Tejas Mk.2: News & Discussions - 25 February 2018
Re: Tejas Mk.2: News & Discussions - 25 February 2018
I also see a LERX in the wing join. Maybe that the stub wings from the tender drawings. So the wing shape does change if ever so slightly, from double compound delta to a somewhat triple compound delta with clipped ends for wingtip CCM rails.
Re: Tejas Mk.2: News & Discussions - 25 February 2018
^^ just for comparing the shape variations and not the dimensions (as mk2/mwf is longer than mk1).
Re: Tejas Mk.2: News & Discussions - 25 February 2018
Any news on when the first flight is expected?
Re: Tejas Mk.2: News & Discussions - 25 February 2018
Looks like Mk.2 been officially been renamed to MWF can we stop calling it LCA Mk2? As Mk2 production starts It would make sense to continue to induct LCA MK1a beyond the initial projected numbers. Perhaps even further improving it with Mk1b.
Re: Tejas Mk.2: News & Discussions - 25 February 2018
It's just one day right? Not like we are laggards.
Re: Tejas Mk.2: News & Discussions - 25 February 2018
Video
We’re live first & exclusive with India’s new canard concept — the Medium Weight Fighter (the rechristened LCA Mk.2) https://t.co/2lH3yKiy2u
We’re live first & exclusive with India’s new canard concept — the Medium Weight Fighter (the rechristened LCA Mk.2) https://t.co/2lH3yKiy2u
Re: Tejas Mk.2: News & Discussions - 25 February 2018
So where is the new gunbay located and will it be the Gsh-23 cannon? Or are we going to the concept of removing the gun? F-4 and Mig 21 type decisions. Has gun firing been tested on the MK1?
Re: Tejas Mk.2: News & Discussions - 25 February 2018
The aspect ratio is off by 13% for mid section and 5% for rear section as compared to front section which also must be off. The overall aircraft is sleeker than the conjoined three section diagrams.
It has IRST in nose and four SRAAM and four BVR AAM in multi-rack in mid wing station as standard complement. Goodbye MMRCA 2.0.
It has IRST in nose and four SRAAM and four BVR AAM in multi-rack in mid wing station as standard complement. Goodbye MMRCA 2.0.
Re: Tejas Mk.2: News & Discussions - 25 February 2018
Why kind of delays are expected as a result of this radical redisign of the basic plane.
Can it enter service in the timeframe for it to be relevant for the IAF.
Can it enter service in the timeframe for it to be relevant for the IAF.
-
- BRFite -Trainee
- Posts: 40
- Joined: 16 Sep 2018 14:55
Re: Tejas Mk.2: News & Discussions - 25 February 2018
Animation model from Medium Weight Fighter/LCA Mk.2 stand
https://twitter.com/livefist/status/109 ... 03584?s=19
https://twitter.com/livefist/status/109 ... 03584?s=19
Re: Tejas Mk.2: News & Discussions - 25 February 2018
I hope they blend the canards into the body as in the case of the Rafale and don't simply stick it on.SaiK wrote:Video
We’re live first & exclusive with India’s new canard concept — the Medium Weight Fighter (the rechristened LCA Mk.2) https://t.co/2lH3yKiy2u
Re: Tejas Mk.2: News & Discussions - 25 February 2018
Isnt the current config derived from wind tunnel testing?..so wouldnt this be the final shape?. The SAB Gripen also has canards simply stuck on. Even then the MWF looks much better than the TFTA gripen. Hopefully this time they will give it a menacing name and not Tejas, Sankalp, Sanjay etc ..
Re: Tejas Mk.2: News & Discussions - 25 February 2018
Arjun Mk2 took 2 years after Mk1... 2 yrs would be pessimistic for Tejas Mk2
Re: Tejas Mk.2: News & Discussions - 25 February 2018
Yes Neshant, I'm not sure the model reflects the right canard position. The play area seems tight but then I have no idea how many degrees it needs to turn.
Wait for the expert brigade to arrive here. (Looks a bit Gripenish on the wing tips)
I'm sure some heated exchange will be there for the intakes.
I'm not seeing the refueling probe as retractable. Some things doesn't gel to my brain
Wait for the expert brigade to arrive here. (Looks a bit Gripenish on the wing tips)
I'm sure some heated exchange will be there for the intakes.
I'm not seeing the refueling probe as retractable. Some things doesn't gel to my brain
Last edited by SaiK on 20 Feb 2019 13:34, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Tejas Mk.2: News & Discussions - 25 February 2018
Looks like a cross between the mirage 2000 and the rafaleSaiK wrote:Yes Neshant, I'm not sure the model reflects the right canard position. The play area seems tight but then I have no idea how many degrees it needs to turn.
Wait for the expert brigade to arrive here. (Looks a bit Gripenish on the wing tips)
I'm sure some heated exchange will be there for the intakes.
I'm not seeing the refueling probe as retractable. Some things doesn't gel to my brain
Add one more engine and +/_ stealth for the heavy weight category
Re: Tejas Mk.2: News & Discussions - 25 February 2018
The Tejas Mk2 animated model on liveFist .... I don't know .... did the LCA Navy Mk1 or Jaguar just appear briefly to me.
From the side the extra strengthned spine just gave away something Jaguar like and the front was very Navy LCA to me.
Some interesting influences there. I reckon the Mk2 will have some interesting load carrying capacity.
From the side the extra strengthned spine just gave away something Jaguar like and the front was very Navy LCA to me.
Some interesting influences there. I reckon the Mk2 will have some interesting load carrying capacity.
Re: Tejas Mk.2: News & Discussions - 25 February 2018
The canard position sees high , gives the impression its slightly below the cockpit along the same line
The wing tunnel model shows there is sufficient space for the canard to move even though its above the wing
The wing tunnel model shows there is sufficient space for the canard to move even though its above the wing
Re: Tejas Mk.2: News & Discussions - 25 February 2018
What is the point in adding the canard when all this while ADA kept saying canard was not needed as the design was good enough and canard just added complexity without gain.
Is this because the aircraft got heavier and they need canard for additional lift , manouveribility , slow handling qualitues , high AOA , Brakes etc ?
Is this because the aircraft got heavier and they need canard for additional lift , manouveribility , slow handling qualitues , high AOA , Brakes etc ?
Re: Tejas Mk.2: News & Discussions - 25 February 2018
I can’t see how the F414 will make Mk2 a medium fighter. There is a good increase in power but it is still a medium sized engine. It would great enhance the performance of the LCA but a true medium fighter would weigh it down.
What is “medium”? A F-16? The Falcon’s F110 produces 132kN. The F414 gives 97kN onlee.
The F-Solah is considered “light” in Amreeki terms while a medium fighter would be a F-18E/F SHornet with two F414s.
I am worry that instead of upgrading the Tejas with a new engine we are going in a new direction with new development and expectations that can’t be delivered by a single F414.
What is “medium”? A F-16? The Falcon’s F110 produces 132kN. The F414 gives 97kN onlee.
The F-Solah is considered “light” in Amreeki terms while a medium fighter would be a F-18E/F SHornet with two F414s.
I am worry that instead of upgrading the Tejas with a new engine we are going in a new direction with new development and expectations that can’t be delivered by a single F414.
Re: Tejas Mk.2: News & Discussions - 25 February 2018
Last edited by nam on 20 Feb 2019 15:49, edited 1 time in total.
-
- BRFite -Trainee
- Posts: 40
- Joined: 16 Sep 2018 14:55
Re: Tejas Mk.2: News & Discussions - 25 February 2018
Internal fuel : 3300 ltr
Payload capacity 6500 kg
Length : 1.35 mtr longer tha mk1.
IRST
MAWS
UTTAM AESA
Ge 414 engine.
First flight at end of 2023
4 prototypes planned
https://twitter.com/statuses/1098122542529892352
Payload capacity 6500 kg
Length : 1.35 mtr longer tha mk1.
IRST
MAWS
UTTAM AESA
Ge 414 engine.
First flight at end of 2023
4 prototypes planned
https://twitter.com/statuses/1098122542529892352
Re: Tejas Mk.2: News & Discussions - 25 February 2018
First flight 2023??
Awww..
Awww..
Re: Tejas Mk.2: News & Discussions - 25 February 2018
What is the empty weight going to be
Re: Tejas Mk.2: News & Discussions - 25 February 2018
The internal fuel is 3300kg and not 3300lt as given above.
Re: Tejas Mk.2: News & Discussions - 25 February 2018
they will have to manage the weight budget carefully because while F16 has a 130kn afterburning engine, and is 2tons MTOW heavier .... the 414 is a considerably weaker engine falling short 20kN in dry and 30kN in afterburning. and as we know weights always tend to increase in development never decline. demands of multi role and long range mean big rafale type fuel tanks, and multi racking of a2g standoff munitions, plus 100s of kg of EW gear all over.
no option but to pony up the cash for EPE engine production. the R&D had been done by 2012 and 17 protos were made. was on offer for gripen and f18 also. choices were 115kn with generous durability and temp margin and 126kn "gamer edition/overclocked" model with no change in regular life.
either was said to drastically improve supersonic performance and "halve the acceleration time into supersonic" at high alt for gripen. might permit more of dry supersonic with slim a2a payloads.
I dare say we should get the EDE 115kn model and run with that.
p.s. speaking of the dreaded word "supercruise" the ancient Concorde with 44 RR olympus engines used afterburner for takeoff only and then could supercruise for *2 hours* at 60,000 feet at Mach2 on dry thrust onlee with 100 passengers. beast of a pathbreaking design. the cancelled XB70 valkyrie probably took it one level further toward a higher ceiling and mach3ish...
todays chota mota munnas brag about supercruising for 15 mins.
no option but to pony up the cash for EPE engine production. the R&D had been done by 2012 and 17 protos were made. was on offer for gripen and f18 also. choices were 115kn with generous durability and temp margin and 126kn "gamer edition/overclocked" model with no change in regular life.
either was said to drastically improve supersonic performance and "halve the acceleration time into supersonic" at high alt for gripen. might permit more of dry supersonic with slim a2a payloads.
I dare say we should get the EDE 115kn model and run with that.
p.s. speaking of the dreaded word "supercruise" the ancient Concorde with 44 RR olympus engines used afterburner for takeoff only and then could supercruise for *2 hours* at 60,000 feet at Mach2 on dry thrust onlee with 100 passengers. beast of a pathbreaking design. the cancelled XB70 valkyrie probably took it one level further toward a higher ceiling and mach3ish...
todays chota mota munnas brag about supercruising for 15 mins.
Re: Tejas Mk.2: News & Discussions - 25 February 2018
First flight in 2023, even if there was 5 years of flight testing that is 2028-29 IOC. 2029 Production. 10 years from now. Optimistic timelines.
We have 24(FOC+ trainer)+ 83 planned. i.e. 107
MK1A will fly in 2020. 2021 production. If we get 24 per year line, assuming average 20 per year. in 5-6, say 7 years MK1A production will be done.
Then we will be sitting on our thumbs for 3 years?
So either we MK2 needs to fly earlier or we will NOT be doing 24 per year line. It is a waste of resources if it does not fly by 2021.
We have 24(FOC+ trainer)+ 83 planned. i.e. 107
MK1A will fly in 2020. 2021 production. If we get 24 per year line, assuming average 20 per year. in 5-6, say 7 years MK1A production will be done.
Then we will be sitting on our thumbs for 3 years?
So either we MK2 needs to fly earlier or we will NOT be doing 24 per year line. It is a waste of resources if it does not fly by 2021.
Re: Tejas Mk.2: News & Discussions - 25 February 2018
7T is the intended empty weight as MTOW 17.5T and payload of 6.5T for clean weight of 11T.
Minus 3.3T internal fuel and rest 700kg for 2CCM, pilot weight, cannon ammo, chaff, flare and pylons.
Minus 3.3T internal fuel and rest 700kg for 2CCM, pilot weight, cannon ammo, chaff, flare and pylons.
Re: Tejas Mk.2: News & Discussions - 25 February 2018
Pained to say, Mk2 is set up for failure.
Looks like the requirement is to match Mirage loadout, Mig 29 flying abilities. ADA has probably added Gripen/F16 TFTA to the mix.
I really don't see the need for wintip hardpoints, with dual racks available. With 11 of them(cannot imagine why they need 11 on SE fighter), it is given IAF will ask for a powerful 110KN engine.
We should have kept it simple. Increased range and existing hard-points strengthen for greater load.
The requirements are greater than Gripen E(fundamentally a brochure claim)
Looks like the requirement is to match Mirage loadout, Mig 29 flying abilities. ADA has probably added Gripen/F16 TFTA to the mix.
I really don't see the need for wintip hardpoints, with dual racks available. With 11 of them(cannot imagine why they need 11 on SE fighter), it is given IAF will ask for a powerful 110KN engine.
We should have kept it simple. Increased range and existing hard-points strengthen for greater load.
The requirements are greater than Gripen E(fundamentally a brochure claim)
Re: Tejas Mk.2: News & Discussions - 25 February 2018
I am now appreciating Chini way of doing things. Bring it out a version as soon as possible and increment it in bits and pieces.
We go for perfection.
ADA does not resources for running 4 programs at the same time. MK1A, MK2, AMCA & UCAV. All will be delayed.
We go for perfection.
ADA does not resources for running 4 programs at the same time. MK1A, MK2, AMCA & UCAV. All will be delayed.
Re: Tejas Mk.2: News & Discussions - 25 February 2018
Engines wont be a problem GE has plans to uprate the 414 upto 120KN, just that with first flight only in 2023 nobody knows how long it might take to certify.nam wrote:Pained to say, Mk2 is set up for failure.
Looks like the requirement is to match Mirage loadout, Mig 29 flying abilities. ADA has probably added Gripen/F16 TFTA to the mix.
I really don't see the need for wintip hardpoints, with dual racks available. With 11 of them(cannot imagine why they need 11 on SE fighter), it is given IAF will ask for a powerful 110KN engine.
We should have kept it simple. Increased range and existing hard-points strengthen for greater load.
The requirements are greater than Gripen E(fundamentally a brochure claim)
Re: Tejas Mk.2: News & Discussions - 25 February 2018
Changing to 120KN will need modification again. Switching from F404 to 414 required MK2. And we are not planning LCA MK3.
When will we change to 120KN?
I didn't mind aiming for the sky for LCA MK1, as we were building our ecosystem. We don't have that objective now. It is numbers and rapid production is what we need. Not competing with Gripen and F16.
When will we change to 120KN?
I didn't mind aiming for the sky for LCA MK1, as we were building our ecosystem. We don't have that objective now. It is numbers and rapid production is what we need. Not competing with Gripen and F16.
Re: Tejas Mk.2: News & Discussions - 25 February 2018
Changing from F404 to F414 required modification because the engines are different, but changing from 98KN F414 to 110 or 120KN F414 wont need such modifications as both are same engines but uprated using new technology infusion
Re: Tejas Mk.2: News & Discussions - 25 February 2018
Higher thrust engines require higher airflow. Which means air intake changes, means volume changes, means moving LRU around, means change of CoG, means changes in FBW....
means new jet.
Hope MK2 is designed with higher airflow is mind, in case they want to switch over to higher thrust engine.
means new jet.
Hope MK2 is designed with higher airflow is mind, in case they want to switch over to higher thrust engine.
Re: Tejas Mk.2: News & Discussions - 25 February 2018
Agree with Nam , it is setup for failure. We have had countless discussions on engine change - but this model confirms every bit of our suspicion. It will be underpowered , with weight quickly adding up. MMRCA folks - will use this point to drive up the Agenda and the stories will start before even the first prototype rolls out that it is underpowered. Hope ADA folks realize this ! Also Dec 2023 - is a long way ahead.
Re: Tejas Mk.2: News & Discussions - 25 February 2018
Kindly wait for INdranils article before hypothesising needlessly.naird wrote:Agree with Nam , it is setup for failure. We have had countless discussions on engine change - but this model confirms every bit of our suspicion. It will be underpowered , with weight quickly adding up. MMRCA folks - will use this point to drive up the Agenda and the stories will start before even the first prototype rolls out that it is underpowered. Hope ADA folks realize this ! Also Dec 2023 - is a long way ahead.
Re: Tejas Mk.2: News & Discussions - 25 February 2018
any source? images from aeroindia just specify the MTOW to be 17.5Tsankum wrote:7T is the intended empty weight as MTOW 17.5T and payload of 6.5T for clean weight of 11T.
Minus 3.3T internal fuel and rest 700kg for 2CCM, pilot weight, cannon ammo, chaff, flare and pylons.
In case of comparing above nos to,mk1 vs mwf
empty weight = 6.5 -> 7.0 = +0.5T
fuel capacity = 2.5 -> 3.3 = +0.8T
payload = 3.5 -> 6.5 = +3T
misc = 1.0 -> 0.7T = -0.3T
-----------------------------------
MTOW = 13.5 -> 17.5 = +4T
gripen E = 16.5T MTOW 8T empty
mirage 2000 = 17T MTOW 7.5T empty
f-16 block50 = 19.2T MTOW 8.5T empty
j-dus = 19.2T MTOW 8.8T empty
Seems like we are trying to emulate a soolah/dus going by the nos BUT with an underpowered engine. F414 EPE can at max increase from 98kN-> 116kN, but it's nowhere to be happening since 2013. Are these projections realistic enough. What do the gurus think?
Re: Tejas Mk.2: News & Discussions - 25 February 2018
https://www.geaviation.com/military/engines/f414-engineKakarat wrote:Changing from F404 to F414 required modification because the engines are different, but changing from 98KN F414 to 110 or 120KN F414 wont need such modifications as both are same engines but uprated using new technology infusion
check the data sheets here. the INS6 and EPE is exactly the same size and weight @ 35in diameter max, @31 inlet diameter
the only diff is airflow - 170lb/sec vs 187lb/sec - so thats like 7kg more of air needed. someone from aero background pls clarify if this will need a redesign of the inlet ?
as you know they had to cut one hole on side of air intake after finding it too small for the 404. presumably this is going to suffice for 414 if Mk1A is not redesigned by its datasheet flow of 70kg/sec maps to 154lb/sec.
https://www.geaviation.com/sites/defaul ... Family.pdf
Inshallah cutting a bigger hole on side of air intake may tide us over ?
Re: Tejas Mk.2: News & Discussions - 25 February 2018
USN has not ordered any so far, they keep buying the current 400 engine.