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.
Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5248
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Kartik » 29 May 2020 02:15

agupta wrote:
Kartik wrote:As per Anantha Krishnan, the IAF now wants the term Medium Weight Fighter (MWF) to be dumped and go back to Tejas Mk2 or LCA Mk2.

Puzzled by your inference that it was the IAF that drove this... Anantha's tweets do not ascribe any ownership re. this shift ! From a different source, then ?

Can you think of a good reason why ADA or DRDO would ask that the program be again called Tejas Mk2 after they themselves were calling it MWF saying it was no longer a light fighter? As someone replied on Twitter, it would seem that the IAF may not want an impression that the MWF could replace the MRCA program and hence the shift back to the Mk2 terminology.

But of course, we could be wrong and it could simply be an ADA/DRDO thing.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54386
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby ramana » 29 May 2020 03:55

Rakesh wrote:
agupta wrote:Puzzled by your inference that it was the IAF that drove this... Anantha's tweets do not ascribe any ownership re. this shift ! From a different source, then ?

https://twitter.com/ungliwallah/status/ ... 17893?s=20 ---> I suspect IAF panicked at calling it MWF because GoI would question need for MMRCA given indigenous medium weight fighter so asked for a rename back to innocuous Mk 2.


The present PMO team is quite savvy about military products and can't pull wool over their eyes.
My thinking is the MMRCA is being talked about to not deny the service fantasies.

With MWF there is no need for it and further goes against the grain of AtmaNirBar Bharat.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2607
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby Cybaru » 29 May 2020 04:32

or maybe the MWF name is being reserved for TEDBF/ORCA twin engine 33 ton plane.

agupta
BRFite
Posts: 302
Joined: 13 Oct 1999 11:31

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

Postby agupta » 29 May 2020 05:16

Kartik wrote:
agupta wrote:Puzzled by your inference that it was the IAF that drove this... Anantha's tweets do not ascribe any ownership re. this shift ! From a different source, then ?

Can you think of a good reason why ADA or DRDO would ask that the program be again called Tejas Mk2 after they themselves were calling it MWF saying it was no longer a light fighter? As someone replied on Twitter, it would seem that the IAF may not want an impression that the MWF could replace the MRCA program and hence the shift back to the Mk2 terminology.

But of course, we could be wrong and it could simply be an ADA/DRDO thing.



OK... so if there's no other input or source than "mr. ungliwallah" speculating on Twitter with the side benefit of running down the IAF, then I think we can surmise this is pure speculation.

The MWF and "No longer a light fighter" bit came from ADA/HAL (hard to say who or when).. as a way to signal how different it is; I could also speculate on why the differences need to be emphasized (so hard, so new, so much more money and patience required etc) but it would also be speculation. I don't think the IAF cares 2 horse's ass's hairs what its called as long as it gets delivered on the time line its promised.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5248
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Kartik » 29 May 2020 05:22

agupta wrote:
Kartik wrote:Can you think of a good reason why ADA or DRDO would ask that the program be again called Tejas Mk2 after they themselves were calling it MWF saying it was no longer a light fighter? As someone replied on Twitter, it would seem that the IAF may not want an impression that the MWF could replace the MRCA program and hence the shift back to the Mk2 terminology.

But of course, we could be wrong and it could simply be an ADA/DRDO thing.



OK... so if there's no other input or source than "mr. ungliwallah" speculating on Twitter with the side benefit of running down the IAF, then I think we can surmise this is pure speculation.

The MWF and "No longer a light fighter" bit came from ADA/HAL (hard to say who or when).
. as a way to signal how different it is; I could also speculate on why the differences need to be emphasized (so hard, so new, so much more money and patience required etc) but it would also be speculation. I don't think the IAF cares 2 horse's ass's hairs what its called as long as it gets delivered on the time line its promised.


It came from the IAF as well. It was called out by Air Marshal Nambiar in one of his lectures that was also published.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19508
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 29 May 2020 09:07

agupta wrote:
Kartik wrote:Can you think of a good reason why ADA or DRDO would ask that the program be again called Tejas Mk2 after they themselves were calling it MWF saying it was no longer a light fighter? As someone replied on Twitter, it would seem that the IAF may not want an impression that the MWF could replace the MRCA program and hence the shift back to the Mk2 terminology.

But of course, we could be wrong and it could simply be an ADA/DRDO thing.



OK... so if there's no other input or source than "mr. ungliwallah" speculating on Twitter with the side benefit of running down the IAF, then I think we can surmise this is pure speculation.

The MWF and "No longer a light fighter" bit came from ADA/HAL (hard to say who or when).. as a way to signal how different it is; I could also speculate on why the differences need to be emphasized (so hard, so new, so much more money and patience required etc) but it would also be speculation. I don't think the IAF cares 2 horse's ass's hairs what its called as long as it gets delivered on the time line its promised.


https://saluteindia.org/military-modern ... air-force/
Our aircraft of the future, as we perceive it as of today, is the LCA Mark II. This aircraft, we believe, will replace the MiG 29 in the next ten years, the Jaguar in the next 15 years and the Mirage 2000 in the next 20 years. All combined, this adds up to a total of twelve squadrons.

The requirements of the IAF for the LCA Mark II are centred on two crucial points. First, it has to be cutting edge, to the tune of its best electronic warfare capability and best weapons. As far as performance goes, we have pegged the performance to the level of the Mirage 2000, which is an aircraft already 35 years in our inventory. We are therefore not aiming for the moon, but for space at best. Therefore, our requirements have already been crystallised, our designers are at it, and given the fact that we have pitched ourselves at a level at which they are capable of generating and making, we will have an aircraft which will be in time in the next ten years or so. It will be the Mark II and will be a different breed of aircraft — probably bigger, probably more powerful and definitely capable of lifting much more load. We are envisaging an aircraft that can lift at least 6.5 tons of weapon load as compared to the LCA and LCA I which lifts about 3.8 tons.


Its basically a MMRCA. Mirage 2000 class payload range performance, but with cutting edge avionics etc.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4684
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

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

Postby srai » 29 May 2020 10:13

The next differentiation will be on how many engines it has :mrgreen:

SE-MWF vs TE-MMRCA (rules out SE competitors)

D.Mahesh
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 14
Joined: 02 Oct 2016 02:57

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

Postby D.Mahesh » 30 May 2020 07:22

Useless speculation. No toleration for any more of this scope creep & I Want Phasor Drive Warp III Wormhole Craft
Those days are over.

A good deal of this nonsense was being run out of Delhi Gymkhana and a certain ****puri. There are many otherwise honourable folks who had their paws in this loot.

Over.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4376
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

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

Postby Cain Marko » 30 May 2020 11:27

Maybe, just maybe the meaning of medium for the IAF has gone up, what with using mki, rafale and such?

Now 6 tons = light? Not too different from how naval assets have gone up in weight with time despite the same nomenclature. Today's frigate is easily heavier than yesterday's destroyer.

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3968
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby deejay » 30 May 2020 12:57

D.Mahesh wrote:Useless speculation. No toleration for any more of this scope creep & I Want Phasor Drive Warp III Wormhole Craft
Those days are over.

A good deal of this nonsense was being run out of Delhi Gymkhana and a certain ****puri. There are many otherwise honourable folks who had their paws in this loot.

Over.


I agree with you Sir. The nomenclature MWF was triggering unnecessary scope creep pressures. I think there is a broad understanding on the GSQRs of LCA MKII and that is how it should remain.

The whole MWF was a sure way to delay the project.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7648
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

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

Postby nachiket » 02 Jun 2020 11:14

Karan M wrote:Its basically a MMRCA. Mirage 2000 class payload range performance, but with cutting edge avionics etc.

Exactly, it will have a similar or better payload and range capability as the M2k and the Gripen E/F. IAF considers the M2k a medium category fighter considering that that was their original demand for the MMRCA and the vaporware Gripen E was a contender in the actual MMRCA contest. So whether it is called MWF or not, we know what it is.

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2825
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

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

Postby abhik » 03 Jun 2020 01:05

The delay due to weight scope creep is already done (Mk2 was planned over 10 yers ago), now that they are actually making the think let's not leave a gap for another MMRCA import.

ashishvikas
BRFite
Posts: 540
Joined: 17 Oct 2016 14:18

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

Postby ashishvikas » 04 Jun 2020 17:31

A pack of 4 Tejas Mk-2 armed with long-range BVR missiles getting ready for a morning CAP in the western sector.

https://twitter.com/Kuntal__biswas/stat ... 92773?s=20

Image
Image
Image
Image

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5248
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Kartik » 05 Jun 2020 02:13

Eye-poppingly good renderings! I do believe that the landing gear will be taller, given the requirement for SCALP sized ALCM to be carried on the centerline. I think his landing gear design is influenced by the Super Hornet's landing gear, which doesn't match with the design shown on an ADA brochure.

Image

But overall, his renderings are incredibly good!

Now praying that HAL doesn't screw up Tejas Mk2's color scheme like it has for the Tejas Mk1. This simple and effective color scheme looks amazing on the Tejas.

suryag
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3624
Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14

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

Postby suryag » 05 Jun 2020 02:42

Saar you are doing too much, they can paint them in any colour. I will eat crow soup(admin's favourite dish nowadays) if they release a full scale MK2 mock up even in band party livery by 2022.

Overall, back in 1999 we had a dream to have one aircraft project done and my mind is not able to believe that we now have seven concurrent fighter programs going on(Mk1, MK1A, MK2, AMCA, TEDBF, N-LCA, Ghatak-UAV). Koti koti salutations to ADA/HAL/DRDO and GoI under Namo to make this day possible

bharathp
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 26
Joined: 24 Jul 2017 03:44

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

Postby bharathp » 05 Jun 2020 03:08

suryag wrote:Saar you are doing too much, they can paint them in any colour. I will eat crow soup(admin's favourite dish nowadays) if they release a full scale MK2 mock up even in band party livery by 2022.

Overall, back in 1999 we had a dream to have one aircraft project done and my mind is not able to believe that we now have seven concurrent fighter programs going on(Mk1, MK1A, MK2, AMCA, TEDBF, N-LCA, Ghatak-UAV). Koti koti salutations to ADA/HAL/DRDO and GoI under Namo to make this day possible

I am a newbie interms of number of posts here. but just wanted to add dont forget the efforts of Manohar Parrikar. the guy deserves a lot of praise.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5248
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Kartik » 05 Jun 2020 03:12

Indeed. None of this would've been possible without his stellar efforts in bringing the IAF fully on board the Tejas program and HAL in bringing the Mk1A variant.

basant
BRFite
Posts: 209
Joined: 20 Mar 2020 20:58

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

Postby basant » 05 Jun 2020 09:34

Kartik wrote:Indeed. None of this would've been possible without his stellar efforts in bringing the IAF fully on board the Tejas program and HAL in bringing the Mk1A variant.

So true! RIP Parrikar ji! I was horrified when he was moved back to Goa. We lost 10+ years courtesy UPA in defense, and any new minister would take a year or more to get a grip on a ministry. However Nirmala Sitharaman did a great job as well in ensuring orders for desi products as well as during Doklam.

Arun Jaitley on the other hand did as much for defence as he did for finance. *sigh*

It is ironical that despite Finance Minister(s) being associated with Defence Ministry, the latter got lowest spending in years (as a fraction of GDP) during their times.

la.khan
BRFite
Posts: 251
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 05:02

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

Postby la.khan » 05 Jun 2020 11:58

Kartik wrote:Eye-poppingly good renderings! I do believe that the landing gear will be taller, given the requirement for SCALP sized ALCM to be carried on the centerline. I think his landing gear design is influenced by the Super Hornet's landing gear, which doesn't match with the design shown on an ADA brochure.

But overall, his renderings are incredibly good!

Now praying that HAL doesn't screw up Tejas Mk2's color scheme like it has for the Tejas Mk1. This simple and effective color scheme looks amazing on the Tejas.

Awesome renderings! I know LCA Mk2 is still on the drawing board. I also know it is heavier than Tejas Mk1/Mk1A. But LCA Mk2 as it exists (on the drawing board) designed to carry Brahmos ALCM (the one as it exists today and that can be delivered by Su-30MKI)? I hope that capability is built from the ground up for LCA Mk2 and not as an afterthought (as in the case of Su-30MKI). Anything available on this in the public domain?

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9799
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

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

Postby Yagnasri » 05 Jun 2020 12:15

Manohar Parrikarji's loss is one of the greatest losses in the recent past. A great son of Ma Bharathi.

Rsatchi
BRFite
Posts: 715
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 22:03

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

Postby Rsatchi » 05 Jun 2020 16:29

** Post Deleted **
Last edited by SSridhar on 05 Jun 2020 19:31, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Do not post irrelevant stuff here.

SidSoma
BRFite
Posts: 113
Joined: 16 Feb 2018 15:09

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

Postby SidSoma » 05 Jun 2020 19:03

** Deleted **
Last edited by SSridhar on 05 Jun 2020 19:31, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Do not post irrelevant stuff here.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8161
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Postby Indranil » 05 Jun 2020 19:17

How are the above 2 posts related to Tejas Mk2?

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19508
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 05 Jun 2020 19:31

Rear ward visibility is an issue in these renders.


Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2300
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

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

Postby Manish_P » 05 Jun 2020 20:50

Karan ji, very noob question perhaps. Aren't there any rear cameras on fighters. I don't mean the super advanced ones like the F35 helmet types. Simpler ones like there are on cars and trucks nowadays.. with some features like zoom, wide-angle. Have seen them also on airliners

I am not suggesting that they would replace the Eyeball Mk1. But they might be helpful especially if the image could be projected (on demand) on the display/HUD

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8161
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Postby Indranil » 06 Jun 2020 02:36

They use mirrors.

Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2300
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

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

Postby Manish_P » 06 Jun 2020 11:52

Am aware of the mirrors, sir. Obvious benefits being very cheap and non-powered (don't need much maintenance) and they do the job fine. I just wondered if cameras (as they get cheaper) might also feature (like on modern cars, trucks, airliners) on future fighters, providing display on MFD, HUD, Helmet Visor etc as a pilot assist feature. To cover the blind spots in the rear where the pilots would need to crane their necks, maybe while pulling some G's.

F16 and F22 don't have even mirrors on their single piece canopies, do they?

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4684
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

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

Postby srai » 06 Jun 2020 15:15

^^^
EF Typhoon Helmet By BAE systems
Image

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4604
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

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

Postby chola » 06 Jun 2020 15:51

ashishvikas wrote:A pack of 4 Tejas Mk-2 armed with long-range BVR missiles getting ready for a morning CAP in the western sector.

https://twitter.com/Kuntal__biswas/stat ... 92773?s=20

Image
Image
Image
Image


Beautiful! A bit of observation. The MWF is about a meter longer than the Tejas not quite seeing that here? But great work!

srin
BRFite
Posts: 1953
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

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

Postby srin » 06 Jun 2020 16:13

Manish_P wrote:Am aware of the mirrors, sir. Obvious benefits being very cheap and non-powered (don't need much maintenance) and they do the job fine. I just wondered if cameras (as they get cheaper) might also feature (like on modern cars, trucks, airliners) on future fighters, providing display on MFD, HUD, Helmet Visor etc as a pilot assist feature. To cover the blind spots in the rear where the pilots would need to crane their necks, maybe while pulling some G's.

F16 and F22 don't have even mirrors on their single piece canopies, do they?


There is one more advantage of a mirror - no latency. At the speeds a fighter flies, you don’t want the display to show what the camera captured a few hundred milliseconds ago. Next time you are on one of these new passenger jets, try to observe the taxi,takeoff and landing with the onboard camera. You’ll observe the painful delay between real situation and the display.

Now, such a rear view camera is going to be helpful (think night vision) but it’ll take very good engineering to make it practical enough to provide net positive situational awareness.

ashishvikas
BRFite
Posts: 540
Joined: 17 Oct 2016 14:18

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

Postby ashishvikas » 06 Jun 2020 19:05

Kartik wrote:
nachiket wrote:Is an IRST confirmed for Mk2? I see it in Kuntal's CG image.


Yes it is. Was always shown in the ADA MWF model as well.


I think HVT had twitted once - we don't need a separate nose mounted IRST as Lightning Pod takes care of all IRST functionality.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12011
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

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

Postby Aditya_V » 06 Jun 2020 21:46

The only drawback using lightening pod is its location, compared to a traditional IRST, can't cover targets above the aircraft, and on the one side the entire fuselage will be blocking the aircraft
So aircraft will have to get into an optimal position to use lightening as IRST.

fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3424
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

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

Postby fanne » 06 Jun 2020 22:58

Also with advent of LO, if radar cannot catch, perhaps IRST will. IRST has exceptional directional ability and poor range (in fact cannot determine range without a laser ranger, laser ranger limited to some 10 kms, while reportedly IRST can do 90 kms), two of the planes with IRST can triangulate and find a LO plane, perhaps two IRST suitably placed on the same plane can(can it?). It would be prudent to carry integral IRST in LCAMK2, even if Litening can do this function. A fused SA with radar, IRST, EW + data integration with other planes/systems will be good to find LO planes and other threats.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Anoop, Google [Bot], Shakthi, srin and 59 guests