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

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 22 Sep 2019 18:50

No article on Tejas Mk2 would have come out if there was no 114 MRCA competition. It is that plain and simple. Development time of the Mk2 is just an excuse being put up. Look at the timelines.

114 MRCA - Assuming a contract is signed and the factory opens in India, the first plane will roll out only by the mid 2020s (conservative estimate) and will continue production till the mid 2030s. At an average of 12 aircraft per year, you are looking at around 9.5 years for delivery. These aircraft will serve in the IAF for the next 40 - 45 years. So these aircraft will serve till 2060s - 2070s. Even if the OEM doubles the production rate and delivers all 114 aircraft by 2030, one is looking at a retirement rate of 2070. Would these aircraft be not as obsolete as the Tejas Mk2 in that era? The ones who argue for imports on BRF and on social media believe that not to be true. Phoren will always be relevant, even in the 2070s!

And while the same issues of obsolesce will plague the Mk2 during the 2060s - 2070s timeframe, the growth of India's aviation industry will be anything but obsolete. But then again, that is something that is conveniently ignored by the OEMs, and the ones who argue for imports on BRF and on social media. The more smoke and mirrors that can be thrown up on this issue, the better. Package some marketing nonsense i.e. we-will-transfer-the-entire-production-line-to-India in the hope that the Govt will be gullible enough to buy into that.

And let us not forget the age old trick of the China threat. When the Chinese develop stealth aircraft, they get it right at the first get go. They are so good in VLO technology, that they have even surpassed the Americans in that sphere! So Mk2 will be no match for J-20, but phoren fourth generation aircraft (i.e. F-16 with F-35 tech!) will be an effective counter

And since the Chinese will be churning them out like pancakes, the IAF will be unable to match them even in numbers with the Mk2. Alas, air war is never fought that way. When articles like these come out, you know good developments are happening with the Mk2.

If the Mk2 was that bloody bad and its development will take eons, why is the Naval variant of the bird causing so much takleef to a certain figure at Boeing India? The Super Hornet F-18 Block III is a far more proven and reliable aircraft. On that measure alone, it should win the competition. She even flies, unlike the Naval Tejas Mk2! However snuffing out competition is an age old trick with OEMs. Take a look at Canada's Avro program and Israel's Lavi program, etc.

Local Product = Less Money for foreign OEMs.

Vips · Post by **Vips** » 22 Sep 2019 18:51

nam wrote:I wonder how will these plans about MWF & AMCA will be effected.. if PAF goes for FC31.

It is one thing Chinese flying J20, but Pak with even a "propaganda" stealth in FC31 will force IAF in to a reaction.

Whether it is FC31 or any other ding dong chinese crap. We will surely order at least 36 SU57 as the AMCA is a good 10-15 years away from flying.

darshhan · Post by **darshhan** » 22 Sep 2019 21:47

Some more data points for reference. Let us compare Tejas program with India's guided missile program wrt what kind of timelines are required to gain expertise and become completely self reliant. I will consider IGMDP as the reference missile program and tejas as the reference aircraft program. No point in using Marut as we were unable to build upon that experience.

As per wikipedia IGMDP was initiated in 1983 and Prithvi was first tested in 1988. Agni test followed in 1989. So it is very much clear that some sort of infrastructure and resources were dedicated to this project during 1980's itself. So an ecosystem would also have been created even if much of it was inhouse then. But while great progress was made since then, the missile program started to mature only in 2014-15 period(If I am wrong please correct me). This is when they could say with confidence ok now give us a project. We will deliver it in the shortest time possible. One of the stellar examples of this is when they took over MPATGM program and as a result spike atgm was substantially scaled down. There were whiners even then who complained DRDO of playing with national security and what not by scuttling the spike procurement. But then DRDO has definitely managed to fulfill its commitments by pushing its mpatgm through rigorous testing regime. Now that they have mastered the missile game, they are able to give firm commitments on timelines and quality. Ecosystem has matured, vendors are there and most importantly over the years their Project Management skills have become much better. But still it took almost 30 years.

Coming to Tejas, on paper it was also started in 1983. But as many posters on this forum and elsewhere can attest, real work was started only in 1990's. That is when the funds were allocated. Now in certain ways fighter aircraft is much more complicated than missiles even without considering the engines. Aircrafts are supposed to be multi use unlike missiles which are single use. It is manned so all safety measures and human machine interface has to be accounted for. Software quantity has to be much more and quality has to be much better. Additionally the strategic focus was much more on missile program during this period, compared to LCA program. Further delay was introduced due to Pokhran sanctions when the American consultant left midway. Inspite of all this we are well on course to master fighter aircraft technology in roughly the same time period as missile technology i.e 30 years. Rest be assured by the end of next decade we will have mastered this technology, provided we continue with Tejas iterations along with other programs such as AMCA and Ghatak UCAV and not give in to import pimp lobby. Some examples of this import pimp lobby exist on this very forum too both for Russian as well as American weapons

This brings us to other question. If the missile program also took 3 decades to mature, then why the critics were not villifying DRDO in the same way. Well we can thank Missile technology control regime(MTCR) for that. It ensured that we had no other option but to develop our own Ballistic missiles. Otherwise you can be sure that our import dalals would have gutted our missile technology base too. And like UK we would be importing missiles for nuclear deterrence too.

ArjunPandit · Post by **ArjunPandit** » 22 Sep 2019 21:59

Darshanji did you miss the criticism of DRDO when Agni missile failed in 2006.. Along with Arjun tank

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 22 Sep 2019 22:03

Rakesh wrote:No article on Tejas Mk2 would have come out if there was no 114 MRCA competition. It is that plain and simple. Development time of the Mk2 is just an excuse being put up. Look at the timelines.

114 MRCA - Assuming a contract is signed and the factory opens in India, the first plane will roll out only by the mid 2020s (conservative estimate) and will continue production till the mid 2030s. At an average of 12 aircraft per year, you are looking at around 9.5 years for delivery. These aircraft will serve in the IAF for the next 40 - 45 years. So these aircraft will serve till 2060s - 2070s. Even if the OEM doubles the production rate and delivers all 114 aircraft by 2030, one is looking at a retirement rate of 2070. Would these aircraft be not as obsolete as the Tejas Mk2 in that era? The ones who argue for imports on BRF and on social media believe that not to be true. Phoren will always be relevant, even in the 2070s!

And while the same issues of obsolesce will plague the Mk2 during the 2060s - 2070s timeframe, the growth of India's aviation industry will be anything but obsolete. But then again, that is something that is conveniently ignored by the OEMs, and the ones who argue for imports on BRF and on social media. The more smoke and mirrors that can be thrown up on this issue, the better. Package some marketing nonsense i.e. we-will-transfer-the-entire-production-line-to-India in the hope that the Govt will be gullible enough to buy into that.

And let us not forget the age old trick of the China threat. When the Chinese develop stealth aircraft, they get it right at the first get go. They are so good in VLO technology, that they have even surpassed the Americans in that sphere! So Mk2 will be no match for J-20, but phoren fourth generation aircraft (i.e. F-16 with F-35 tech!) will be an effective counter And since the Chinese will be churning them out like pancakes, the IAF will be unable to match them even in numbers with the Mk2. Alas, air war is never fought that way. When articles like these come out, you know good developments are happening with the Mk2.

If the Mk2 was that bloody bad and its development will take eons, why is the Naval variant of the bird causing so much takleef to a certain figure at Boeing India? The Super Hornet F-18 Block III is a far more proven and reliable aircraft. On that measure alone, it should win the competition. She even flies, unlike the Naval Tejas Mk2! However snuffing out competition is an age old trick with OEMs. Take a look at Canada's Avro program and Israel's Lavi program, etc.

Local Product = Less Money for foreign OEMs.

Each and every word needs to be highlighted for posterity.

nam · Post by **nam** » 22 Sep 2019 22:27

Regarding MMRCA 2.0, the Air Chief is on record, they have NOT even received a AON from the GoI!

Even the NAMS has AON, not MMRCA 2.0. AON is first step in the 10K steps of GoI procurement process!

So for the time being MMRCA 2.0 is "kayali pulai".

With Mig29, potential 36 more Rafale, 18 Su30, we have 4 sqd. GoI will wade around for couple of more years and once MWF starts flying tell IAF to get two more MK1A or MWF.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 22 Sep 2019 22:32

I actually think that's a better approach because we can then use the money saved on an imported 4.5th gen fighter, to instead buy a silver bullet force of true 5th gen platforms to complement the others. These will be useful where there is a very heavy grid of overlapping IADS (such as deeper into PRC) and we'd rather drop a few PGMs rather than send waves after waves of expensive CMs, decoys etc.

darshhan · Post by **darshhan** » 22 Sep 2019 22:38

ArjunPandit wrote:Darshanji did you miss the criticism of DRDO when Agni missile failed in 2006.. Along with Arjun tank

DRDO ko itni gaali padi hain. Kitna yaad rakhoon bhai. Arjun tank was villified even more than LCA. Handiwork of Roosi dalals. Arjun development team should have been given gallantry awards. No other military R&D team was subjected to such villification and demonisation.

LCA got some reprieve here because the import pimps never thought that ADA would be actually able to complete the development ever. But once Tejas started inching towards its finishing mark, all gloves came off.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 22 Sep 2019 22:48

Most chaps who are bloviating about MWF etc don't even understand the flexibility the design is to offer.

That's 4 AAMs on one side, with a large FT (1200Ltr), an extra pylon with a dumb bomb (could be a PGM too), and then a large CM (think Scalp sized), a sensor pod on the other side.

Then you have a large PGM (think SPICE 2000) basically the pylon is dual tasked for fuel/payload, and then 3 AAMs.
This is a terrific loadout for a strike mission. We know the MWF has an internal EW suite, the SPJ - so the sensor pod can be a Support Jammer (A2G), basically the Siva pod.

In effect, this is 2x the Mirage loadout, you have 7 AAMs to offer true swing role capability, two PGMs (which 2 separate Mirages had to carry in the Balakote strike), a demonstration of asymmetrical loadouts (a single FT, given the fighter has more fuel and IFR) and offers EW ability (SPJ + support).

Then the capability of the sensor suite. The MWF will clearly be a bridge to the AMCA, I fully expect we'll have 2 or more avionics enhancements during a 200 aircraft production run as MCA tech is developed via the program and flows into the program. That nose is MiG-29 sized but with the enhanced thrust engine, will be able to run a properly sized AESA, and achieve fairly respectable ranges against even LO targets. The IRST will offer a good capability to run silent attacks and also the fighter will run feeds into, and from the IACCS.

This is a solid design which when executed will be a worthy replacement for much of the IAFs fleet. Missiles like the SCALP which the MWF is designed to carry will be very hard for even advanced IADS to pick up and combat. They fly low enough that large SAM systems can't effectively target them (despite mast mounted systems) and their signature is too low for the close in weapons systems to easily target. They offer an excellent "door knocker" capability.

darshhan · Post by **darshhan** » 23 Sep 2019 00:50

Must watch. Shiv's video on why LCA MK2 should not be shelved. Explains in very simple and lucid manner.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVF81ms1-bM

Roop · Post by **Roop** » 23 Sep 2019 01:54

Karan M wrote:Most chaps who are bloviating about MWF etc don't even understand the flexibility the design is to offer.

A wonderful post, Karan, and I love those pictures of the MWF mock-up, with one exception: that damned ugly refuelling probe stuck right up there in the pilot's normal line of sight. How realistic is that mock-up, do you think? Could they not have moved the probe down and over to the pilot's right a bit? Maybe they were worried about interfering with the air flow to the right canard?

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 23 Sep 2019 04:37

dipak wrote:
I was puzzled since I am a huge fan of shiv and hold him in high regard. And also I miss his inimitable style and piskology now on brf. Can't fathom the reason for that tweet, may be I am not able to grasp some piskology there .

But I am sure, at the end of the day, we all are on India's side. We can avoid any blue-on-blue. My last on this.

True words and here Dr. Shiv has crushed and demolished both Unzhawala and manmohan bahadur:

shiv
@bennedose
New Video: Why the LCA Mk 2 must not be abandoned
Why the LCA Mark II must not be abandoned https://youtu.be/OVF81ms1-bM via
@YouTube

https://twitter.com/bennedose/status/11 ... 23490?s=20

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 23 Sep 2019 06:20

Roop wrote:
Karan M wrote:Most chaps who are bloviating about MWF etc don't even understand the flexibility the design is to offer.
A wonderful post, Karan, and I love those pictures of the MWF mock-up, with one exception: that damned ugly refuelling probe stuck right up there in the pilot's normal line of sight. How realistic is that mock-up, do you think? Could they not have moved the probe down and over to the pilot's right a bit? Maybe they were worried about interfering with the air flow to the right canard?

Thanks for your kind words. Regarding the probe, I suspect its pragmatism. The pilot can see the fuel probe and hence position it optimally. Its harder when the probe is offset significantly, or its to the rear of the pit and the pilots can't see it. Even so, this is just a representative model. Many things may change position based on packaging requirements, pilot input as the engineering development picks up.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 23 Sep 2019 07:28

Admiral Sir - bang on! I will say something further - Rafale will actually worsen India's air defences. $215 million for ONE aircraft!! One squadron (18 aircraft) of LCA Mk1A for 3 Rafales!! Remember - the LCA can be mated to Astra (tested at 100 km) and Astra NG. 500 of these babies will make India's air defence impregnable!!But IAF lusts for Rafales and the pimps smell blood.

==== snipped ==== admin note Vivek k please refrain from making statements that add no value apart from calling people names and attributing motives without having all background facts in place ==== admin note end

MK2 should come - no more 29s, Rafales or MKIs. Order 500 Mk1As and develop Mk2!

Haridas · Post by **Haridas** » 23 Sep 2019 20:00

Manish_Sharma wrote:https://twitter.com/ChampakbhumiaE/stat ... 64418?s=20
Yusuf Unjhawala
@YusufDFI
AVM
@BahadurManmohan
: “The Tejas Mk2 would be a totally new aircraft ..requiring significant changes to its design – it calls for extensive flight testing. Its production in six years, with it presently being on the drawing board, is stuff for the movies”
https://www.financialexpress.com/defenc ... ssion=true

Friends use social media to counter this hyenas pack propaganda

Agree. See my retort.
https://twitter.com/HaridasKukkur/statu ... 59234?s=19

Haridas · Post by **Haridas** » 23 Sep 2019 20:07

Austin wrote:It is more predictable and lower risk to develop MWF fighter for ADA/ DRDO and more useful for AF with guranteed buy by forces so spending on near immediate deliverable makes more sense.

AMCA is a high risk option with no guarantees that it will stick to time and schedule that IAF is looking for and iaf had not committed any orders for it unlike mwf and not even funding for FSED has been approved by GOI

So it makes sense for ADA to put money where mouth is and make Tejas success and meet the near term need of AF when it is developing so beautifully you don't want to get distracted and commit resources else where

Given that IAF can't buy 5th gen plane anytime sooner, it is IAF imperative to fund and build local capabelity and eat what it cooked. If that means getting imported expertise and greenfield farming, so be it. The IAF fellows ask for imported maal as if they are Kuber ki aulaad.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 23 Sep 2019 20:45

Haridas wrote:
Manish_Sharma wrote:https://twitter.com/ChampakbhumiaE/stat ... 64418?s=20

https://www.financialexpress.com/defenc ... ssion=true

Friends use social media to counter this hyenas pack propaganda
Agree. See my retort.
https://twitter.com/HaridasKukkur/statu ... 59234?s=19

What is skiptist?

Haridas Kukkur
@HaridasKukkur
Replying to
@YusufDFI
and
@BahadurManmohan
The AVM is being miser on truth.

Aircraft r always tested in wind tunnel using scaled model. LCA-MK2 is largely a slightly bigger scale. Even skiptists know that based on LCA control laws expertise, LCA2 will b quicker & flight envelop testing would also be quicker
@ramana_brf

Very very happy to have you here _/\_

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 24 Sep 2019 02:17

Use common sense.
Its skeptics.
Auto correct.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 25 Sep 2019 01:34

^Oooops sorry

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 25 Sep 2019 02:03

Roop wrote:
A wonderful post, Karan, and I love those pictures of the MWF mock-up, with one exception: that damned ugly refuelling probe stuck right up there in the pilot's normal line of sight. How realistic is that mock-up, do you think? Could they not have moved the probe down and over to the pilot's right a bit? Maybe they were worried about interfering with the air flow to the right canard?

Have you seen a Rafale or Mirage-2000? Ever heard of a Rafale or Mirage-2000 pilot saying that they needed the probe position changed? Or even the Tejas Mk1 with its refueling probe? The positioning of the probe has been extensively tested out by pilots in flight and has been tested out in wind tunnel models and works. There is no canopy wake to contend with and this position has the least chance of the drogue impacting the canopy since the probe is so far forward. Other designs like the Gripen are considered poor- in fact a Gripen pilot in an interview with Hushkit called it the worst feature on the Gripen.

link

What is your least favourite thing? The refuelling probe length and position on the Gripen C/D. Even though I know the reasons behind the placing and length (retrofitted into an already set fuselage) it makes a mission component, that should be easy and predictable, an unnecessarily exciting part of the mission. Anecdote coming up! I’ve been told that when Gripen C/D was certified for air refuelling the subject matter expert pilot said something like: “Gripen has probably the world’s worst probe placement but compensates that with the world’s best flight control system.” I concur with the statement. You can fly to the basket/drogue and stay easily within a meter or so of it, positioning your Gripen with almost centimetre precision with the stick, but when you approach it the wake of the canopy will push it outwards. This means that you’ll have to “go for it” and aim a bit on the outside of the drogue. This is not a good recipe for predictability. You do get good at it after a while and learn how to do it safely, but a longer probe wouldn’t harm.”

srai · Post by **srai** » 25 Sep 2019 02:51

^^^
Interesting...Hadn’t seen Gripen IFR before.

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 25 Sep 2019 11:46

Dangerously close to the engine intakes for me.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 30 Sep 2019 05:12

The problem is not closeness to engine intake. Just after detachment, the whole aircraft often get sprayed. The problem is that the pilot has to fly in close proximity to the tanker and its turbulent air wake while looking sideways.

Initially, Tejas's designers had put the probe closer to the peripheral vision. It is the pilots who asked it to be placed where it is currently placed. The current set up actually caused problems and the FCS had to be tweeked. But the current set up is exactly where the pilots wanted it. You might recollect that on LCA's maiden latch it was achieved in its first attempt, smoothly, and with relative ease.

Initially, the probe hinders the vision. But, in a few sorties, it does not register unless the pilot purposefully wants to concentrate on it. It is similar to looking outside your cars windscreen. If you have a crack in the windshield, it bothers us initially. But soon we don't notice it, unless we want to.

This is true of all fixed probes. Look at J-10, Mirage2000, Rafale, or M346. It is difficult to put a retractable probe there! JF-17 is an exception. It has the worst of both worlds. They did not bother to bring the plumbing internally to the front of the cockpit. So they have huge probe hanging outside from behind the pilot and to his side.

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 30 Sep 2019 07:05

I think JF-17 probe is there for a reason. Next time when the plane is shot, they can hang on to the probe instead of their parachute getting caught in the tail of the aircraft.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 30 Sep 2019 10:35

Out if curiosity is there a in flight refuelling video of JF-17 or probe in flight- I have it with the aircraft on the ground only.

Haridas · Post by **Haridas** » 30 Sep 2019 12:27

Manish_Sharma wrote:....Very very happy to have you here _/\_

_/\_ dhanyavaad. FYI ROCKSIM still rocks.

AVM Bahadur is my bro's senior (Commodore Commandent of IAF 114HU) but gone to the dark side after retirement. So got to take bull by the horn and break it down.

Spell err skiptist == skeptic

Bala Vignesh · Post by **Bala Vignesh** » 30 Sep 2019 12:29

Aditya_V wrote:Out if curiosity is there a in flight refuelling video of JF-17 or probe in flight- I have it with the aircraft on the ground only.

While not exaclty in flight, this has a few JF17's with IFR probes coming in to land.
https://youtu.be/Z6b9PKeca2c

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 30 Sep 2019 12:40

https://twitter.com/strategic_front/sta ... 15905?s=19

The tweet has a very nice graphics on evolution of LCA MK2 in three iterations.

Can someone please post the pic here..?

Bala Vignesh · Post by **Bala Vignesh** » 30 Sep 2019 12:43

JayS wrote:https://twitter.com/strategic_front/sta ... 15905?s=19

The tweet has a very nice graphics on evolution of LCA MK2 in three iterations.

Can someone please post the pic here..?

JayS, this is already posted on the Tejas Mk1/Mk1A thread. Cross posting from there below.

fanne wrote:Evolution of LCA from Vanilla LCA to Medium Weight Fighter...

https://twitter.com/strategic_front/sta ... 7790715905 ---> Evolution of LCA Mk2 design over the years (Air force version).

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 30 Sep 2019 13:26

What AUW mean? For MK1 its is 13500kg and for MWF its 17500KG. Does that mean empty weight with Lubricants etc and with Pilot is Aprrox 7500Kg and for MWF is 7700KG, considering GE 414 engine, increase in size, fuel and payload. It would be remarkable for LCA team to have achieved this, in A2A mode it would really handle very well.

VikramA · Post by **VikramA** » 30 Sep 2019 13:33

I have a question. For MWF which GE 414 engine was chosen?
1) F414 Enhanced Engine: 116 kn went thrust
Or
2) F414-GE-INS6: 97 kn wet thrust

Bala Vignesh · Post by **Bala Vignesh** » 30 Sep 2019 13:38

AUW is All-Up Weight, but in this case, I believe they are using it to mention the MTOW.

MWF is to be with INS6.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 30 Sep 2019 19:16

Indranil is there an optimum Weapon and internal fuel load that Mk2can carry that can give it a T:W ratio of 1 or near around those figures , I am looking at best weapon/fuel load for BFM and perhaps surpassing even M2K or 29 in dog fight ?

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 30 Sep 2019 19:24

6 AAM say 1000KG with full internal fuel should weight 12000kg. After 150km flight and take off 1-tonne fuel should have been burned to to give T:W ratio near 1. If empty weight plus Pilot plus Misc is 7700kg, fuel and payload should be only 2000kg to get TW ratio of 1. It will be difficult unless engines are uprated

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 30 Sep 2019 19:43

Austin,

MWF cannot match the original Mig-29s for TWR at A2A loadouts. But, it's L/D is better than Mig-29s. It's avionics are also more advanced. I have heard that LCA Mk1 is almost as good as the upgraded Mirage 2000s. The Mk1A would make it at par if not slightly better.The MWF will better than Mk1A in every aspect. So, I don't know who would be ahead in an aerial duel between MWF And an upgraded Mig-29.

Coming to optimal A2A loadout, your guess is as good as mine. I can see two wingtip WVRs, 2-4 BVRs on outboard weapon station and two 1350 ltr DTs.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 30 Sep 2019 19:49

VikramA wrote:I have a question. For MWF which GE 414 engine was chosen?
1) F414 Enhanced Engine: 116 kn went thrust
Or
2) F414-GE-INS6: 97 kn wet thrust

#2. Kindly refer to page 1.

naird · Post by **naird** » 30 Sep 2019 20:03

VikramA wrote:I have a question. For MWF which GE 414 engine was chosen?
1) F414 Enhanced Engine: 116 kn went thrust
Or
2) F414-GE-INS6: 97 kn wet thrust

There is no EPE . GE was hoping that US navy would fund it for hornets. But it has not yet materialized. If it happens then i presume it will be an option for us

ArjunPandit · Post by **ArjunPandit** » 30 Sep 2019 20:06

VikramA wrote:I have a question. For MWF which GE 414 engine was chosen?
1) F414 Enhanced Engine: 116 kn went thrust
Or
2) F414-GE-INS6: 97 kn wet thrust

INS 6,
From wiki
"India's Aeronautical Development Agency selected the F414-GE-INS6 to power the HAL Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) Mk II for the Indian Air Force. India ordered 99 engines in October 2010. It produces more thrust than previous versions, and features a Full Authority Digital Electronic Control (FADEC) system.[22] The engines are to be delivered by 2013.[23]"

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 30 Sep 2019 21:44

Indranil wrote:Austin,

MWF cannot match the original Mig-29s for TWR at A2A loadouts. But, it's L/D is better than Mig-29s. It's avionics are also more advanced. I have heard that LCA Mk1 is almost as good as the upgraded Mirage 2000s. The Mk1A would make it at par if not slightly better.The MWF will better than Mk1A in every aspect. So, I don't know who would be ahead in an aerial duel between MWF And an upgraded Mig-29.

Coming to optimal A2A loadout, your guess is as good as mine. I can see two wingtip WVRs, 2-4 BVRs on outboard weapon station and two 1350 ltr DTs.

Thanks Indranil , As long as MWF is competitive against its peers its quite good , The rest is all about Training , Tactics and Weapons and perhaps a bit of luck. As recent A2A encounter has shown that its not necessary the best fighter wins the fight

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 30 Sep 2019 21:49

naird wrote:
VikramA wrote:I have a question. For MWF which GE 414 engine was chosen?
1) F414 Enhanced Engine: 116 kn went thrust
Or
2) F414-GE-INS6: 97 kn wet thrust
There is no EPE . GE was hoping that US navy would fund it for hornets. But it has not yet materialized. If it happens then i presume it will be an option for us

It is also quite critical to both the early AMCA and KFX aircraft. You are not going to get very meaningful supercruise performance with any sort of IWB designed for payload flexibility if you have a couple of vanilla F-414's hanging in there.