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

[Karan M]

Thats not fully accurate IMO. HAL is developing SDRs, Mission computers and various systems of its own design. Its a different matter whether those ambitious programs will prove successful. But they are definitely investing in own R&D. The LCA Mk1A cockpit is another example where they are reportedly driving the design and development at ARD&C. Also, Su-30 MKI has transitioned to SAMTEL displays. Uttam remains in play because there are 40 Mk1s which can be upgraded. A large portion of the cost of these radars is the TRM module, and DRDO used the same modules for Atulya, ABISS and QRSAM so the baseline cost/radar will be reduced. Cobham radome apart, NAL handles radome tech. The Astra radome is a ceramic radome too, for which NAL has part responsibility. There is capability for indigenization.
https://www.nal.res.in/en/technology/radome-technology

[Indranil]

If a similar layout is already being developed for SPORT, it will speed things up significantly for MWF.

DARE already has large area displays available from SAMTEL. But the ELBIT one likely integrates a powerful compute engine with it, to generate maps and all the fancy graphics the display can be used for.

That's exactly where the problem is. Either HAL is duplicating a lot of effort, or it is not acknowledging the input of other institutions. All because it wants to claim all the rewards.

e.g.,
1. Going slow in building production capacity for Mk1, so it can pitch Mk1A.
2. Hawk-i is completely superfluous without any IAF or foreign interest. And what's with the weaponisation?
3. LCA SPORT when it hasn't got Mk1A flying.
4. Now Large Area Displays, esp if NFCT, DARE have existing solutions.

My concern is that it is consciously treating institutions like ADA as rivals and getting too much into creating competing solutions, when it should be focused on increasing production.

There is truth to that.

[nam]

That's exactly where the problem is. Either HAL is duplicating a lot of effort, or it is not acknowledging the input of other institutions. All because it wants to claim all the rewards.

e.g.,
1. Going slow in building production capacity for Mk1, so it can pitch Mk1A.
2. Hawk-i is completely superfluous without any IAF or foreign interest. And what's with the weaponisation?
3. LCA SPORT when it hasn't got Mk1A flying.
4. Now Large Area Displays, esp if NFCT, DARE have existing solutions.

My concern is that it is consciously treating institutions like ADA as rivals and getting too much into creating competing solutions, when it should be focused on increasing production.

Actually I would say, it is a good thing HAL is rolling different versions of LCA; SPORT & MK1A. It should offer MK1B, MK1C etc to IAF, while ADA concentrates on MK2. There is a clear divergent of product road-map. No one is stepping on other's toe's.

The fact remains, HAL cannot design a fighter, ADA cannot do production! I think ADA & HAL will in future become two design houses, with ADA driving the private ecosystem(with private manufacturers), while HAL being the public supplier. All major countries have two fighter producing companies..Sukoi v/z Mig, Chinese, LM v/s Boeing etc.

We all know HAL was least interested in LCA till few years back. It was busy waiting for Rafale screw driver.

It is a big step with all the large screen display jazz on SPORT!

[brar_w]

Number of design teams is dependent on the work unless one is willing to fund them without any in which case it is difficult to retain top talent. When work shrinks they tend to consolidate. Case in point, Russia has seen major consolidation across its fighter design base. US is now left with just 4 companies capable of designing and building advanced aircraft, less than half compared to the Cold War peak.

[Indranil]

It is funny when I talk to my friends from HAL And ADA. They both look at things differently and it is funny for me because when I talk to ADA friends, I speak on behalf of HAL and when I talk to friends from HAL, I speak on behalf of ADA.

One way of looking at these things is to look at the redundancy. But another way to look at it is competition (even when it is not stated as so). 
1. For example, look at the scramjet development in India. ISRO, DRDO and Brahmos are all trying to develop it. And ISRO is winning. There first test was a complete success where the engine performed better than expected in every possible aspect. Sriram wrote a great article on it. ISRO is now developing a larger version powered by Kerosene, generating an order of magnitude more thrust and for an order of longer time. If ISRO succeeds in this DRDO doesn't need to develop an engine! 

2. I think this cockpit development is a low lying fruit. India is a IT capital of the world. This is simple. HAL has already developed its own RTOS which I hear is really fast. So they can have a fairly good display. NAL-NFTC And DRDO are doing a parallel development. I think you can see that implementation in NAL's yearly report. And it is important. Imagine a penpusher's first reaction when (s)he climbs into that cockpit. It is screams modern. Not even the most recent IAF induction, the Rafale has such an interface. Whether the displays are intuitive enough. Are the overlays good etc. can be figured out over the next 5 years. It's all fine. Those are software updates. It just has to be flightworthy in the first attempt. Think of the burn on the naysayers who portray MWF as obsolete for 2025. 

[souravB]

Indranil sir, I agree with you that cockpit development is a low hanging fruit. There are enough IT companies of TATA & Mahindra to develop and maintain RTOS, MMI, graphics engine and even ML based decision making. They already do these kind of outsourced work for Airbus & Boeing and can competently do these for HAL, ADA or any Indian orgs. Only problem is they'll charge an arm & both the legs which gov is not willing to pay.
Having said that, ADA can integrate systems it is developing for AMCA into MWF to mature the technologies before it is being put on AMCA, like
1. Leading edge active aperture conformal antennas for both datalink and EW. conformal MAWS.
2. High bandwidth networking.
3. EOTS like integral LDP to free up a hard point. (It might make unit cost more). It will be useful on MWF since it is envisaged as a strike aircraft.
4. Integration of AR based HMDs like BAE StrikerII or Elbit-Rockwell Collins HMD
These are also some low hanging fruit where the technology is available/obtainable for us but the design should take these into consideration.

[Kartik]

F-35 cockpit and sensor fusion is constantly evolving through block 4 and block 5 and will constantly be upgraded in a 2-4 year cycle through the next 10-15 years ( instead of a formal MLU). There is nothing one can do to make the cockpit objectively better ( as opposed to different) as the F-35 program is mature and pulls in whatever is best of class in terms industries ability to deliver. Case in point - the baseline cockpit displays were best of class in 2003..the ones being cut into production in 2020 are best in class as of 2017 and the same applies to Gen 3 helmet..same applies to mission systems ( advanced EOTS for example ) and mission computers which will surpass the F-15 Es mission computers as the fastest on a tactical fighter aircraft when they come online in 2022 (F-15 surpassed F-35 as the fastest mission computers on a fighter with its most latest upgrade )...The MWF needs to establish a baseline and stick to it just like every other program during its developmental stage. Upgrades are best left to follow on development. Delivering a Gripen E or Super Hornet caliber aircraft by 2026-2028 should be the focus. That is not a small lift. Enhancements can come later.

So you're advocating that instead of incremental capability addition via blocks or tranches, the best way to do is to set a baseline that is approximately at the level of the Gripen E, and try to attain that. That was the way that the LCA Mk1 was designed and sadly as delays built in trying to attain the full capability, scope creep and obsolescence management also had to be addressed, which shifted entry into service even further to the right.

Other programs such as the Rafale and Typhoon (and even the far less ambitious JF-17) have seen the incremental approach that allowed for a Release/Tranche/Block to be put into production and enter service with a smaller set of capabilities while the full capability set would be achieved in the 3rd or 4th Block (Rafale F3, Typhoon T3, etc.).

Given the extensive experience gleaned on the Tejas, I don't foresee too many issues adhering to schedule with detailed design of systems, design of the FCS (even with the canard adding new complexity), Brake Management Systems, hydraulics, electrical wiring and other new systems like the landing gear. But the testing and validation of all these complex systems will take time and thousands of flights, which is unavoidable.

But then add new features that haven't yet been done on any Indian program and that makes me a bit more nervous about schedules. My biggest concerns would be related to the integration of all the new systems on board (AESA, IRST, SPJ and MAWS), and then having all their data feeding into a single mission computer that then fuses it and provides the picture to the pilot. All this is very laborious and software intensive, which even with all of India's experience with software development, takes its own time.

If we don't go with incremental development, my fear is that the IOC itself will take 7-8 years from first flight, sliding introduction into service into 2029 or 2030.

However, the game changer could be the LCA SPORT. Seeing what was just a basic prototype cockpit, it is clear that the Large Area Display, Sensor Fusion etc., is all targeted for this version. if HAL does get orders for the LCA SPORT and actually has to develop and deliver that variant with the kind of cockpit shown in Aero India 2019, then that will definitely feed into the MWF and without a doubt ease its development significantly.

[Kartik]

Apologies, but here's a conspiracy theory.

Elbit is most likely. HAL managers will likely not be planning with Samtel (unless they're made to) as there are no foreign trips and kickbacks.

Their duplicity with regards to Elta 2052 AESA has convinced me. They're deep in Israeli pockets.

Borrowing from Hawk-i has IP related issues.

When did the following happen. And please do provide some sources, since this is BRF.

- Now we know that there isn't a single Jag flying with AESA, and there won't be, for atleast first 2 sqns (not counting the IMs)

So you're saying DARIN-3 Jaguars achieved FOC with which radar then?

All this while they've been causing issues with Uttam on LSP-2 by delaying the regular maintenance of the aircraft at every instance.

Source?

Also HAL's refusal for integrating Astra on Mk1 so they can make Mk1A look good is another reason.

Wow, this one is a new one and I sure do hope you have sources to prove this..Why would they do that? And the Astra only recently finished user trials and from other sources, is next in line for integration on to the Tejas Mk1. And AFAIK, if the IAF wants it done, HAL will comply and cannot refuse. they could've refused to integrate the Derby BVRAAM as well right? that would've made the Mk1A the only feasible option, wouldn't it?

I mean, why come up with such wild conspiracy theories?

the IAF has to request that this kind of integration work be done, the work has to be funded (it doesn't get done for free that much needs to be understood) and then it needs to be tested and validated by NFTC, which also costs money.

[Kartik]

You might be surprised.

I just found out. MWF will have single wide MFD. Currently layout is being designed at NFTC.

single Large Area Display like the LCA SPORT? Commonality would be fantastic, it'll cut down development time significantly! And if the SPORT actually goes into production, it'll cut down on the costs for putting that into production MWF fighters a bit as well.

[Kartik]

If a similar layout is already being developed for SPORT, it will speed things up significantly for MWF.

DARE already has large area displays available from SAMTEL. But the ELBIT one likely integrates a powerful compute engine with it, to generate maps and all the fancy graphics the display can be used for.

Great minds think alike, if I may shamelessly say so?

So the Elbit LAD includes a dedicated graphics engine to generate all those memory intensive graphics?

[srai]

^^^
Hopefully, these are being done in a synergistic manner with DRDO, SAMTEL, etc. Leverage each’s strength.

[Kartik]

2. I think this cockpit development is a low lying fruit. India is a IT capital of the world. This is simple. HAL has already developed its own RTOS which I hear is really fast. So they can have a fairly good display. NAL-NFTC And DRDO are doing a parallel development. I think you can see that implementation in NAL's yearly report. And it is important. Imagine a penpusher's first reaction when (s)he climbs into that cockpit. It is screams modern. Not even the most recent IAF induction, the Rafale has such an interface. Whether the displays are intuitive enough. Are the overlays good etc. can be figured out over the next 5 years. It's all fine. Those are software updates. It just has to be flightworthy in the first attempt. Think of the burn on the naysayers who portray MWF as obsolete for 2025. 

I would be happy to have my concerns on this be proven completely wrong. I haven't yet seen the Mk1A cockpit layout, and that should surely have been finalised a while ago, given that HAL is in the contracting phase now. Does it feature multiple MFDs or a LAD?

Agree 100% on the wow factor that this kind of cockpit adds. Most of the people that have very little clue about the modernity of a fighter design would probably make up their minds looking at the cockpit design and this kind of LAD or big touch screen displays totally make it appear to be ultra modern. I can bet that some decent marketing of the LCA Mk1A and MWF would go a long way in dealing with the kinds of dalals whose articles we've been seeing float up to the surface of gutters recently.

[Indranil]

I had seen tenders for the 5"X5" displays earlier. Those plans are dropped for sure. HAL is actually in quite advanced stages of their design. At AI'19 they showed it integrated with the simulator. They want to integrate it on a trainer LSP. ADA wants to get FOC on it first. So, this new displays is a surety moving forward.

They have been advertising this on Hawki for the past 3 years.



I mean if you look at the LCH/ALH/So-228 civilian cockpits today, this is not a big jump.

LCH


Dhruv


LUH


Civilian Do-228


HTT-40 (the same will be ported over to IJT)


It's not a big thing for them now.

[raghuk]

I dont think it is an issue of foreign trips and kickbacks but simply that HAL tries to always go for easy, proven solutions where their development team has it easy. This is a vice or virtue (depending on how you look at it, from indigenization or customer timeline perspective) common to several DPSUs when they approach such programs. BEL has also done this in the past.

This is not about proven systems! HAL is trying short-term lipstick measures using foreign vendors without any plans for indigenisation. Elta-2052, Cobham radome, AAR probe are some examples where high value imports are adding critical dependency because HAL is not interested in using desi product or indigenising the content. It wants to remain into screwdrivergiri.

Err, you couldn't be more wrong. 2052 has been chosen because, as things stand Uttam is NOT available. Mk1A has a particular timeline and to meet that timeline, configuration has to be frozen at a certain time making use of systems, which at the time of configuration freeze are proven. Story behind Cobham radome and other systems also is the same because there isn't a desi solution available. HAL cannot wait for R&D or an in development product to mature because HAL also has the responsibility to produce and support the product. HAL has in fact shown that whenever there is a proven indigenous solution available, it has embraced it whole heartedly or in some cases parallely developed an indigenous solution along with an import. This gradual indigenisation has helped programs like ALH, Darin, etc.
Also, nobody I repeat nobody is bothered about foreign trips while selecting systems. And except for unavoidable circumstances, it us usually the vendor who visits India and not the other way.
So please don't let your imagination run wild and please leave your biases aside before commenting on HAL. Not everything is a conspiracy and screwdrivergiri is not what HAL wants.

[brar_w]

. So you're advocating that instead of incremental capability addition via blocks or tranches, the best way to do is to set a baseline that is approximately at the level of the Gripen E, and try to attain that. That was the way that the LCA Mk1 was designed and sadly as delays built in trying to attain the full capability, scope creep and obsolescence management also had to be addressed, which shifted entry into service even further to the right.

No, I’m saying that instead Of requiring something at the level of the F-35 when it comes to fusion and how the pilot interacts with it (which was what the tweet said ), better to aim for something like the SH and Gripen-E and build up from there. Which one do you think is more reasonable from a risk perspective ?

[Dileep]

There are now a number of choices for the large area display. DRDO has floated a TDF project. Many companies are trying to build one. Then Elbit and L3Harris already have it.

The "Smart" display actually gets 'information' and does the rendering within the display itself. You can carry the data over an optical fiber (ARINC 818) or Ethernet. The data will have embedded video (from Radar, FLIR, Camera etc) and symbology data (ARINC 661). The display will render/layer it all together and show on the screen.

MK1A will have 5X5 displays as per chaiwale.

[Haridas]

You mean from fabrication perspective ?
From aerodynamic viewpoint it's expansion around the mk1 baseline that has been well charecterized, hence canards or length or 1 ft wider fuselage are delta exploration that needs validation. From control law perspective imho it's much safer, as the canard configuration can be forced to fall back to pure double delta cranked wing

Addition of canard would add additional terms for canard deflection in all the control loops and aircraft dynamics equations. A lot of updating would be required of the flight characteristics as with canard in place, wing aerodynamics would significantly have changed. But by now ADA's modelling tools would have been validated and tuned well enough that there first predictions will be close to the reality and time to fine tuning using flight data would be significantly less compared to what was needed for Mk1.

But how do you say it can be forced back to pure double delta wing..?? Do you mean letting the canard freely float..?? Indranil has previously alluded that the canards will not be used for pitch control but only for trimming (which I still cannot digest).

Apologies for late reply. Yes fall back to the known by free float.

[Haridas]

Having said that, ADA can integrate systems it is developing for AMCA into MWF to mature the technologies before it is being put on AMCA, like
1. Leading edge active aperture conformal antennas for both datalink and EW. conformal MAWS
2. High bandwidth networking.
3. EOTS like integral LDP to free up a hard point. (It might make unit cost more). It will be useful on MWF since it is envisaged as a strike aircraft.
4. Integration of AR based HMDs like BAE StrikerII or Elbit-Rockwell Collins HMD
These are also some low hanging fruit where the technology is available/obtainable for us but the design should take these into consideration.

Dual polarization wide band conformal antenna design & realization is fun but challenging..

[Indranil]

No Haridasji, floating the canard will not bring it back to Mk1 as the Cp of the double delta wing is actually behind the CG. Actually, floating the canard would make the plane statically stable. This will be the fail safe and as you said, easier. Gripen uses this method today.

[Kartik]

No, I’m saying that instead Of requiring something at the level of the F-35 when it comes to fusion and how the pilot interacts with it (which was what the tweet said ), better to aim for something like the SH and Gripen-E and build up from there. Which one do you think is more reasonable from a risk perspective ?

Well, I want the risk to be minimized to a degree that capabilities that current or in-development 4.5 generation fighters that the IAF is considering for its MRCA competition, should be what the IAF aims for. As soon as the last of the first batch of production fighters roll off the assembly line, the second tranche/batch/block whatever, with additional software upgrades can be rolled out, giving that many more years to the teams to work on that.

[JayS]

There are now a number of choices for the large area display. DRDO has floated a TDF project. Many companies are trying to build one. Then Elbit and L3Harris already have it.

The "Smart" display actually gets 'information' and does the rendering within the display itself. You can carry the data over an optical fiber (ARINC 818) or Ethernet. The data will have embedded video (from Radar, FLIR, Camera etc) and symbology data (ARINC 661). The display will render/layer it all together and show on the screen.

MK1A will have 5X5 displays as per chaiwale.

By the Smart display you mean "SMFD" I suppose. Good that you explained what it exactly meant. I was wondering. HAL had a tender out for MK1A SMFD IIRC.

[Indranil]

I reconfirmed today . MWF will have a single large MFD.

By the way, the 110 kN engine being developed for AMCA Mk2 will be a great midlife upgrade for MWF!

[nachiket]

Indranil, can find out what is the max dry thrust they are looking at for the new engine (whether it is F414 development or something else)? Not very important for MWF but critical for AMCA as far as supercruise is concerned. So far I have seen this 110kN figure in many places but that doesn't give us the full picture.

[JayS]

75/110 unless its changed recently.

[Prasad]

I reconfirmed today . MWF will have a single large MFD.

By the way, the 110 kN engine being developed for AMCA Mk2 will be a great midlife upgrade for MWF!

Can the mwf accomodate a larger engine?

[Aditya_V]

Except for the Inlet Fan diameter, the F404(84.5KN Wet) IN engine and the F414In6(98KN wet) have similar dimensions, weight is more by 40KG, I think GE is promising similair domenensions but stating that with slighty more weight to more tougher materials they can achieve the higher wet thrust 110KN engine.

[Indranil]

The EPE is actually not larger than the 414IN. It is supposedly a drop fit for aircrafts designed for the 414. It is advertised that no changes on inlet would be required either. But I dont understand how that's possible. Both engines have the same dimensions and pressure ratio, but the airflow of the EPE is higher. So how can the same inlet work for optimum pressure recovery. It may be okay for a straight inlet like F-18's. But is the same true for a serpentine? However, yes, the modifications will be minimal.

So, yes, the MWF can easily accommodate the 414 EPE.

[Prasad]

414EPE perhaps. But the AMCA engine will be bigger. And it isn't planned to replace the MWF 414 with it later.

[Indranil]

Yeah. No plans yet. My wet dreams.

[nachiket]

75/110 unless its changed recently.

Are you sure? That would give it the same dry thrust as an AL-31F! 2 of these babies on the AMCA would make it a hotrod on mil-power alone. 30kN more thrust dry than the F-35.

Sounds too good to be true honestly. How is GE going to extract 17kN extra dry thrust than the base 414 without seriously changing the size, weight and completely redesigning the core?

[Kartik]

I reconfirmed today . MWF will have a single large MFD.

By the way, the 110 kN engine being developed for AMCA Mk2 will be a great midlife upgrade for MWF!

So a single Large Area Display. Will make the MWF cockpit the most up-to-date of all IAF types when it enters service. I believe we already saw a mockup on the LCA-SPORT cockpit shown at AI-'19.

That is what is going on Brazilian Gripen Es and Sweden too is examining the possiblity of going for these over the 3 MFD configuration chosen for their Gripen Es.

One question for anyone who may know more on this- what happens if the single LAD fails? How are redundancies built into this design to cater to such a contingency?

[Karan M]

Thats the whole issue, it may have dual display processors but a single pane of glass...

[nachiket]

What exactly is the advantage of having a single large MFD vs 3 smaller individually configurable ones?

[vishvak]

what happens if the single LAD fails?

Prolly more important question is will it lead to complications in common logic processor device, which is how it is designed as of now if i recollect correctly. Can't remember exact name of the device though.

[JayS]

75/110 unless its changed recently.

Are you sure? That would give it the same dry thrust as an AL-31F! 2 of these babies on the AMCA would make it a hotrod on mil-power alone. 30kN more thrust dry than the F-35.

Sounds too good to be true honestly. How is GE going to extract 17kN extra dry thrust than the base 414 without seriously changing the size, weight and completely redesigning the core?

Not GE engine. I have looked a lot for the dry thrust spec for F414 EPE. I have never seen in on the internet. They are increasing the mass flow rate, redesigning the compressors and there is a hike of 64K in TET from one reference I have seen long time back. I have not made any back of the envelop calculations to see how much thrust rise in dry mode can be expected.

Its the clean sheet design 110kN engine that is being thought of. There was an tender, may be an ROI for it couple of years back. It should be there on Kaveri thread somewhere. In fact its still a bit underpowered if you ask me. We should be aiming for 90/120kN, TWR 10 engine. We are talking of achieving F119 like tech with tools available 30yrs later. Its very much doable. But given the risks due to the dodgy decision making and lack of will power to commit the massive resources Jet engine tech would need in a decade to come (should be ~5B minimum but ideally more than 10B for next decade), and given the safety net is much lower F414 at 65/98 or so, we cannot design AMCA with such engine. The lack of engine has hunted us for decades in past, and it will continue to hunt us for decades to come, solely due to our inability to take a decision and do whatever it takes to make it right. No guts no glory.

90/120kN engine would allow us to make AMCA a true multirole stealth aircraft with very good capability, we could have provided our boys in IAF, everything they could have wished for. Plus it would have allowed us to design LCA Mk3 with a proper LO airframe, even F414 EPE would be inadequate due to its limited dry thrust. And a big Ultra LO UCAV with LR Strike capability for first strike in densely contested enemy airspace. Not to mention the possibilities of using the same core for Civil applications.

[Dileep]

The LAD have two independent displays (and display controllers) behind a single glass sheet. So, the only common failure mode is the glass breaking, but if your MFD glass sheet breaks, you have worse problems already.

The HUD gives redundancy if both sides of the LAD fail. You can actually stream the critical flight control displays to the HUD and allow to fly home safe. The old scheme with 3 MFDs had quadruple redundancy. The LAD gets triple.

[srai]

^^^
Then there is HMD as well.

[Rakesh]

What exactly is the advantage of having a single large MFD vs 3 smaller individually configurable ones?

A pilot can customize his view during different phases of the mission. During critical phases of the mission it is crucial that the pilot focuses more on the mission than on flying the aircraft.

See this video from 4:30. Group Captain HVT Thakur (retd) is moving from one screen view to the next at a touch.

[Kartik]

The LAD have two independent displays (and display controllers) behind a single glass sheet. So, the only common failure mode is the glass breaking, but if your MFD glass sheet breaks, you have worse problems already.

The HUD gives redundancy if both sides of the LAD fail. You can actually stream the critical flight control displays to the HUD and allow to fly home safe. The old scheme with 3 MFDs had quadruple redundancy. The LAD gets triple.

Thanks for the info Dileep. So the HUD and HMDS could also provide backup in case there is a catastrophic failure of the LAD.

[Dileep]

At this point the HMDS doesn't support this backup capability AFAIK. There was some mention of bringing it to the fold, but I have no input on that. That is one point I should ask the chaiwale next time

The HUD is getting a major upgrade BTW. Waveguide optics and DLP technologies will come in, and we will be at state of the art. Should start thinking about holography soon.