^2 target from 250 km at altitude i.e. curvature of the earth is not an issue. Based on this the search radar will detect a 0.1m^2 target at 155 km but will only detect a .001m^2 target at 49 km. The difference between the two is the ability to come within launch range of an anti radiation missile or not. Reducing rcs does help no doubt but IMO it has to be or an order of magnitude to be meaningful i.e. Dassault claims that the Rafale has 1/10th the rcs of the Mirage 2000. The Mirage 2000 is widely believed to have an rcs of 3.00m^2-3.30m^2. The Rafale should therefore have an rcs of ~0.3m^2 which coupled with it's Spectra self protection EW suite will help it evade detection closer to it's target. And these rcs figures are for fighters in operation as of today. Who knows what lurks behind classified walls and is on the drawing boards of aerospace manufacturers globally?

All of this means that the AMCA has a hill to climb if it is to be relevant 20 years from now. Just as the Chinese are clocking their efforts in number of years that they are behind the US, I think India has to do the same. The J-20 first flew in 2011, first deliveries to the PLAAF in limited numbers in 2017, with 3 regiments operating the J-20 in 2022.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20772
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Post by Karan M »

ldev wrote:The video linked below gives some cost per hour figures for IAF fighters in USD converted at the prevailing exchange rate when the video was made ~@Rs 73 to the USD:

SU-30MKI 10,000
Mirage 2000: 2700-3700
Mig 29: 6500
LCA: 4000 (presumably Mk1)
Rafale: 16,000
Thanks for sourcing your numbers but TBH, very skeptical of a lot of these YT video guys given they pick up stuff from twitter, forums etc and run rumors into fact. I'll check the numbers on my own and revert.
The engine in question the GE-110 132 is used to power the F-16 and the F-16 in US Airforce service has a cost per hour of USD 8000. Since the rest of the aircraft will be largely of Indian origin the cost per hour in IAF service for a GE-110 132 powered Mk2 should not exceed USD 8000, in fact it should be lower as manpower costs as well as consumable stores should be priced lower. As far as IAF acceptance is concerned, one attribute of such a fighter which the the IAF should love will be it's thrust to weight ratio which will be greater than either the F-16 or the Rafale. That in itself again is no guarantee of acceptance....but the IAF fighter jockeys should love it!!
It's not merely that. It is the fact India plans to set up M&O facilities for GE engines in India as part of the LCA program (we dropped making the engines on account of cost) and hence a new engine would cost significantly more to maintain in India.

Also, always remember thrust comes with an increase in SFC. SFC increase, means more fuel. More fuel adds to the size and weight restrictions on the overall aircraft and which means your current LCA planform for the Tejas Mk2 would no longer hold.

Those dimensions were also clearly discussed with the IAF - so all these factors need to be taken into account.
The issue with Indian fighter aircraft development is the time scale from inception to delivery as compared to what India's primary foes are doing is inordinately long. As you would have noticed in that J-20 article the Chinese have taken great pains to reduce the time lag between introduction of a fighter by the US and the first flight of a fighter with comparable technology by China e.g. they compared the F-16s first flight in 1974 and the J-10 in 2003.....they were 29 years behind the US for a basic 3rd generation fighter, both fighters in their later iterations were upgraded into the 4th generation. Therefore they made a lot of effort to reduce this technology gap with the US for the 5th generation i.e. F-22 first flight in 1997 vs the J-20s first flight in 2011.....14 years later. Now one can argue convincingly that the J-20 is a pale imitation of the F-22 but credit the Chinese with getting at least the fundamentals of stealth shaping reasonably right in what is their first attempt. Their second effort the J-35 is a work in process, in fact photographs have emerged of the J-35s first flight a couple of weeks ago. As you are well aware the US is already in an active test program of deploying laser pods on F-16s as test beds, initially as defensive aids to disable AAMs and SAMs targeting the fighter. The effort is on for later versions with more power to be used as offensive weapons. The first pods have been delivered to the US Airforce.
This can all be addressed provided we deliver a reasonably modern aircraft to the IAF by the time it appears and that reasonably modern aircraft can handle the threats as IAF envisages then, based on futuristic specifications set and that we achieve then. The fact is today's Tejas Mk1 avionics wise is ahead of whatever PAF has in service in several respects. Yet, we are going for a Mk1A because we want to "future proof" our investment.
As far as rcs goes, the detection range between an rcs of 0.1m^2 and .001m^2 is immense e.g. Almaz-Antey, the Russian manufacturer of S-400 claims that its S-band 91N6E which is the primary search radar can detect a 4 m^2 target from 390 km while the X-band 92N6E targeting radar can track a 4 m^2 target from 250 km at altitude i.e. curvature of the earth is not an issue. Based on this the search radar will detect a 0.1m^2 target at 155 km but will only detect a .001m^2 target at 49 km. The difference between the two is the ability to come within launch range of an anti radiation missile or not. Reducing rcs does help no doubt but IMO it has to be or an order of magnitude to be meaningful i.e. Dassault claims that the Rafale has 1/10th the rcs of the Mirage 2000. The Mirage 2000 is widely believed to have an rcs of 3.00m^2-3.30m^2. The Rafale should therefore have an rcs of ~0.3m^2 which coupled with it's Spectra self protection EW suite will help it evade detection closer to it's target. And these rcs figures are for fighters in operation as of today. Who knows what lurks behind classified walls and is on the drawing boards of aerospace manufacturers globally?
So in the last line you see if the Rafale can manage with a clean RCS of 0.3 mtr square and then adds weapons, spiking its RCS, yet with Spectra etc is seen by the IAF as capable of taking on the J-20, S-400 etc, then an AMCA which is clean at 0.3 mtr square (carries its weapons internally) and also has a Spectra type EW suite planned, should be fairly sufficient. And this is assuming we are at 0.3 mtr square alone and don't overhaul that target.

Coming to your first point, yes, its well known & the point here is reducing RCS alone as the only way to address an IADS needs huge improvements. However, if you couple that with EW, then the requirement tapers off. Second, we will not be relying on RCS, EW alone but also long range vectors like Scalp equivalents which will be flying NOE profiles. Its the combination of all of these which matters, and allows for cost-effective IADS busting.
All of this means that the AMCA has a hill to climb if it is to be relevant 20 years from now. Just as the Chinese are clocking their efforts in number of years that they are behind the US, I think India has to do the same. The J-20 first flew in 2011, first deliveries to the PLAAF in limited numbers in 2017, with 3 regiments operating the J-20 in 2022.
AMCA has a ways to go, but labeling it obsolete when we don't even know what the classified specs its driving towards is a bit much.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
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/Firezstarter1/statu ... A4CTWg8TbA ---> Plan detailed by Air Marshal Nambiar was Tejas Mk2 for retiring Fulcrums, Mirage 2000s and Jaguars. But from 12 squadrons we are now down to six already. Presumably, 6 MRFA replace the rest, 6 AMCA would replace oldest Flanker units. But, no funds for any mass imported MRFA, and IAF should understand this.

Image
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 »

who is accounting for 12 squadron that has been number plated? What is replacing them (assuming 42 sq is still the right number and we are down to 30). MFRA of 120 will only replace 6 of these 12 number plated sq. We do need then all 12 sq worth of Tejas MK2 to replace 29, 2k and Jags. We need an additional 6 sq of mk1a to replace the already number plated sq apart from matching retiring Mig 21s.

However, you do the math, mk1a and mk2 are needed in number (between them 300-350 planes). That also leaves for scope for 150 MRFA (of which we have 36 now). The budget may not allow all of that, but all these acquisitions are spread over 10-15 years. All this news/logic of capping mk1a and mk2 number is not towards 150 MRFA, but a more sinister, long-term plan to get MRFA-2 (whatever that plane is - I know what the BIF is rooting for).
MeshaVishwas
BRFite
Posts: 868
Joined: 16 Feb 2019 17:20

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

Post by MeshaVishwas »

In case someone missed it.
The VR lab is just out of this world.
Also a brief Q&A with Sh. Dr. Deodhare.

Roop
BRFite
Posts: 664
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Post by Roop »

Karan M wrote: ...which will be flying NOE profiles.
Are Tejas and AMCA capable of flying NOE profiles? (I'm not looking for any classified info here).
kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6278
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

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

Post by kit »

Tejas Mk 2 outclasses the Mirage 2000 in virtually every parameter.

Last edited by kit on 07 Aug 2022 04:30, edited 1 time in total.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

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

Post by Pratyush »

It seems that the Tejas Mk2 is very close to rolling out.

KSingh
BRFite
Posts: 504
Joined: 16 Jun 2020 17:52

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

Post by KSingh »

Rakesh wrote:We have to understand what Air HQ is looking for in the MRFA purchase. Peel away the layers that Air HQ loves phoren fighters (and they do!), that Air HQ is staffed with fighter jocks (which it is) that love hot rods, that Air HQ has little to no faith (which is true) in HAL to deliver a quality product....what is left?
.......
So lets see.
So obvious and yet we will be having these same discussions 5-7 years from now with nothing having changed. Do we actually expect MRFA to deliver a single bird (if it were to go ahead) this side of 2030? No moves have been made to even order additional Rafale squadrons and that alone is a 5 year process (~2 years of cost negotiations + 3 years for first deliveries). The only difference between now and 5 years time will the first 1-2 SQNs of LCA MK1A will be in service but absolutely no other changes in force strength will have occurred for the better- that is 100% assured now.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
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:Video in first link below....

https://twitter.com/Kuntal__biswas/stat ... NVCfY9mzCw --->

+- 30 degree rotation of UTTAM MK-2 AESA radar

https://twitter.com/Indrani1_Roy/status ... NVCfY9mzCw ---> BIG: LRDE is looking at Uttam Mk2 antenna with a repositioner with up to +-90 degree and +-20 degree slewability in azimuth and elevation respectively. That is state of the art!

https://twitter.com/Indrani1_Roy/status ... NVCfY9mzCw ---> As you know Uttam Mk2 has better capability than Mk1 with reduced size. LRDE and ADA have also worked out how to place the antenna closer to the radome. This results in reduction in nose cone diameter by 18%. This reduces drag and opens up space behind the radar for IRST.
https://twitter.com/Defencematrix1/stat ... NVCfY9mzCw ---> Tejas Mk2 or Super Sukhoi? What you think sir?

https://twitter.com/Indrani1_Roy/status ... NVCfY9mzCw ---> Both. But no 'sir' for me please.

https://twitter.com/Indrani1_Roy/status ... NVCfY9mzCw ---> This is for Tejas Mk2. But scaling up to Su-30s nose size should not be a challenge.
sivab
BRFite
Posts: 1075
Joined: 22 Feb 2006 07:56

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

Post by sivab »

https://twitter.com/HTT40PRASHANT/statu ... i2mpcrAAAA
PRASHANT BHADORIA
@HTT40PRASHANT
Replying to
@Sandeep_Mave

@amcaji
and 6 others
You will be positively surprised shortly
Fairly good chance Mk2 will roll out before Aug 15 or end of this month.
bharathp
BRFite
Posts: 453
Joined: 24 Jul 2017 03:44

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

Post by bharathp »

sivab wrote: https://twitter.com/HTT40PRASHANT/statu ... i2mpcrAAAA

Fairly good chance Mk2 will roll out before Aug 15 or end of this month.
hoping for an awesome independence day.
vijayk
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8760
Joined: 22 Jun 1999 11:31

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

Post by vijayk »

sivab wrote:https://twitter.com/HTT40PRASHANT/statu ... i2mpcrAAAA
PRASHANT BHADORIA
@HTT40PRASHANT
Replying to
@Sandeep_Mave

@amcaji
and 6 others
You will be positively surprised shortly
Fairly good chance Mk2 will roll out before Aug 15 or end of this month.
Won't that be awesome? 8)
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 »

An mk2 rolled out by say Aug 15, that cannot yet fly (say fly by next year)will still be a great morale booster
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

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

Post by Pratyush »

fanne wrote:An mk2 rolled out by say Aug 15, that cannot yet fly (say fly by next year)will still be a great morale booster
If it rolls out by the end of the month. It will fly before the end of the year. The Indian aviation industry is mature enough for that.
nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9097
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

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

Post by nachiket »

If I remember correctly the schedule as mentioned by Dr. Deodhare in the interview last year called for the prototype to be unveiled in Aug 2022 and the first flight roughly one year later. But there were other rumblings a while back saying the prototype unveiling had been pushed to December of this year.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

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

Post by Pratyush »

The IRDW report a few days ago stated that the rollout of the Mk2 was originally scheduled for December but has now been preponed for Azadi ka Amrit Mahotsav. But it had no comments on the date of first flight.
Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5720
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Post by Kartik »

sivab wrote:https://twitter.com/HTT40PRASHANT/statu ... i2mpcrAAAA
PRASHANT BHADORIA
@HTT40PRASHANT
Replying to
@Sandeep_Mave

@amcaji
and 6 others
You will be positively surprised shortly
Fairly good chance Mk2 will roll out before Aug 15 or end of this month.
Based on any inside sources or whatever you've been reading on Twitter?
Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5720
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Post by Kartik »

Pratyush wrote:
fanne wrote:An mk2 rolled out by say Aug 15, that cannot yet fly (say fly by next year)will still be a great morale booster
If it rolls out by the end of the month. It will fly before the end of the year. The Indian aviation industry is mature enough for that.
Not necessarily. The LCA prototype TD1 was rolled out for the PM but it required a lot of work to be done for it's first flight.

IF (and it's a BIG IF) the Tejas Mk2 prototype is actually rolled out anytime soon, it'll be a massive achievement any which way. It will set the ball rolling for the Tejas Mk2 program, since no one will be able to say that it's entirely a paper plane. Then, the talk of the IAF's commitment for 6 squadrons of Mk2 plus more later will begin to mean a lot.
Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4215
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

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

Post by Prem Kumar »

Indeed. Optics matter, often even for insiders. Even if you are the designer/engineer/quality-assurance specialist working on the plane, its a different feeling altogether when you actually see the thing rolling out. You get the feeling that "this thing is for real". Till then, its an abstraction. That's why "shipping finished product" matters, perhaps more than anything else
nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9097
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

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

Post by nachiket »

Kartik wrote: Based on any inside sources or whatever you've been reading on Twitter?
From what I could see it all started from one cryptic tweet by Sriram from DDR that something was about to happen where he didn't even mention the Mk2 but everyone speculated anyway. This was followed by the usual random "Defence Update" handles all coming out with tweets one after the other saying the Mk2 rollout was imminent citing unknown "sources". This is just business as usual on Twitter.
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 »

That tweet wasn't related to Mk2.
sivab
BRFite
Posts: 1075
Joined: 22 Feb 2006 07:56

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

Post by sivab »

nachiket wrote:
Kartik wrote: Based on any inside sources or whatever you've been reading on Twitter?
From what I could see it all started from one cryptic tweet by Sriram from DDR that something was about to happen where he didn't even mention the Mk2 but everyone speculated anyway. This was followed by the usual random "Defence Update" handles all coming out with tweets one after the other saying the Mk2 rollout was imminent citing unknown "sources". This is just business as usual on Twitter.
Prashant Singh Bhadoria, whom I quoted, is a Deputy GM of HAL, was in charge of HTT40 team from start to finish and is now part of HAL AMCA team. Just google his name, Indranil & JayS can vouch for him. Seems his account has been deactivated in past 24 hrs.

Image
Image
nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9097
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

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

Post by nachiket »

sivab wrote: Prashant Singh Bhadoria, whom I quoted, is a Deputy GM of HAL, was in charge of HTT40 team from start to finish and is now part of HAL AMCA team. Just google his name, Indranil & JayS can vouch for him. Seems his account has been deactivated in past 24 hrs.
No I wasn't talking about him. I did see his account got deleted after he posted the AMCA pics. I meant the multiple defense related twitter and YT accounts that have mushroomed recently which provide defence "updates" who have all been speculating about the Mk2 in the past few days because of an unrelated tweet. Anyway, lets wait to see what happens. Nothing would make me happier than the Mk2 prototype being revealed.
Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5720
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Post by Kartik »

nachiket wrote:
Kartik wrote: Based on any inside sources or whatever you've been reading on Twitter?
From what I could see it all started from one cryptic tweet by Sriram from DDR that something was about to happen where he didn't even mention the Mk2 but everyone speculated anyway. This was followed by the usual random "Defence Update" handles all coming out with tweets one after the other saying the Mk2 rollout was imminent citing unknown "sources". This is just business as usual on Twitter.
I checked with Sriram and his tweet was not related to the Mk2. So if his tweet is the source of all this, then we're all in for a massive disappointment.

I'm just hoping that Prashant Bhadoria's tweet in response to the meme on Mk2 being ignored that "you will all be positively surprised shortly" was something related to a possible rollout.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Post by Rakesh »

HVT's account also has been deleted.
gakakkad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4667
Joined: 24 May 2011 08:16

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

Post by gakakkad »

Pratyush wrote:The IRDW report a few days ago stated that the rollout of the Mk2 was originally scheduled for December but has now been preponed for Azadi ka Amrit Mahotsav. But it had no comments on the date of first flight.
Wonder what the source might have been.
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 »

Rakesh wrote:HVT's account also has been deleted.
PMO is cracking down...
The professionals are stealing the thunder from the pollies!!!
Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4215
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

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

Post by Prem Kumar »

HVT deactivates his account and re-activates it, on & off. Lets not read too much into it
Haridas
BRFite
Posts: 878
Joined: 26 Dec 2017 07:53

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

Post by Haridas »

V_Raman wrote:Since when did Mk2 need a new engine - I thought it was being designed with F414-GE-INS6 as the engine. Is that not correct?
Since when did you last look at weight and T/W ratio of MWF ?

What would 120KN do to it compared to 98KN of F414
Last edited by Haridas on 16 Aug 2022 11:42, edited 2 times in total.
V_Raman
BRFite
Posts: 1379
Joined: 04 Sep 2008 22:25

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

Post by V_Raman »

It might do wonders to it - that might be true - but was trying to understand if the new higher thrust engine is part of the base specification or a good to have.
Haridas
BRFite
Posts: 878
Joined: 26 Dec 2017 07:53

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

Post by Haridas »

V_Raman wrote:It might do wonders to it - that might be true - but was trying to understand if the new higher thrust engine is part of the base specification or a good to have.
Air Force and make in india at inflection point, hence all options kept open wrt engine independence wrt needs of MWF, AMCA, TEDBF & ORCA that runs into 1500 to 2000 इंजन

Note needing 110 to 130 KN so commonality is tempting
Haridas
BRFite
Posts: 878
Joined: 26 Dec 2017 07:53

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

Post by Haridas »

Consider :

M88.2. 75KN @900 Kg mass , OPR 24.5
F404 79KN. @1000 Kg , OPR 26
F414 98KN @1100 Kg , OPR 30

RD33 81KN @1050Kg, OPR 21
AL31 123KN @1500 kg, OPR 23
AL41 137KN @1600 kg

So an engine weighing 1250 Kg and OPR 26 to 30 appears tempting with evolutionary options for 110 to 130KN
Last edited by Haridas on 16 Aug 2022 11:59, edited 1 time in total.
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 »

But first an engine that could fit into the LCA MK1 yes?
Haridas
BRFite
Posts: 878
Joined: 26 Dec 2017 07:53

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

Post by Haridas »

ks_sachin wrote:But first an engine that could fit into the LCA MK1 yes?
Nope it's about bigger MWF/Tejas mk2, AMCA, TEDBF, ORCA that are not yet design finalized.

Tejas mk 1A stay put on F404.

Added later :

Tejas Mk2/MWF: metal cutting already done using F414.
Re-engined version could possibly require inlet and or CG/ subsystem provisioning to give birth to Mk2A.
Last edited by Haridas on 16 Aug 2022 12:28, edited 2 times in total.
Post Reply