Naval Tejas Mk1/Mk2: 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: 4596
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1/Mk2: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby Kartik » 23 Nov 2019 00:07

brar_w wrote:
chetak wrote:why on earth would the IN be the only customer in the world to say, to hell with stealth and many other features.


Because designing an advanced 5th generation land based fighter with stealth, integrated avionics, supercruise and a flexible IWB is complex enough that demanding the same for a ruggedized navalized fighter, that can operate from both STOBAR and CATOBAR carriers, comes with a truck full of technical and schedule risk especially when the learning curve for 5GFA has only started. If the IN wants a MiG-29K replacement, operational on a carrier deck within 15 years then it would have shed quite a bit of that risk and that is what it appears to have done. If the IN felt that the MiG-29K's were "30-year platforms" (like the recently retired F/A-18's for example) then it could have possible taken a little more risk and asked for more capability. But if the decision is driven by schedule and the need to get operational aircraft on the deck by so and so date then something has to be traded.


+1

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4596
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1/Mk2: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby Kartik » 23 Nov 2019 00:09

brar_w wrote:The Naval mission and the IN's responsibilities are different. It thinks that it can put a non stealthy 4.5 generation aircraft to good use in the post 2030 time-frame. And across a diverse mission set that actually may be the case. In that time-frame the IAF itself would still be predominantly a 4+ generation fleet. Competitor naval forces like China would still be operating 4th generation aircraft as would allies like the French, and the Russians. Roughly 50-60% of the USN's strike fighter fleet will comprise of 4+ generation aircraft in the 2032-2035 time-frame. Only the Royal Navy and the USMC will be a 5th gen. only force by that time frame. Their need appears to be to get fresh tails on AC decks in what appears to be a fairly inflexible schedule. The 57 Navalized fighter program, and now this program to design and produce 4.5 gen. naval fighter is a reflection on the MiG-29K (IMHO) and how the IN envisions it to be in its future fleet architecture. They want something within 15 years and they think this is the best balance of risk and performance that they can get.

While what the LCA-Navy has achieved so far is great, it takes a ton of work to fully develop and integrate a naval fighter into an aircraft carrier. This is compounded when you take a 5FGFA into the mix. Just look at the number of at sea development and operational sea trials the F-35B and F-35C has had to go through and the constant discovery -- fix -- verification loop that existed across its many design features. While this was the first foray into a carrier aircraft for Lockheed, NAVAIR has been doing this pretty much since the beginning of fast jet carrier aviation. A walk and then run approach is best. Develop a Rafale/SH analogous and take it through development and operational testing and put it into service in 15 years. Then based on lessons learnt pursue either an AMCA derivative or an AURA derivative and go for more complex and challenging projects from there.


+1

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7761
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1/Mk2: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby Indranil » 23 Nov 2019 00:13

+2

ragupta
BRFite
Posts: 342
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1/Mk2: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby ragupta » 24 Nov 2019 00:52

Imagining TEDBF 4.5G fighter to be
- Emphasis on Trust to weight ratio, with high weapon load capacity, including long range Brahmos and other missiles.
- Reduce emphasis on stealth, to eliminate design compromises, reduces wasting time on features that may be marginally important or useful.
- Balanced focus on range through internal fuel, extra range can be derived through external fuel tank and refuelling option
- Front section using DSI (Diverterless Supersonic Inlet) design - similar of F35, with drooping nose like LCA trainer/F18SH for high visibility and clean frontal layout. Makes it aesthetically pleasing.
- Keep it compact, with high priority to higher trust to weight ratio, but sufficient room for incorporating higher thrust engine of 110/125KN in future
- Wing/mid section to have DNA of LCA
- Tail section similar to AMCA with twin vertical stabilizer
- Eliminate moving and controlling surfaces like canard, to reduce software coding.
- Since landings are similar to controlled crashes, less moving and independant dangling part is better, all the lifting surfaces must be part of wing or fuselage, it will be easier to strengthen them.
- This plane will be workhorse of navy, India will have IP, to make any and whatever modification desired, could also be used as a testing platform for Kaveri/Ganga/Yamuna/Saraswati
- It will be based out of mature technology rather than trying to attain unobtanium goal in the first try aka 5G capabilities.
Last edited by ragupta on 24 Nov 2019 20:33, edited 1 time in total.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3836
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1/Mk2: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby Cain Marko » 24 Nov 2019 03:51

This should have been done ages ago when they first found out that the tejas wouldn't have adequate thrust . The AF and Navy requirements should have been combined into a single MRCA with twin Kaveri's or 404s, so many synergies and opportunities, all lost. In one stroke it would have been a huge boost to local engine and fighter development, not to mention a superbly effective solution for both service needs. And money saved for the tax payer.

The planners and leaders on all sides should be ashamed.

ragupta
BRFite
Posts: 342
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1/Mk2: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby ragupta » 24 Nov 2019 04:16

Ages ago only theoritical knowledge was available with Navy/DRDO/ADA/HAL. The organization was just used to fixing and maintaining what others had designed and built without enough experience and confidence to decide one way or other. LCA navy was a less risky proposition and something worth taking a shot at. Thanks to LCA navy effort, some backgroup and baseline technology base is established. In fact enough for Navy/DRDO/ADA designer and builder to make a call for what they want, come up with time frame for it, using existing base and commonility to other platform being developed in parallel. so all in all a good move, better late than never. Hoping to see the design of it soon.
Last edited by ragupta on 24 Nov 2019 20:36, edited 1 time in total.

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1/Mk2: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby tsarkar » 24 Nov 2019 14:27

Kartik wrote:
tsarkar wrote:The Navy issued an RFP and Gripen and F-16 responded. Gripen was never "invited". Both were disqualified.



Wrong.

Saab was invited to respond to a RFI for MRCBF with Sea Gripen. The Navy didn't issue any RFP and no, there is no F-16 naval variant for Lockheed Martin to be approached or to respond with. And neither was disqualified, as there was no competition.


Livefist link

Design work was completed in 2012, with Saab only really waiting for a fund tap from an interested customer to take the development forward. A single engine configuration works against it — the Indian Navy will be hard pressed to explain junking plans with the LCA Navy (and perhaps the up-engined Mk.2) for another albeit more capable single engine fighter.


or this article


The four carrier-based fighters being considered for this procurement are Boeing’s F-18 Super Hornet, Saab’s Sea Gripen, MiG-29K, and Dassault’s Rafale (naval version). These Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) are currently being considered for the upcoming Request for Proposal (RFP) that was supposed to be issued in 2018. While the RFI didn’t specify whether the navy wanted a single-engine or twin-engine MRCBF, given the expanded roles and capabilities required, it will most likely be a medium-to-heavy, twin-engine one.



Clearly, mid-2017, the Navy had NOT made up its mind that it absolutely wanted a twin engine fighter only. If they were dead sure of it, they wouldn't waste their time with the RFI response for the single engine Sea Gripen.


The entire premise of your post is that Shiv Aroor's blog reflects IN's thinking. It doesn't and never did.

RFI means request for information. That means anyone with capabilities is asked to come and present their capabilities. For example in the recent USAF trainer requirement a Mom and Pop shop partnered with Israelis and put out jazzy graphics without having any manufacturing background. An RFI is precisely fishing for information. An RFP asks for a proposal.

So if IN issues an RFI and someone responds, it absolutely doesn't mean IN is seriously interested.

Shiv Aroor visited Sweden around that time on Saab's money, so gives a spin that IN is interested in Sea Gripen.

More recently he's visited MBDA and is hard selling Exocets and Brimstone and other wares for IAF. So your quoting Shiv Aroor isn't proof that IN was seriously interested in Sea Gripen. It was just checking out what Saab had to offer

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1/Mk2: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby tsarkar » 24 Nov 2019 14:37

Clearly, mid-2017, the Navy had NOT made up its mind that it absolutely wanted a twin engine fighter only. If they were dead sure of it, they wouldn't waste their time with the RFI response for the single engine Sea Gripen.


Capability is the primary function followed by what fulfills that capability.

So if a 191 kN F-135 is available, then a fighter based on it could be developed instead of 2 x 98 kN F-404.

It's silly discussing single engine vs twin engine when that real datapoint is IN's fighter requirements need 190-200 kN power with growth till 240 kN

Whether a single engine or two engines provide it depends on what is available.

Also the capabilities stated in the RFI/RFP for 57 fighters is NOT equal=equal of capabilities planned for NLCA and subsequent indigenous development.

People here have a tendency to discuss silly peripheral points totally lacking intelligence to understand the facts driving decisions and designs and thereafter give consultancy to ADA and IN

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4596
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1/Mk2: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby Kartik » 25 Nov 2019 01:26

tsarkar wrote:
Kartik wrote:
Wrong.

Saab was invited to respond to a RFI for MRCBF with Sea Gripen. The Navy didn't issue any RFP and no, there is no F-16 naval variant for Lockheed Martin to be approached or to respond with. And neither was disqualified, as there was no competition.


Livefist link



or this article



Clearly, mid-2017, the Navy had NOT made up its mind that it absolutely wanted a twin engine fighter only. If they were dead sure of it, they wouldn't waste their time with the RFI response for the single engine Sea Gripen.


The entire premise of your post is that Shiv Aroor's blog reflects IN's thinking. It doesn't and never did.

RFI means request for information. That means anyone with capabilities is asked to come and present their capabilities. For example in the recent USAF trainer requirement a Mom and Pop shop partnered with Israelis and put out jazzy graphics without having any manufacturing background. An RFI is precisely fishing for information. An RFP asks for a proposal.

So if IN issues an RFI and someone responds, it absolutely doesn't mean IN is seriously interested.

Shiv Aroor visited Sweden around that time on Saab's money, so gives a spin that IN is interested in Sea Gripen.

More recently he's visited MBDA and is hard selling Exocets and Brimstone and other wares for IAF. So your quoting Shiv Aroor isn't proof that IN was seriously interested in Sea Gripen. It was just checking out what Saab had to offer


Agreed- that Shiv Aroor posts stuff based on who is promoting wares for India. But I gave another link as well and that wasn't from Shiv Aroor. And if you google it you'll find more articles that mention the RFI that was released by the Indian Navy to Saab for the Sea Gripen.

It isn't new. There were other articles in the past that talked about the IN's discussions with Saab over the Sea Gripen. Which would've been strange if the IN had made up its mind on not having a single engine naval fighter. To me the inference is clear- the IN had not yet made up its mind with possibly 2 camps advocating single and twin engine naval fighters as the way to go. The new Boeing Defence India Managing Director was still with the IN back then.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4366
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1/Mk2: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby JayS » 25 Nov 2019 15:52

tsarkar wrote:
Clearly, mid-2017, the Navy had NOT made up its mind that it absolutely wanted a twin engine fighter only. If they were dead sure of it, they wouldn't waste their time with the RFI response for the single engine Sea Gripen.


Capability is the primary function followed by what fulfills that capability.

So if a 191 kN F-135 is available, then a fighter based on it could be developed instead of 2 x 98 kN F-404.

It's silly discussing single engine vs twin engine when that real datapoint is IN's fighter requirements need 190-200 kN power with growth till 240 kN

Whether a single engine or two engines provide it depends on what is available.

Fair enough on the Capability part. Its perfectly fine for the IN to ask for a capability which demands say 220kN thrust. You say, SE or TE doesn't matter as long as capability requirement is fulfilled. Fair enough. But what about those who are arguing that NLCA MK2 is rejected because IN wants two engines for redundancy...? Do you agree then this argument is null and void..?? For me it is. As I have said previously, its acceptable if the argument against NLCA MK2 was that it was grossly underpowered. But saying it was scrapped because its single engine does not provide adequate redundancy cannot be admitted as a acceptable argument 25 yrs after IN accepted the idea of a LCA based naval fighter. And even until recently never objected for this aspect. I am sure every one agrees the Navy was in the loop from the starting, so MK2 program could not have been approved in 2009 without their agreement. And nothing ground shattering has happened since last 25yrs on this particular aspect. In fact if anything, we only see some of the Navies going for single engine F35 instead of insisting on twin engine jet. I am sure the Indian Navy knew back in 90s too that two engines are better than one engine for redundancy.

What is mind boggling is that all the head put together, could not figure out in last 15 odd years than MK2 would not be enough due to its limit on thrust to 98kN. No argument can be accepted as justification of such long period for figuring out such basic thing about the Naval fighter program. Until this very year we saw ADA still putting time and efforts in redesigning the Mk2 again and again. Unless of coarse IN's requirements themselves are changed significantly in recent time. Though, at least I have not seen any indication towards this. IN's rethinking on MK2 seems to have started around 2015, from some indications. I wonder what were we doing till then.

And before someone tells me, the real flight test data started flowing from 2014 onwards from NLCA MK1, please remember, the predictions made by ADA were conservative and the flight data showed better than expected performance. So whatever work they did till then on MK2 in conceptual and preliminary design, should have actually shown bleaker picture on its ability to fulfill NSQR. That should have driven ADA and IN to twin engine design much earlier actually. Then the question arises, what exactly made the MK2 program going ahead till 2015..?

LakshmanPST
BRFite
Posts: 118
Joined: 05 Apr 2019 18:23

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1/Mk2: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby LakshmanPST » 25 Nov 2019 16:37

JayS wrote: what exactly made the MK2 program going ahead till 2015..?


My speculation is, IN initially envisaged a mix of MIG 29Ks and NLCA Mk2 in their fleet... Somewhat like a Light+Medium fighter mix based on different missions...
However, after operating MIG 29Ks, due to various issues they're facing, IN would have decided to retire them early...
And no other fighter option is available that can fit within the dimensions of VikAd and IAC-1...
The only option left was to go for a new indigenous twin engine design... But they already have NLCA Mk2 going on...

Two programs running in parallel would be costly and time consuming... Further, both of them would have to be bought in relatively small nos....
So, they would have decided to go ahead with a Single twin engine design... This TEDBF can be bought in relatively large nos....
-
Basically, MIG 29K messed with IN's plans...
That's just my speculation...

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3876
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1/Mk2: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby chola » 25 Nov 2019 17:16

^^^ I've been saying that since the IN's 57 RFP came out. The IN used the NLCA as an excuse but why in hell did it call for twin-engine entrants when it had the brand new MiG-29K in its hand?

There is little doubt in my mind that the Navy had envisioned the NLCA as a SE complement to the 29K. But the Navy can't risk a newly developed single-engle aircraft AND an "unruggedized" -- which is an euphemism for unnavalized -- main carrier fighter in the MiG.

The 29K lemon is the biggest culprit here. But I hope we can soldier long enough with it to get to the TEDBF. Buying 57 phoren naval fighters would just compound the mistake by taking funding away from indigenous programs.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7916
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1/Mk2: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby brar_w » 25 Nov 2019 18:19

JayS wrote: In fact if anything, we only see some of the Navies going for single engine F35 instead of insisting on twin engine jet. I am sure the Indian Navy knew back in 90s too that two engines are better than one engine for redundancy.



Navies usually want safety. Either a single/twin engine aircraft is safe to fly and recover or it isn't and as engine reliability has gone up the safety part of the argument can be decoupled from the # of engine part of the argument. In fact, there was a study that I had posted a few years ago which used data to demonstrated engine failures in modern fighter (with highly reliable engines) aircraft equally likely to be catastrophic (in terms of the damage leading to significant damage) than anything else. Many a times a twin engined design is favored because of other reasons especially given the weight and other characteristics of the naval fighter which tends to reduce the options available to provide a single engine capable of generating that much thrust with room to grow. It isn't like the top Naval powers in the world haven't operated single engine fighters. A few thousand Single Engined Naval fighters have been built and operated since the advent of jet fighters. The IN, The French Navy, the Royal Navy, and the USN/MC have all operated and/or continue to operate SEF.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4366
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1/Mk2: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby JayS » 25 Nov 2019 19:10

brar_w wrote:
JayS wrote: In fact if anything, we only see some of the Navies going for single engine F35 instead of insisting on twin engine jet. I am sure the Indian Navy knew back in 90s too that two engines are better than one engine for redundancy.



Navies usually want safety. Either a single/twin engine aircraft is safe to fly and recover or it isn't and as engine reliability has gone up the safety part of the argument can be decoupled from the # of engine part of the argument. In fact, there was a study that I had posted a few years ago which used data to demonstrated engine failures in modern fighter (with highly reliable engines) aircraft equally likely to be catastrophic (in terms of the damage leading to significant damage) than anything else. Many a times a twin engined design is favored because of other reasons especially given the weight and other characteristics of the naval fighter which tends to reduce the options available to provide a single engine capable of generating that much thrust with room to grow. It isn't like the top Naval powers in the world haven't operated single engine fighters. A few thousand Single Engined Naval fighters have been built and operated since the advent of jet fighters. The IN, The French Navy, the Royal Navy, and the USN/MC have all operated and/or continue to operate SEF.


No disagreement there. I kept the comment simple without adding all such points to keep the post short. In fact I have mentioned in one of my earlier posts that two engines do not offer twice the safety (speaking in a layman English here), because the two engines do not have all the redundant systems that an engine fitted in a single engine fighter has, for example additional redundancy in hydraulic systems and in FADEC HW.

In fact I want to disprove the point that Safety was a key reason for switching to two engine fighter. We keep seeing it raised again and again. Once that is out of the way, we can concentrate on the performance related issues. As you and Tsarkar saar have rightly pointed out, Single engine limits design space, especially for a country like India which is totally dependent on the imported Jet engines as of now. It has to make do with whatever is available i.e. F404/414 and currently we do not have F135 or similar engine available to us.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7218
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1/Mk2: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby nachiket » 26 Nov 2019 01:32

I have difficulty understanding the "underpowered" argument as well. The NLCA Mk1. was unacceptable because it was underpowered for its size/weight to be compatible with carrier operations. So the Mk2 with higher thrust was proposed. The design after being modified for a larger engine increased in size and weight and now the claim is that even that will be underpowered? Now if we create a new design with 2 engines, that is obviously going to be larger and heavier than the NLCA Mk2 since the payload/range is also expected to increase. Then how do we say now if that design too won't be underpowered for its size?

Even the Rafale M and Superhornet aren't exactly hotrods if you look at their T:W ratios. Both currently fly off CATOBAR carriers only. Both will have payload limitations taking off from IN's carriers. The Rafale is especially problematic considering it is 650kg heavier than the AF version with the same engines providing just 150kN total thrust. If as TSarkar says the IN needs 200kN thrust on their aircraft, both Rafale and SH would be unacceptable to them as well (the SH comes close but it has a 14.5t empty weight as well. So all that thrust will only go so far). What's the point of the 57 aircraft RFI then?

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4596
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1/Mk2: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby Kartik » 26 Nov 2019 01:49

JayS wrote:
brar_w wrote:
Navies usually want safety. Either a single/twin engine aircraft is safe to fly and recover or it isn't and as engine reliability has gone up the safety part of the argument can be decoupled from the # of engine part of the argument. In fact, there was a study that I had posted a few years ago which used data to demonstrated engine failures in modern fighter (with highly reliable engines) aircraft equally likely to be catastrophic (in terms of the damage leading to significant damage) than anything else. Many a times a twin engined design is favored because of other reasons especially given the weight and other characteristics of the naval fighter which tends to reduce the options available to provide a single engine capable of generating that much thrust with room to grow. It isn't like the top Naval powers in the world haven't operated single engine fighters. A few thousand Single Engined Naval fighters have been built and operated since the advent of jet fighters. The IN, The French Navy, the Royal Navy, and the USN/MC have all operated and/or continue to operate SEF.


No disagreement there. I kept the comment simple without adding all such points to keep the post short. In fact I have mentioned in one of my earlier posts that two engines do not offer twice the safety (speaking in a layman English here), because the two engines do not have all the redundant systems that an engine fitted in a single engine fighter has, for example additional redundancy in hydraulic systems and in FADEC HW.

In fact I want to disprove the point that Safety was a key reason for switching to two engine fighter. We keep seeing it raised again and again. Once that is out of the way, we can concentrate on the performance related issues. As you and Tsarkar saar have rightly pointed out, Single engine limits design space, especially for a country like India which is totally dependent on the imported Jet engines as of now. It has to make do with whatever is available i.e. F404/414 and currently we do not have F135 or similar engine available to us.


A lot still depends on the engine. the IAF had reportedly had 36 in-flight failures of the AL-31F engines on Su-30MKI, all of which were recovered on single engine landings. Imagine if those had happened on a single engine jet.

Su-30 fighters plagued by engine troubles

NEW DELHI --- Sukhoi-30 MKI, the most powerful and modern fighter jets in Indian Air Force's stable, has been hit by mid-air engine failures. Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar said in Parliament today that as many as 35 instances of engine failures were reported in 2013-14 - that's nearly three a month.

In all, there are 69 instances of engine failure in the last four years, the minister said. Inquiries by the Air Force have revealed that in as many as 33 instances, the engines failed because of impure fuel, in another 11 cases, the problem was caused by excessive vibration and in eight others, engine failures were reported because of low pressure in the lubricant tanks, the Defence Minister said. About five SU-30 MKI have crashed since 2009.


Defence minister Manohar Parrikar Tuesday said the Russian-origin fighters recorded as many as 35 engine failures/engine-related problems between January 2013 and December 2014.

Failure of bearings, used to reduce friction between moving parts, was the cause behind engine trouble, Parrikar told Rajya Sabha. As bearings operate under severe conditions, metal fatigue can cause particles to flake off or fragment leading to complications.

Parrikar said India had resolved the bearing problem by “arranging better lubrication (to prevent wear and tear), better fitment of bearings and better quality of oil.”

“Out of total 69 cases in the last three years, 33 cases are due to finding of chips in the oil, 11 due to vibration in the engine (caused by bearing problem) and 8 cases because of low pressure of lubricating oil,” Parrikar said in a detailed reply in the House. In all, engines coming in for overhaul will have nine modifications.



the GE F-404 and F-414 engines have had a relatively trouble free history comparatively, as attested to by the rather good attrition record of single engine fighters flying the F-404 family of engines (Gripen, T-50, Tejas).

The change over may have more to do with modified requirements thanks to the realisation on the Navy's part that the indigenous Mk2 fighter will need to be in the MiG-29K class weight.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4596
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1/Mk2: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby Kartik » 26 Nov 2019 05:34

nachiket wrote:I have difficulty understanding the "underpowered" argument as well. The NLCA Mk1. was unacceptable because it was underpowered for its size/weight to be compatible with carrier operations. So the Mk2 with higher thrust was proposed. The design after being modified for a larger engine increased in size and weight and now the claim is that even that will be underpowered? Now if we create a new design with 2 engines, that is obviously going to be larger and heavier than the NLCA Mk2 since the payload/range is also expected to increase. Then how do we say now if that design too won't be underpowered for its size?

Even the Rafale M and Superhornet aren't exactly hotrods if you look at their T:W ratios. Both currently fly off CATOBAR carriers only. Both will have payload limitations taking off from IN's carriers. The Rafale is especially problematic considering it is 650kg heavier than the AF version with the same engines providing just 150kN total thrust. If as TSarkar says the IN needs 200kN thrust on their aircraft, both Rafale and SH would be unacceptable to them as well (the SH comes close but it has a 14.5t empty weight as well. So all that thrust will only go so far). What's the point of the 57 aircraft RFI then?


For missions that don't require the Rafale M to be heavily loaded for anti-ship or surface strike missions, the thrust to weight ratio is pretty good. And the M is extremely agile and powerful in those missions (read the Hushkit interview with the Rafale M pilot) such that the M can accelerate in a 60 deg climb and go supersonic. While the Rafale M is heavier by 650 kg (as per a FlightGlobal article I remember the figure being 900 kgs) empty over the Rafale C, the performance with the M-88 itself is sufficient for all envisioned roles, albeit with CATOBAR.

The Snecma M-88 produces 75 kN in afterburner, which is much lower than even the 85 kN of the F-404-IN20 on the Tejas. M-88 weighs in at 900 kgs versus the 1050 kg approx weight of the F-404. So if TEDBF is equipped with 2 F-404IN20 engines, the engine weight will be 300 kg more (150 kg per engine), the afterburner thrust will go up by ~20 kN. It'll be more along the lines of a MiG-29K with 2 RD-33MK engines or a Classic Hornet.

I don't buy this 200 kN theory. If you ask the Indian Navy, the Rafale M with 150 kN afterburner thrust, as it is today will most likely do just fine with some minor tweaks maybe. If they would be able to get an indigenous Rafale M analog in 2030, they'd be happy. It'll be at most 5 years later than any Rafale M or Super Hornet via the 57 MRCBF tender, which is looking more and more like a pie in the sky.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7218
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1/Mk2: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby nachiket » 26 Nov 2019 06:28

Kartik wrote:The Snecma M-88 produces 75 kN in afterburner, which is much lower than even the 85 kN of the F-404-IN20 on the Tejas. M-88 weighs in at 900 kgs versus the 1050 kg approx weight of the F-404. So if TEDBF is equipped with 2 F-404IN20 engines, the engine weight will be 300 kg more (150 kg per engine), the afterburner thrust will go up by ~20 kN. It'll be more along the lines of a MiG-29K with 2 RD-33MK engines or a Classic Hornet.

Thanks, I had indulged in some mental madrassa math. The Rafale's amazingly low empty weight makes a huge difference as it turns out. On the other hand doing some simple calculations on paper shows that the NLCA Mk2 as envisioned comes very close to the SuperHornet as far as T:W ratio is concerned.
I'm considering max fuel and no payload here.
SH:
T:W Ratio = Max Thrust (196kN) / (((Empty weight (14552 kg) + Max Fuel (6667 kg)) * 9.8 ) = 0.94

Tejas Mk2 (approx)
T:W ratio = Max Thrust (98 kN) / (((Empty weight (8000 kg) + Max Fuel (3000 kg)) * 9.8 ) = 0.91

Rafale
T:W ratio = Max Thrust (150kN) / (((Empty weight(10600 kg) + Max Fuel (4400 kg)) * 9.8 ) = 1.02

The numbers aren't too far off. My issue is with declaring an aircraft underpowered just because it has one engine. If we now make a TEDBF with 2xF414's that will not automatically make it adequately powered. It will depend on whether its empty weight, fuel capacity, max payload etc. is closer to Rafale or the SH and what tradeoffs are involved. Just making it twin engined is not a silver bullet.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7761
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1/Mk2: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby Indranil » 26 Nov 2019 07:06

Nachiket ji,

SH or Rafale don't have to fly off the skijump at MTOW. That makes a huge difference on how you would design the wings etc. I will probably never finish my writeup on NLCA Mk2, so let me start stating some informational bits here. If you look at the wing area of NLCA Mk2, it is the same as that of the Rafale M. There is a reason for that. When you make that design choice, then you have to live with it on other parts of the flight envelop.

You and Kartik are probably on the money with respect to what the TEDBF is going to be. I am pretty sure that it can take off with full MTOW from a skijump. It will have the empty weight of a Rafale M + 500kgs, carry roughly the same amount of internal fuel, but have 20% better Thrust. It will be one nimble beast in the air. IAF should seriously look at its land based counterpart.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7218
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1/Mk2: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby nachiket » 26 Nov 2019 07:20

Indranil wrote:Nachiket ji,

:eek: ji? Please no.

SH or Rafale don't have to fly off the skijump at MTOW. That makes a huge difference on how you would design the wings etc. I will probably never finish my writeup on NLCA Mk2, so let me start stating some informational bits here. If you look at the wing area of NLCA Mk2, it is the same as that of the Rafale M. There is a reason for that. When you make that design choice, then you have to live with it on other parts of the flight envelop.

I compared with the Rafale and SH because those are the IN's only realistic options besides the NLCA since they don't want more Mig-29s (even though they won't say that). If the 57 aircraft RFI proceeds beyond mere RFI, one of those aircraft will have to fly off a ski jump with a usable payload...somehow.

It will have the empty weight of a Rafale M + 500kgs, carry roughly the same amount of internal fuel, but have 20% better Thrust. It will be one nimble beast in the air. IAF should seriously look at its land based counterpart.

More weight plus 20% more thrust with the same amount of fuel. What will that do to its combat radius? Sure to get rejected as short-legged in that case. The issue at the heart of all of this is that STOBAR carriers will always impose severe restrictions (of one or the other kind) unless you have a STOVL fighter like the Harrier or the F-35B which is out of the question in our case. Trying to design a fighter to get around this limitation seems like a losing battle regardless of how many engines you put on it.

I have a sneaky suspicion now that the Russians did not navalize the Mig-29K properly because (in addition to sheer laziness) doing so would have made it heavier and degraded performance.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2477
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1/Mk2: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby Cybaru » 26 Nov 2019 11:45

Plus it coSts money to test and validate..

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4366
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1/Mk2: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby JayS » 26 Nov 2019 18:46

What exactly the 57 jets for which RFI is issued meant for..? Some say they are meant for IAC 2 which going by IN's plan would be a CATOBAR AC. Some say they are for IAC 1. Can we first be clear on this..? Would these 57 jet need to be STOBAR or CATOBAR...?

LakshmanPST
BRFite
Posts: 118
Joined: 05 Apr 2019 18:23

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1/Mk2: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby LakshmanPST » 26 Nov 2019 19:27

JayS wrote:What exactly the 57 jets for which RFI is issued meant for..? Some say they are meant for IAC 2 which going by IN's plan would be a CATOBAR AC. Some say they are for IAC 1. Can we first be clear on this..? Would these 57 jet need to be STOBAR or CATOBAR...?


Apparently, the SQR for MRCBA stated that it should be able to operate from both STOBAR and CATOBAR carriers... The whole discussion in the first few months was about using them for both IAC-1 and IAC-2...
Then HVT tweeted that MRCBA is meant for IAC-2 only... He also said that both VikAd and IAC-1 have enough MIG 29Ks... That's when confusion started...
----
Anyways, I guess three things are possible:-
1) IN wanted MRCBA for IAC-2 numberswise, but also wanted it to be operable from IAC-1 and VikAd...
2) IN was looking for a new jet instead of NLCA for whatever reasons...
3) IN was planning to procure initial 57 jets as MIG 29K replacement and also wanted the same jet to be used in IAC-2 at a later stage...
-
I'd personally go with the first possibility... But decision to retire MIG 29K early would have changed the calculations...
Now since they wanted MIG 29K to retire, NLCA Mk2 is yet to be developed and they didn't get satisfactory bids in MRCBA, they would have combined all three requirements and TEDBF is born...
Last edited by LakshmanPST on 27 Nov 2019 07:13, edited 1 time in total.

ashishvikas
BRFite
Posts: 440
Joined: 17 Oct 2016 14:18

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1/Mk2: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby ashishvikas » 26 Nov 2019 20:16

We take extreme pleasure to present this short clip of Naval LCA Taking off the Ski-Jump of SBTF, INS-HANSA with a considerable amount of cross wind there by expanding the ski jump envelope. Leaving aside all the technical details,pause for a moment and enjoy the torquoise blue arbian sea water with some monsoon cloud and in between the LCA climbing out of the ramp exit..
Jai Hind..

https://www.facebook.com/10332915642820 ... 362421762/

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7761
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1/Mk2: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby Indranil » 27 Nov 2019 00:00

That's one hell of a video. Shows what I was telling you guys over the last few weeks. All the traps and TOs have been completed with enormous side winds. It's going to be easier on the carrier.

What a robust FBW. All of us should feel proud that we have got here.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7874
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1/Mk2: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby Rakesh » 27 Nov 2019 07:26

JayS wrote:What exactly the 57 jets for which RFI is issued meant for..? Some say they are meant for IAC 2 which going by IN's plan would be a CATOBAR AC. Some say they are for IAC 1. Can we first be clear on this..? Would these 57 jet need to be STOBAR or CATOBAR...?

In addition to everything that Lakshman said...both Boeing and Dassault have stated that the F-18 Super Hornet and Rafale M can take off from a STOBAR carrier with a significant payload. The word "significant" is subjective though.

But in an apples-to-apples comparison, the F-18 will be able to carry a heavier payload than the Rafale M from a STOBAR carrier. The GE F414 engines (98 kN) on the F-18 are a lot more powerful than the M88 turbofans (75 kN) on the Rafale M.

The question that remains what role does the IN forsee these 57 jets doing in war?

* Anti-shipping role? Both the F-18 and the Rafale M do that job with elan, with the Super Hornet carrying the Harpoon and the Rafale M carrying the Exocet. Both are battle proven and excellent missiles.

* Fleet defence from enemy aircraft? Again, both are excellent in their roles. The F-18 has the AIM-120 AMRAAM for BVR combat and the AIM-9X/helmet mounted sight for WVR combat. The Rafale M has the Meteor in the BVR role and the Mica IR/EM for WVR combat.

Can either aircraft take-off from a STOBAR carrier with a Harpoon/Exocet in the centreline hard point and a pair of BVR and WVR air-to-air missiles mounted on the wings? Absolutely.

It is basically going to come down what the IN wants and what the GOI is comfortable in buying. And equally important, the budget. All three factors (IN, GOI and Budget) have to agree on one platform. On a unit basis, the Super Hornet is cheaper.

These jets will operate from the Vikrant, Vikramaditya and the next carrier. And only Boeing has claimed that the F-18 can operate from all three vessels. Dassault has yet to prove that AFAIK.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7874
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1/Mk2: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby Rakesh » 27 Nov 2019 07:41

Rafale M with MICA air-to-air missiles and the Exocet AShM.

Image

F-18 with the Harpoon AShM....four of them to be exact.

Image

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7874
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1/Mk2: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby Rakesh » 27 Nov 2019 07:42

What other roles does the IN see these 57 jets doing?

So who and where in the Indian Ocean does India need to bomb? Or is India joining the US led effort to bomb ISIS in Syria?

Sending a carrier into the South China Sea to fight against the PLAN is suicide. Admiral Sunil Lanba (Retd) has said that the dice rolls in the PLAN's favour in the South China Sea. Not surprising though, as that is their backyard. And on the western seaboard, there are other options to strike the Pakistani coast....if required.

Rafale M with four guided bombs and a pair of MICAs at the wingtips....

Image

A F-18 Super Hornet carrying a ridiculous amount of tonnage. Good luck with the Rafale M pulling this one off!

Image

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7218
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1/Mk2: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby nachiket » 27 Nov 2019 12:25

All these heavy loads are while flying from a CATOBAR carrier. Irrelevant in IN context. Both Rafale and F-18 will be payload restricted in STOBAR (marketing spin aside). Check the T:W ratios I posted earlier. The F-18 has powerful engines but an empty weight of >15 tonnes as well (compared to Rafale's 10.6 tonnes). The F-414's will be thirstier than the M-88's as well so more fuel required too. So not much of an advantage by itself. And this is all assuming we can figure out how to fit either of them on the elevators.

As for getting a CATOBAR carrier, our dreams are not commensurate with our financial capability. I predict that we will not see a CATOBAR carrier in IN even by 2035. In fact, let me put the Admiral's money where my mouth is. If we see a CATOBAR carrier in IN before 2035 the good Admiral will distribute mithai equal to the tonnage of that carrier. :twisted:

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2477
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1/Mk2: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby Cybaru » 27 Nov 2019 12:30

Unless we buy the Second QE ship that is being rumored to be available. Then all three Raffy/FA18/F35B become possible.

https://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/news/plymouth-news/royal-navy-prince-of-wales-2618759

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1604
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1/Mk2: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby Khalsa » 27 Nov 2019 14:57

ashishvikas wrote:We take extreme pleasure to present this short clip of Naval LCA Taking off the Ski-Jump of SBTF, INS-HANSA with a considerable amount of cross wind there by expanding the ski jump envelope. Leaving aside all the technical details,pause for a moment and enjoy the torquoise blue arbian sea water with some monsoon cloud and in between the LCA climbing out of the ramp exit..
Jai Hind..

https://www.facebook.com/10332915642820 ... 362421762/



what an amazing video !!!!!

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3876
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1/Mk2: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby chola » 27 Nov 2019 18:55

Khalsa wrote:
ashishvikas wrote:We take extreme pleasure to present this short clip of Naval LCA Taking off the Ski-Jump of SBTF, INS-HANSA with a considerable amount of cross wind there by expanding the ski jump envelope. Leaving aside all the technical details,pause for a moment and enjoy the torquoise blue arbian sea water with some monsoon cloud and in between the LCA climbing out of the ramp exit..
Jai Hind..

https://www.facebook.com/10332915642820 ... 362421762/



what an amazing video !!!!!


Incredible video and full witness to the wonderfully steady
progress of the NLCA.

But it brings up a deep sense of melancholy in me. I am sure the lessons learnt will be applied to the TEDBF. But it is a new project and a new set of hopes, expectations and risks. I don't if TED will reach this point. I know the NLCA can hook a cable and recover. I know it can launch from a ramp. I don't know if the powers-that-be will let TED do the same before pulling the rug.

srin
BRFite
Posts: 1815
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1/Mk2: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby srin » 27 Nov 2019 19:42

Cybaru wrote:Unless we buy the Second QE ship that is being rumored to be available. Then all three Raffy/FA18/F35B become possible.

https://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/news/plymouth-news/royal-navy-prince-of-wales-2618759


QE class is STOVL only, no ? F-35B is the only game in town. Else, you'll have to go for a modification to STOBAR/CATOBAR, Gorshkov-style :D

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3876
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1/Mk2: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby chola » 27 Nov 2019 20:19

srin wrote:
Cybaru wrote:Unless we buy the Second QE ship that is being rumored to be available. Then all three Raffy/FA18/F35B become possible.

https://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/news/plymouth-news/royal-navy-prince-of-wales-2618759


QE class is STOVL only, no ? F-35B is the only game in town. Else, you'll have to go for a modification to STOBAR/CATOBAR, Gorshkov-style :D


It has a ramp. I don't know if the angle of the ramp is enough for a MiG-29K but I would imagine it is designed for a STOBAR capable Western aircraft in mind.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7916
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1/Mk2: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby brar_w » 27 Nov 2019 20:29

The RN and all those that support it would fight very hard for preserving the 2 carrier - one always deployable - capability. In an odd chance that it cannot sustain those post 2020, or post 2025,2030 etc it is not too far fetched to think that a long term lease by the USMC can be worked out with the carrier still homeported in Plymouth. As it is, the USMC is set to participate in the first few initial post IOC deployments of HMS QE.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20509
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1/Mk2: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby chetak » 27 Nov 2019 22:26

One is more than a little intrigued that the britshits did not/could not factor in the EMALS system on their white elephant QE class carriers.

how come.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3876
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1/Mk2: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby chola » 27 Nov 2019 23:12

^^^ Money.

Up until 2012 they were still proposing smaller pure STOVL/helo carriers like the RN had be using since retiring the Ark Royal (and the F-4) in the 1070d.

But the QE class were supposed to be "adaptable" carriers that can accommodate conventional (mainly STOBAR) should that need ever arise.

At 65K tons, it better be adaptable. lol

But there are critics saying they'll never be adapted to anything else because it would be too expensive. It was a way to humor a pipedream but it won't ever really happen because of money. Which is why we have speculation that the IN might buy the PoW sister ship.

So the Brits will operate 12-24 F-35Bs on a massive 65K carrier while the USN is proposing similar numbers on smaller LHDs. Size-wize, the QE really should be a conventional carrier but right now, it can't even trap a carrier jet. White elephant indeed.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7916
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1/Mk2: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby brar_w » 27 Nov 2019 23:54

Wrong facts lead to wrong conclusions. The QE class is designed to easily accommodate at least 66 Aviation assets (above and below deck) which translates to a a surge/peak capability of 42-50 fast jets along with the Crowsnest, SAR, COD helicopters and other rotary winged assets (manned and even unmanned in the future). Not all deployments would be with that load-out just as not all carriers deploy on all peacetime missions with 100% capacity or capability. The capstone cruise, currently scheduled for 2021 will be with a mixed UK-USMC crew and aircraft(1 F-35B squadron each from the UK and the US) with a possibility of other NATO operators also joining in to support the aviation component or personal. Following this, and a PSA workup to apply capstone "lessons learnt" will be followed by the QE class joining routine NATO patrols starting 2024-2025. On these deployments it will be exclusively manned by UK crew and aircraft.

Current UK aircraft buy trajectory and contracted orders (LRIP 12-14 block buy) puts the UK on a path towards having 42 aircraft by late 2023, and 48 F-35B's by late 2024 (more carrier capable F-35B's than the French have Rafale-M's for example) which can easily sustain deployments of 32-36 aircraft at a time. The UK's buy rate is approximately 6 aircraft a year from LOT 12 onward with contracts already signed till LOT 14. It is expected to be around 8-10 at FRP. Their CONOPS calls for a 2-carrier force but only one carrier deployed at a time with some residual capability to deploy both concurrently coming in once their entire aviation acquisition program is completed which will be in the 2030's.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4752&start=3400#p2396245

So no, beyond the capstone deployment in 2021, they do not intend on "operating out only 12-20 aircraft" on their "65 ton carrier" as a routine unless mission requires it (like stuffing USMC V-22's on board for a more amphibious focus). The carrier is not going to become a CATOBAR carrier ever in its lifetime. The flexibility in its design is for adding stuff like defensive systems, SAM's and qualitatively improving its aviation capability (it is a rather large carrier that can accommodate UCAV's in the future).

The QE is also not comparable (in any shape or form) to the USMC L-Class LHA's. It is a proper carrier that can execute sustained operations with a heavy and exclusive aviation component operating in full steam. Even the most aviation focused LHA's like the first 2 USS Americas are still flex platforms not optimal Mini-Aircraft Carriers. You can pack a couple of dozen F-35B's on them and use them for short bursts but they are not designed for the sort of endurance (not just vessel endurance but the endurance to sustained combat ops) as a proper Aircraft Carrier is. I've shared the statistics on numerous occasions and can do so again if requested. It is not even close.

The QE class modifications with EMALS were looked at and General Atomics was even put on contract by the USN (on behalf of the UK MOD) to provide an analysis and cost-breakdown of what it would take to modify (and if it was possible) with and without a major change in how it is powered. It was determined that the carrier even at that stage of its design could still be modified for CATOBAR (EMALS) operations if the UK decided to pursue that path and then transfer their orders over to the F-35C. It was determined that a combination of the higher capability and the cost associated with the same along with the cost to bring 11th hour changes to the QE design were cost prohibitive to a point that it would have killed the second carrier outright and stressed the budget and schedule on the first in class carrier. A decision was made to not pursue that path. Their goal was to have 2 carriers with the capability of deploying one carrier as and when needed during any given time. This was determined to be a more flexible and superior capability than having just one more capable carrier. Similarly, the mixed RAF-RN F-35B crews are flexible and can operate from land much like the USMC crews can. For a fixed budget, this approach provides more flexibility and provides better defense for them and as they contribute to NATO.
Last edited by brar_w on 28 Nov 2019 04:12, edited 1 time in total.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16834
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1/Mk2: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby Rahul M » 28 Nov 2019 01:23

Conjecture aside, do we actually have any idea what the study for navalizing AMCA concluded ??

Also, tsarkar ji, didn't I read that you were enjoying the nice food at a certain place in Goa? We are waiting for the tidbits of info that you promised.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3836
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1/Mk2: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby Cain Marko » 28 Nov 2019 07:12

What I don't get is Why the hell did it take so long for the Navy to come up with a twin engined designt for their carrier fighterr equirement? When aam Abduls could tell that neither nlca mks1 or 2 would have cut it on stobar?


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Kakarat, Lisa, mmasand, navneeet and 68 guests