Tejas Mk.2: News & Discussions - 25 February 2018

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 04 Mar 2018 20:28

Also brace for retaliation by dalals and chamchas soon. And from the retired and near-retired who have fought and mocked Tejas for their entire careers.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 04 Mar 2018 20:58

Gagan u may recall many, many moons ago my thought on a stealth LCA instead of an incremental MK-2 which would be a shortcut to the future larger AMCA.Said then te at there was no light stealth fighter in thd market, something that MIG should've developed after the MIG-21 and that there would be a huge global market for such a bird.

A stealth MK-2 could be built under $40M at home, AESA radar, etc.perhaps with 2 conformal underwing bays for AAMs or PGMs as on the T-50/SU-57. Such an aircraft would be a world-beater for the needs of smaller nations/ air forces.It may be why the major OEMs are trying to scuttle the bird.The SEF came a cropper. after extensive examination. Now the MRCA has been resurrected after the ultra-expensive fiasco of the limited Rafale acquisition.Truly history their say is repeated, first time a tragedy, the second time a farce!

Given our babu approval time, never fear.By the time they have decided about the luncheon menu at a selection meeting of the umpteenth number,the MK-2 prototype will be in the air.

nash · Post by **nash** » 04 Mar 2018 21:02

http://idrw.org/324-how-hal-plans-to-ra ... nd-export/

324: How HAL Plans to ramp up LCA-Tejas Production for Local and Export

With only 40 MK1 aircrafts ordered by IAF initially, HAL using it’s using two production facilities in Bengaluru was able to produce 8 aircraft per year, with MK1-A all set to become reality soon, production facility will now be further augmented to 16 by end of 2019.

HAL with fresh orders for 83 MK1-A wants to further increase production capabilities by end of 2020 to 18 aircraft per year and later upscale it to 21 and later to 24 by the time MK1-A production stabilises by mid of 2022-23.

May be speculation, but this might be the time line:

2018-19: 11
2019-20: 16
2020-21: 18
2021-22: 22
2022-23: 24
2023-24: 24

Total: 115 + 8 of this FY - 123

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 04 Mar 2018 21:05

deejay wrote:
Vivek K wrote:BRADMINS please add Lungi dance emoticon!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It’s great to see you happy Vivek ji.

It is happy moment.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 04 Mar 2018 21:06

its better we try some silent eagle type techniques than big underwing bays....the single engine fighter of Tejas size needs to be low on drag and does not have 2 engines to push it through. GripenE has shown the way by moving the MLG outboard into the wing roads freeing up internal space of fuselage for more electronics and fuel.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 04 Mar 2018 21:17

India can do this cheaper than the europeans for sure.
The Silent LCA could have bulges at the wing body junction to accommodate a few SAMs, like the silent eagle above.
It'll probably be a more bulkier bird than the current version, given the need for body shaping.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 04 Mar 2018 21:25

Nothing muxh on next page except wrapping up with that note on Mk3 being a stealthier aitframe than Mk2(70% more) + reduced IR signature. A test bed TD for AMCA most likely.

There is this optimistic note on the platform having potential into many variants. Caveat: 5 years behind operational usage but I'm sure it is 5 years ahead in terms of technology in Asia.

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 04 Mar 2018 21:32

If it were me, MK III should be full stealth, even if we cannot achieve more that Mach 1 speed without afterburner. Let it be hard to find, hard to target and hard to kill.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 04 Mar 2018 21:38

Indranil wrote:Great day!

Vivek K wrote:BRADMINS please add Lungi dance emoticon!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I can feel your happiness. You have fought tirelessly and have many scars and lash marks to show for it. Yes, we need a lungi icon!

If like you say that this will survive the lashes from those that it hurts, this will form an Indian industry that will lead to many more like the LCA. We need to get the HJT-36 similar focus and support.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 04 Mar 2018 21:41

Saik - can you provide some context to this article?

ArjunPandit · Post by **ArjunPandit** » 04 Mar 2018 21:42

^^IR Sir, i am wondering what was that you cautioned us against..does that still remain?

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 04 Mar 2018 21:43

Vivek K wrote:Saik - can you provide some context to this article?

you jumped a page?

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 04 Mar 2018 21:49

Ooops. Sorry! I'm holding my breath for MK IV

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 04 Mar 2018 21:57

The current RM was also helped by the chaotic geo-politics and possibly a comment on the state of India-US alignment.

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 04 Mar 2018 22:19

Guru Jan- now with SP8 poised to join, we will soon be running into a problem of lack of pilots. This is compounded by the fact that we have only two trainers and no additional trainer is lined up for production. My concern is that we need at least 20 pilots and squadron 45 may not have those numbers. Similar is the case with engineering staff needed to keep these planes fighting fit. Again I know zilch about how tactics are developed but as with any field I believe it will involve a lot of practice and trying out things. given the only corpus of info present is from NFTC pilots, which means more experimentation is needed to fine tune these tactics and propagate them and this needs to be done fast.

kit · Post by **kit** » 05 Mar 2018 00:12

An interesting snippet

" If the F119 is reduced to the EJ200s size, it would be 4 meters long and 93 cm in diameter, compared to 74 cm for the EJ200. Inlet diameter would be 68,5 cm, dry weight ~1.000 kg, and thrust 91,4 kN (9.320 kgf). Thus it would have a TWR of ~9,32:1 and thrust-to-drag ratio of 24,8 N/cm2, or 92% of the current value, again confirming that larger engine offers better performance than two smaller engines."

https://defenseissues.net/2014/12/06/fi ... mparision/

Would a higher power Mark 3 Tejas obviate the need for a twin engine carrier fighter ?

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 05 Mar 2018 01:07

Are the wings thick enough or can they be made thick enough to accomodate a few missiles within?
A flap on the lower part of the wing can open and the missile can drop down
On a single engine fighter, one can understand that this might not be possible

But on the AMCA, in the box weapons bay below, can they have a mission ready box with missiles or ground attack munitions ready at the ground, and the whole box/frame gets fitted onto the weapons bay with its contents

ashishvikas · Post by **ashishvikas** » 05 Mar 2018 01:13

Indranil wrote:Meanwhile, first flight of SP8 coming up soon.

Hi Indranil, Should we expect SP9 by this March ? Or SP8 will be last for this financial year.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 05 Mar 2018 01:31

Gagan wrote:Are the wings thick enough or can they be made thick enough to accomodate a few missiles within?
A flap on the lower part of the wing can open and the missile can drop down.

What????

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 05 Mar 2018 01:42

Wow!! Just 3 weeks back BRF was mourning rumors and chaiwallah khabars of a premature death of the LCA mk2 program. Now we are celebrating a 201 aircraft commitment by IAF. Fortunes can change fast and BRF do fall behind the curves sometimes!!!!

Lungi dance moment indeed!

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 05 Mar 2018 01:45

Rakesh wrote:
Gagan wrote:Are the wings thick enough or can they be made thick enough to accomodate a few missiles within?
A flap on the lower part of the wing can open and the missile can drop down.
What????

What do you mean “what?” ? Gaganullah just designed a JSF outta you desi LCA ...... it may be called LCA mk 5 for being semi fifth gen

Khalsa · Post by **Khalsa** » 05 Mar 2018 01:52

Rakesh wrote: As per the Risk Predictor on BRF, Defence Minister Sitharaman was supposed to be a rubber stamp for the Make in India policy.

I was reading through the old posts on the Single Engine thread and it was claimed (again via the Risk Predictor himself) that SEF was supposed to move many needles and BRF was being myopic and narrow-minded in not being able to see the the value of the SEF deal.

Dear Admiral

the risk predictor.... is that a sum total of the cautious nature displayed by one or more poster or was that an actual person ?
I am not asking for a name just curious if the risk predictor was a real person or a common trait

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 05 Mar 2018 02:55

Since we seem to betting nowadays on BR, I am betting my cookie, that I am currently eating, that it is a person!

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 05 Mar 2018 03:01

Khalsa wrote:
Rakesh wrote: As per the Risk Predictor on BRF, Defence Minister Sitharaman was supposed to be a rubber stamp for the Make in India policy.

I was reading through the old posts on the Single Engine thread and it was claimed (again via the Risk Predictor himself) that SEF was supposed to move many needles and BRF was being myopic and narrow-minded in not being able to see the the value of the SEF deal.
Dear Admiral

the risk predictor.... is that a sum total of the cautious nature displayed by one or more poster or was that an actual person ?
I am not asking for a name just curious if the risk predictor was a real person or a common trait

CY's bet is right. It is an actual person onlee. Lets leave him anonymous. He likes to make predictions - which he claims are never wrong - and then quietly moves on to the next prediction

srai · Post by **srai** » 05 Mar 2018 04:37

Singha wrote:its better we try some silent eagle type techniques than big underwing bays....the single engine fighter of Tejas size needs to be low on drag and does not have 2 engines to push it through. GripenE has shown the way by moving the MLG outboard into the wing roads freeing up internal space of fuselage for more electronics and fuel.

Not on LCA but on Su-30MKI.

kit · Post by **kit** » 05 Mar 2018 04:40

Gagan wrote:Are the wings thick enough or can they be made thick enough to accomodate a few missiles within?
A flap on the lower part of the wing can open and the missile can drop down
On a single engine fighter, one can understand that this might not be possible

But on the AMCA, in the box weapons bay below, can they have a mission ready box with missiles or ground attack munitions ready at the ground, and the whole box/frame gets fitted onto the weapons bay with its contents

Boss by "thickness" you mean wing loading .. no worries ..thats what the newer composites do ..lesser weight better structural integrity under stress as well as less thickness

Khalsa · Post by **Khalsa** » 05 Mar 2018 04:43

very happy to leave him as anon.
He can disappear too when Mk2 are flying in squadron service

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 05 Mar 2018 05:12

Katare wrote:
Rakesh wrote: What????
What do you mean “what?” ? Gaganullah just designed a JSF outta you desi LCA ...... it may be called LCA mk 5 for being semi fifth gen

LOL!

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 05 Mar 2018 06:16

Gagan ji actually made think about flat missiles! should it be a necessary round cylindrical? it ij pajjible - or go lance! nano-chemicals

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 05 Mar 2018 07:06

SaiK Saar: Please don't give him any more ammunition to start thinking of something other out-of-this-world weird thing and derail the thread.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 05 Mar 2018 07:25

Just thinking out of the box, or out of the wing
Jokes apart, this should be looked at

The wing skeleton can have long boxes or sections where the missile can be kept inside. The skin on top provides the lift, the one in the bottom has a flap door

Now, the LCA is a small plane, its wing thickness is not enough, maybe ~ 8-10” max?
But on a larger plane, instead of the fuel tank, why not have a missile there hain ji?

And the LCA has a delta wing, so the front to back length of the wing is great!

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 05 Mar 2018 07:27

Flat missile == more stealth
What an idea sir-ji
It’ll be great for a glide ground attack munition already

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 05 Mar 2018 07:31

Even so, why not a partly recessed missile inside the wing hain ji? A bulge below with a door

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 05 Mar 2018 07:39

from an old FG article on the Gripen, it can be seen that Saab studied the Mirage-style delta wing for the Gripen, but could not meet the required runway performance (STOL) requirements and hence added canards. Plus, simple delta wing alone would have required very high instability margin, which is why, as ADA's Dr Girish Deodhare had mentioned, the LCA has the one of the highest instability margins amongst all fighters. Now, to increase combat performance even further, even further instability would probably not be possible, which means that they're going back to study the canard + compound delta configuration. Previous studies in the 1980s would've led ADA and Dassault to believe that they could meet the combat performance requirements without canards, as it made the design simpler and cheaper.

And hence now the Mk2 with possible canards.

link to FG

A Mirage-style delta was considered, and was thought to be cheaper, but the required runway performance was hard to achieve. To obtain the required combat performance with a delta, quite a lot of instability would have been needed, leading to stringent software limits on the
FBW flight controls. So Saab converged towards the delta-plus-canard layout, with "about 10 per cent" instability. The aft tail idea survived until quite late, but the total requirejnent—turn performance, take-off and landing distances, speed, and external load carriage—led to the canard,
which allows relaxed stability.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 05 Mar 2018 08:32

i believe both the eurocanards has a longer R&D/TD cycle before getting to final form vs the Gripen which derisked things perhaps with more conservative choices and barring a fatal accident or two had a quick entry into FOC by mid 90s.
they did not build a new trend - but a "better F16"

EF has tested LERX, will that improve high AoA / post stall fightingy moves? or delay stall to higher AOA?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 05 Mar 2018 08:35

the semi recessed 4 AAM pylons on the EF offer a good model for astra2 bvraam which will be larger than astra1.
4 of them or even 2 if on the fuselage sides and 4 astra1 under the wings would be a great loadout.

even the mighty foxhound does this with its front pair of aam

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 05 Mar 2018 08:39

and the F15E is a great example of a ungodly number of pylons down to nearly the exhaust....loaded to the gunwales if it has to

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 05 Mar 2018 08:43

this is one area where scanning every brochure and walkaround out there and tinkering to try out 20 things to settle on 5 good ones will help - brochure scanning team can be put to work on this dharmic cause!

having our own a/c makes this easy and cheap vs imported

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 05 Mar 2018 08:50

- semi recessed pylons
- IRST
- higher mark aesa radar
- a more comprehensive unified DASS without any external pods
- OBOGS
- astra mk2
- prospina in multi racks for ground attack
- moving MLG to wing roots like GripenE
- improved combat radius
- semi LO work from front end - alignments, serrated edges of panels, ram coatings, cockpit glass coating ...
- a F18 type LO enhanced weapons pod for aam/saaw

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 05 Mar 2018 08:51

^^ thats a masterpiece of american pkging there. note the amraams are attached to the 'smart' door panels ! not 1 cu inch is wasted

time to clone it wholesale