Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019
Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019
I hope this info - in the last few posts - gives all BRFites much needed respite from the Air Chief NOT talking about the Tejas Mk2.
Rest assured, Tejas Mk2 will come. You cannot have AMCA/TEDBF/ORCA without Tejas Mk2. Tejas Mk2 will come.
Rest assured, Tejas Mk2 will come. You cannot have AMCA/TEDBF/ORCA without Tejas Mk2. Tejas Mk2 will come.
Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019
I'm not sure how reliable this is. Current Uttam is Gallium Arsenide, and is not yet certified. GaN seems a bit of a stretch for this timeline, (WAG); there used to be erroneous information before that Uttam was GaN in the first place.Rakesh wrote:https://twitter.com/joe_sameer/status/1 ... 33216?s=20 ---> Made possible by use of gallium nitride (GaN) in the Uttam AESA radar. GaN’s efficiency nearly doubles the TR modules here; components that use it emit approx five times the RF power of previous tech. For radars, that means better search capability at a lesser SWAP. Great upgrade.Rakesh wrote: https://twitter.com/Indrani1_Roy/status ... 20033?s=20 ---> LCA Mk2’s nose cone is smaller in length (~10%) and diameter (~10%) than Mk1s even though it will house a more powerful radar and internal IRST. In this thread, I want to show you how this is ONLY possible by build, learn, repeat. Instead of read (papers/brochures), think, repeat.
The above tweet in response to IR's tweet above. The author of the tweet is Sameer Joshi, a former IAF pilot who flew the Mirage 2000.
In fact, Alpha defense suggested a GaN iteration based on Uttam for AMCA https://alphadefense.in/alpha-exclusive ... -gan-aesa/
Others have suggested different configs ..https://idrw.org/what-we-know-of-growin ... ar-family/
-----
Also to Indranil's point on Mk2 radome :
Aman Routray tweeted A couple of days ago that ADA hs issued an RFP for 3 radomes for Mk2 , and gave dimensions. He also suggested that the quartz radome will be supplied by cobham's UK competitor Meggit aerospace and that there are indigenous radomes also in development. I would assume the change in supplier may be related to change in spec of the Mk2 radome and the performance
https://mobile.twitter.com/amanroutray7 ... 4915849216
Which still leaves open how LRDE tested the Mk2 radome/radar if the RFP just went out - was it entirely simulation, did they get a cobham sample from Mk1A or a one-off purchase for the testing.
Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019
But who is saying that LRDE has already tested Mk2 radar in the new Mk2 radome? Indranil talked about design changes for Mk2 based on the data gathered from testing the Uttam in the Mk1 testbed in the old radome which the Mk1A will use.Barath wrote: Also to Indranil's point on Mk2 radome :
Aman Routray tweeted A couple of days ago that ADA hs issued an RFP for 3 radomes for Mk2 , and gave dimensions. He also suggested that the quartz radome will be supplied by cobham's UK competitor Meggit aerospace and that there are indigenous radomes also in development. I would assume the change in supplier may be related to change in spec of the Mk2 radome and the performance
https://mobile.twitter.com/amanroutray7 ... 4915849216
Which still leaves open how LRDE tested the Mk2 radome/radar if the RFP just went out - was it entirely simulation, did they get a cobham sample from Mk1A or a one-off purchase for the testing.
Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019
That error was mine. Thanks for pointing it out
The previous suggestion holds - possibly the change in performance might also have something to do with new quartz radome spec and even the change in supplier. Ie radome changes might not be restricted to dimension alone.
Anyway, the new design won't be done done until it is tested and validated.
The previous suggestion holds - possibly the change in performance might also have something to do with new quartz radome spec and even the change in supplier. Ie radome changes might not be restricted to dimension alone.
Anyway, the new design won't be done done until it is tested and validated.
-
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 4111
- Joined: 30 Jul 2004 15:05
- Location: Spectator in the dossier diplomacy tennis match
Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019
Air force clears Tejas Mark 2 design, production begins in 2023
https://www.ajaishukla.com/2021/12/air- ... esign.html
By Ajai Shukla
Business Standard, 29th Dec 21
https://www.ajaishukla.com/2021/12/air- ... esign.html
By Ajai Shukla
Business Standard, 29th Dec 21
A major landmark in that evolution was passed on November 15, when the Deputy Chief of Air Staff (DCAS), Air Marshal Narmdeshwar Tiwari, accepted the comprehensive design review (CDR) of the LCA Mark 2.
A CDR is a multi-discipline, technical review that is a critical step in designing an aircraft. It involves examining the air frame design to ascertain that the aircraft is ready for fabrication and testing and it would achieve its stipulated performance within cost, schedule and risk.
The Indian Air Force’s (IAF’s) acceptance of the CDR clears the way for Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) to start releasing drawings for fabricating the Mark 2’s first prototype.
Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019
A new radome was necessitated because of the requirement to include an IRST sensor which takes up space in the nose. I don't know if the aerodynamic advantages of a smaller radome is merely a beneficial side-effect or a primary design consideration for the Mk2. Otherwise they might have used the same larger radome from the Mk1A while incorporating the improvements like smaller and tighter packed T/R elements that Indranil talks about. Could have led to even better performance albeit with the disadvantages of no IRST and no aerodynamic improvements. The path they have taken seems to be much more balanced and useful.Barath wrote:That error was mine. Thanks for pointing it out
The previous suggestion holds - possibly the change in performance might also have something to do with new quartz radome spec and even the change in supplier. Ie radome changes might not be restricted to dimension alone.
Anyway, the new design won't be done done until it is tested and validated.
Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019
I don't understand the confusion.
Uttam mk1 for Tejas mk1a, GaAs based. Nose radome is bigger than required. Changing it at this time will delay Mk1A production.
Uttam mk2 for Tejas mk2, GaN based. Nose radome optimized for optimal clearance. The smaller radar and lower clearance means that the radar is placed about 250mm ahead of where it is placed in Mk1A. Opening up space for internal IRST.
Mk1A can be optimized at MLU!
Uttam mk1 for Tejas mk1a, GaAs based. Nose radome is bigger than required. Changing it at this time will delay Mk1A production.
Uttam mk2 for Tejas mk2, GaN based. Nose radome optimized for optimal clearance. The smaller radar and lower clearance means that the radar is placed about 250mm ahead of where it is placed in Mk1A. Opening up space for internal IRST.
Mk1A can be optimized at MLU!
Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019
For various tenders it is clear that GaN based Vivaldi TRMs, QTRMs, planks and arrays are entering manufacturing. And these are not just for Uttam Mk2.
When Uttam mk2 is fabricated, it will most probably enter testing with the new radome fitted on business jet, and then Tejas mk2 prototype.
When Uttam mk2 is fabricated, it will most probably enter testing with the new radome fitted on business jet, and then Tejas mk2 prototype.
-
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 4297
- Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10
Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019
Indranil: is the reason for the smaller radome in MK2 to reduce aerodynamic drag that you mentioned in your Twitter thread?
Otherwise, why not have a larger radome (or at least the same size as Mk1) with a more powerful Uttam?
Would you happen to know the radome size of MK2 vs Gripen-E by any chance?
Otherwise, why not have a larger radome (or at least the same size as Mk1) with a more powerful Uttam?
Would you happen to know the radome size of MK2 vs Gripen-E by any chance?
Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019
How Tejas Mark 2 is evolving into a bigger, powerful fighter
https://www.ajaishukla.com/2021/12/how- ... -into.html
30 Dec 2021
https://www.ajaishukla.com/2021/12/how- ... -into.html
30 Dec 2021
Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019
I added both the recent articles from Ajai Shuka onto Page 1 of this thread.
Does anyone know to work that Twitter Thread Reader App? I want to condense all of IR's recent tweets (on the previous page) into a single link and post it on Page 1 for reference.
Does anyone know to work that Twitter Thread Reader App? I want to condense all of IR's recent tweets (on the previous page) into a single link and post it on Page 1 for reference.
Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019
even without the aerodynamic issue, I think the electrical power drawn only goes up with the smaller but more powerful version and they must have reached a sweet spot beyond which the radar would draw more on board power than available(keeping in mind other possible susbsystems in future) or required for acceptable performance.Prem Kumar wrote:Indranil: is the reason for the smaller radome in MK2 to reduce aerodynamic drag that you mentioned in your Twitter thread?
Otherwise, why not have a larger radome (or at least the same size as Mk1) with a more powerful Uttam?
Would you happen to know the radome size of MK2 vs Gripen-E by any chance?
Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019
The number of TRM on the MK2 radar is dependent on the power availability on the platform and the power rating of the TRM.
GaN TRMs has higher power rating. A 20W GaN TRM, if used on MK1 Uttam would technically require only 370 odd TRM, instead of 740+. The radar will become half in size!
So a Uttam MK2 with 900 TRM ( say of 20W TRM) has almost 2.5 times the power output of MK1 Uttam! Theoretically it can handle 18KW, although I would assume in regular ops it will around 9 to 10KW.
LCA MK1 can provide around 3 to 4KW of power. Which is exactly half of 7.8KW theoretical power rating of Uttam = 780 TRM X 10W
GaN TRMs has higher power rating. A 20W GaN TRM, if used on MK1 Uttam would technically require only 370 odd TRM, instead of 740+. The radar will become half in size!
So a Uttam MK2 with 900 TRM ( say of 20W TRM) has almost 2.5 times the power output of MK1 Uttam! Theoretically it can handle 18KW, although I would assume in regular ops it will around 9 to 10KW.
LCA MK1 can provide around 3 to 4KW of power. Which is exactly half of 7.8KW theoretical power rating of Uttam = 780 TRM X 10W
Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019
Here you go https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1476 ... 20033.htmlRakesh wrote:Does anyone know to work that Twitter Thread Reader App?I want to condense all of IR's recent tweets (on the previous page) into a single link and post it on Page 1 for reference.
The website is https://threadreaderapp.com/ and if you're on twitter you just have to reply to (or quote) any tweet of the thread you want to unroll and mention @threadreaderapp with the "unroll" keyword.
Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019
Correct. The Mk2s radar is much more powerful than that of Mk1A. In fact generating so much power from a single engine and also cooling is the constraint.Rahul M wrote:even without the aerodynamic issue, I think the electrical power drawn only goes up with the smaller but more powerful version and they must have reached a sweet spot beyond which the radar would draw more on board power than available(keeping in mind other possible susbsystems in future) or required for acceptable performance.Prem Kumar wrote:Indranil: is the reason for the smaller radome in MK2 to reduce aerodynamic drag that you mentioned in your Twitter thread?
Otherwise, why not have a larger radome (or at least the same size as Mk1) with a more powerful Uttam?
Would you happen to know the radome size of MK2 vs Gripen-E by any chance?
Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019
Can that be ported to LCAMK1A after few tranches?
Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019
I don't understand why Uttam Mk2 + smaller radome + IRST can be added to Mk1/Mk1A at MLU.
Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019
Due to the very same constraints. Power & thermal management.
Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019
Adding a new radar during the MLU and an IRST is possible. Changing the just the radome size with no other changes is unlikely to achieve benefits. A larger radome makes thermal management much easier.Indranil wrote:I don't understand why Uttam Mk2 + smaller radome + IRST can be added to Mk1/Mk1A at MLU.
Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019
Array size is as important as power since that will decide the achievable beamwidth. This has major implications for LPI requirements (a wider beam means more dispersed power => increased chance of emissions being picked up by passive sensors => Higher probability of intercept). Furthermore, the directivity gain offered by a larger array can help improve radar sensitivity and probability of detection with a lower peak power. This again reduces the prob. of intercept.nam wrote: GaN TRMs has higher power rating. A 20W GaN TRM, if used on MK1 Uttam would technically require only 370 odd TRM, instead of 740+. The radar will become half in size!
So a Uttam MK2 with 900 TRM ( say of 20W TRM) has almost 2.5 times the power output of MK1 Uttam! Theoretically it can handle 18KW, although I would assume in regular ops it will around 9 to 10KW.
LCA MK1 can provide around 3 to 4KW of power. Which is exactly half of 7.8KW theoretical power rating of Uttam = 780 TRM X 10W
So making the radar smaller in size might not be the best idea if that means the array size is reduced. A smaller overall size is better for real-estate management in the nose of the aircraft. On the flip side, a larger array makes for a higher RCS, so it's all a big trade-off.
Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019
Thanks for confirming IR.Indranil wrote:I don't understand the confusion.
Uttam mk1 for Tejas mk1a, GaAs based. Nose radome is bigger than required. Changing it at this time will delay Mk1A production.
Uttam mk2 for Tejas mk2, GaN based. Nose radome optimized for optimal clearance. The smaller radar and lower clearance means that the radar is placed about 250mm ahead of where it is placed in Mk1A. Opening up space for internal IRST.
Mk1A can be optimized at MLU!
However, one question regarding Uttam Mk2 for the Tejas Mk2. With the news that LRDE is considering a repositioner for the Uttam Mk2, similar to that used by Selex for the ES-05A Raven, will the tight clearances for the Mk2 radome be adequate to allow for swiveling the radar face by any worthwhile degree?
Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019
I had the same thought. But they must have considered it Kartik.
Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019
If Shuklaji is extolling the virtues of LCA Mk2, I can only imagine how good LCA MK2 will turn out to be Now that 2022 is here, I can't wait to see the prototype in flesh & blood Normally, I don't pay much attention to Shuklaji but the blog did not mention Brahmos NG, though there is a reference to Mica & Scalp. Are Scalp & Brahmos NG in the same class?Rakesh wrote:How Tejas Mark 2 is evolving into a bigger, powerful fighter
https://www.ajaishukla.com/2021/12/how- ... -into.html
30 Dec 2021
To me, the single biggest advantage of LCA Mk2 is that it is designed to carry & deliver a lot of ordnance, especially Brahmos NG. This capability was not an afterthought (like the air launched Brahmos from Su30MKI). Just imagine the options for IAF having 120-150 LCA Mk2s in the inventory
Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019
You rock! Thank You Added on Page 1.m_saini wrote:Here you go https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1476 ... 20033.html
The website is https://threadreaderapp.com/ and if you're on twitter you just have to reply to (or quote) any tweet of the thread you want to unroll and mention @threadreaderapp with the "unroll" keyword.
Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019
https://twitter.com/RAFIndia_/status/14 ... 53122?s=20 ---->
Incorporating all the technology developed and experience gained, a more powerful and bigger version Tejas Mk2 is under development.
• Tejas Mk2 roll-out is planned later this year
• First flight by 2024 and production by ~2027
• Six squadrons of Tejas Mk2 are planned
PIC - Kuntal Biswas
Incorporating all the technology developed and experience gained, a more powerful and bigger version Tejas Mk2 is under development.
• Tejas Mk2 roll-out is planned later this year
• First flight by 2024 and production by ~2027
• Six squadrons of Tejas Mk2 are planned
PIC - Kuntal Biswas
Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019
@Rakesh ji - on the page 1, can you please update:
Future Milestones
• First flight expected in 2022
to "roll out in 2022, first flight 2024" ? (based on the inputs from above post)
Future Milestones
• First flight expected in 2022
to "roll out in 2022, first flight 2024" ? (based on the inputs from above post)
Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019
Bharat-ji, I have updated it. But I hope IR can confirm this.bharathp wrote:@Rakesh ji - on the page 1, can you please update:
Future Milestones
• First flight expected in 2022
to "roll out in 2022, first flight 2024" ? (based on the inputs from above post)
The author of this tweet needs to confirm some data (not-related to the Tejas Mk2).
Please see the Tejas Mk1 thread ---> viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7878&p=2529288#p2529288
Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019
From Ajai Shukla's article
andd
500 kg, 450kg, 250 kg etc.
The Inertial Guided Bomb is not called HSLD.
Or become more agile with the removal of ballast.Furthermore, the Tejas Mark 1 is burdened with 300 kilos of ballast --- dead weight inserted incrementally while designing the fighter, to correct its centre of gravity. If the internal LRUs are re-arranged and the ballast removed, the Tejas Mark 2 could instead carry 300 kg more of useful payload.
andd
I think it might be the 1000 kg that is missing from the HSLD menu:Meanwhile, the DRDO’s Armament Research & Development Establishment is developing a range of bombs for the Tejas Mark 2, such as the Tara (high speed, low drag) bomb that is mounted on the pylons.
500 kg, 450kg, 250 kg etc.
The Inertial Guided Bomb is not called HSLD.
-
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 4680
- Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
- Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3
Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019
Wasn't it planned to rearrange the LRUs for Mk1A itself to reduce the ballast to 75kg or similar?
Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019
Yes rearranging LRUS in Mk1A itself and reducing some ballast is one of the goals.
Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019
DFI has a sketch that shows, Tara, as a guided bomb in the same location as Brahmos airborne.
-
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 2428
- Joined: 01 Apr 2010 17:00
Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019
How easy is that? Would that also mean re doing all the wirings? Also would have create a maintenance issue with LRU's becoming inaccessible /complicated to get to?ramana wrote:Yes rearranging LRUS in Mk1A itself and reducing some ballast is one of the goals.
Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019
The wiring harness is the cheapest to change out is they can relocate the LRUs for ease of maintenance.
Look at Dilip's post linked in the first post of Tejas thread.
About 34 LRUs have frequent breakdowns.
Look at Dilip's post linked in the first post of Tejas thread.
About 34 LRUs have frequent breakdowns.
So dual strategy would be better reliability and relocation for swap out.8. High failure rate of 34 types LRUs which is still being worked on.
Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019
What limits Tejas available power?nam wrote:..So a Uttam MK2 with 900 TRM ( say of 20W TRM) has almost 2.5 times the power output of MK1 Uttam! Theoretically it can handle 18KW, although I would assume in regular ops it will around 9 to 10KW.
LCA MK1 can provide around 3 to 4KW of power. Which is exactly half of 7.8KW theoretical power rating of Uttam = 780 TRM X 10W
What are low hanging choice to increase available power for radar?
I know F404 has built in generator with specific output rating and there would be few options.
What about RAT on tail side?
Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019
And overall diameter determines beamwidth ( antenna gain). Inter-element spacing has to be less then 0.5 labda(wavelength), smaller spacing (higher density TRM) allows scaling up power output at expense of cost, complexity and reliability, in addition to worsening mutual coupling impacting drive impedence, phase response and bandwidth that changes for each beam forming weight.k prasad wrote:Array size is as important as power since that will decide the achievable beamwidth. This has major implications for LPI requirements (a wider beam means more dispersed power => increased chance of emissions being picked up by passive sensors => Higher probability of intercept). Furthermore, the directivity gain offered by a larger array can help improve radar sensitivity and probability of detection with a lower peak power. This again reduces the prob. of intercept.nam wrote: GaN TRMs has higher power rating. A 20W GaN TRM, if used on MK1 Uttam would technically require only 370 odd TRM, instead of 740+. The radar will become half in size!
So a Uttam MK2 with 900 TRM ( say of 20W TRM) has almost 2.5 times the power output of MK1 Uttam! Theoretically it can handle 18KW, although I would assume in regular ops it will around 9 to 10KW.
LCA MK1 can provide around 3 to 4KW of power. Which is exactly half of 7.8KW theoretical power rating of Uttam = 780 TRM X 10W
So making the radar smaller in size might not be the best idea if that means the array size is reduced. A smaller overall size is better for real-estate management in the nose of the aircraft. On the flip side, a larger array makes for a higher RCS, so it's all a big trade-off.
Hence reducing radome antenna aperture in TEJAS MK2 seems jarring.
Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019
Most have forgotten Ajai Shukla sustained vitriol against LCA Tejas at behest of lifafa from Chandigarh mafia lobby.la.khan wrote:If Shuklaji is extolling the virtues of LCA Mk2, I can only imagine how good LCA MK2 will turn out to be Now that 2022 is here, I can't wait to see the prototype in flesh & blood Normally, I don't pay much attention to Shuklaji but the blog did not mention Brahmos NG, though there is a reference to Mica & Scalp. Are Scalp & Brahmos NG in the same class? ..Rakesh wrote:How Tejas Mark 2 is evolving into a bigger, powerful fighter
https://www.ajaishukla.com/2021/12/how- ... -into.html
30 Dec 2021
Exemplary Presstitutes.
-
- BRFite
- Posts: 153
- Joined: 24 Aug 2006 07:16
- Location: Yerramandi, Dhoolpeta
Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019
Likely building credibility/google rank of his bs blog with clickbait content for jingos.
Haridas wrote:Most have forgotten Ajai Shukla sustained vitriol against LCA Tejas at behest of lifafa from Chandigarh mafia lobby.la.khan wrote: If Shuklaji is extolling the virtues of LCA Mk2, ...
Exemplary Presstitutes.
Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019
what people have further forgotten is this -
1. The same guy along with other retd IA officers like him were on a UPA-sponsored panel to give away Siachen to TSP. I guess they stopped when other officers threatened revolt which Sonia Maino may not be able to handle
2. He was the one rejoicing our CDS Shri Bipin Rawat's demise.
His list of follies are endless. But based on the above it is sufficient that I will not read his blog or link it anywhere. It does not matter what info he brings. More importantly how/why the establishment grant him access/interview
Dalla
1. The same guy along with other retd IA officers like him were on a UPA-sponsored panel to give away Siachen to TSP. I guess they stopped when other officers threatened revolt which Sonia Maino may not be able to handle
2. He was the one rejoicing our CDS Shri Bipin Rawat's demise.
His list of follies are endless. But based on the above it is sufficient that I will not read his blog or link it anywhere. It does not matter what info he brings. More importantly how/why the establishment grant him access/interview
Dalla
Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019
Brahmos NG hasn’t even been test fired for ground launch I highly doubt an air launch version will even be tested before 2030 so it make sense why he left out. Brahmos NG will be in same class so if it can carry Scalp it can carry NG.la.khan wrote:If Shuklaji is extolling the virtues of LCA Mk2, I can only imagine how good LCA MK2 will turn out to be Now that 2022 is here, I can't wait to see the prototype in flesh & blood Normally, I don't pay much attention to Shuklaji but the blog did not mention Brahmos NG, though there is a reference to Mica & Scalp. Are Scalp & Brahmos NG in the same class?Rakesh wrote:How Tejas Mark 2 is evolving into a bigger, powerful fighter
https://www.ajaishukla.com/2021/12/how- ... -into.html
30 Dec 2021
To me, the single biggest advantage of LCA Mk2 is that it is designed to carry & deliver a lot of ordnance, especially Brahmos NG. This capability was not an afterthought (like the air launched Brahmos from Su30MKI). Just imagine the options for IAF having 120-150 LCA Mk2s in the inventory
-
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 5393
- Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26
Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019
Second that. From his pissing on the arjun to his latest celebration at CDS' demise, this dude is.......(fill in the blank)fanne wrote:what people have further forgotten is this -
1. The same guy along with other retd IA officers like him were on a UPA-sponsored panel to give away Siachen to TSP. I guess they stopped when other officers threatened revolt which Sonia Maino may not be able to handle
2. He was the one rejoicing our CDS Shri Bipin Rawat's demise.
His list of follies are endless. But based on the above it is sufficient that I will not read his blog or link it anywhere. It does not matter what info he brings. More importantly how/why the establishment grant him access/interview
Dalla