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

[Kartik]

Hlft 42 is there to fill role of tejas mk2. Amca is far more important since there's no fallback option. Tejas mk2 was a jobs programme parrotted by successive drdo/Ada chief like Dr Girish Deodhare to further their career goals within the organisation.
I agree with prodyut das about Chinese fighters. We should develop satellite based surveillance and asymmetric drone capabilities to deter Chinese planes from planning strikes into our territory.

You have ZERO idea how vital Dr Girish Deodhare was to the success of the LCA program. He was one of the pioneers of the Flight Control System team that delivered spectacular results even after the setback when they were kicked out of the US and their computers seized. He has a doctorate from Univ of Waterloo in Control Systems and was someone who could've built a very good career outside of India for a far bigger paycheck but decided to instead work in India and work in the LCA program.

He didn't push the Tejas Mk2, the IAF did! It was the IAF that asked for an enlarged Tejas Mk1 with F-414/EJ200 engine. It was the IN that asked for a new clean sheet TEDBF rather than the single engine NLCA Mk2 that was at that time in a far more mature state of design.

The gall to make such rubbish allegations!

[maitya]

Though the discussion is on the Chinese new fangled aircraft, this YT has remarks on Tejas and the need to have MK1A, MK2 and then AMCA. Watch around 35 min to around 50 min - Industrial capability and evolution of supply chain parts requires incremental work and substantial orders. India invested properly into the missile segment and currently India is quite self sufficient in the missile arena and their missiles are increasingly sophisticated and world class, with newer, advanced missiles revealed periodically.

Getting a robust industrial aerospace segment is key to India advancing in the fighter jet arena. Considering the economic rise of India in the world this segment requires necessary sustained funding and talent induction to yield fruits.

Saurav Jha with Aadi Achint
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwH7R4fvpQs

You missed the most important point - ... the parts-commonality between Mk1A and Mk2 is merely 25-27% - whereas between Mk2 and AMCA is 75%+ ...
So, you try some stupid stunt like cancelling Mk2 and try ang go straight to AMCA etc,
1) you delay the AMCA program by 10+ years, and maybe fatally - as these common parts will still require to be designed, tested and certified before they come anywhere near the AMCA platform
2) and if by some miracle, these parts do get designed, tested and certified, how exactly are they going to be mass-manufactured (for AMCA)? Ab-initio by the MIC, without any prior experience of doing so?

Ofcourse, tech transfer and mass-manufacturing is Childs play, that can be switched-off and on at whim.
And of course, in the intervening period, the for-profit MSMEs, who form the bulk of our nascent LiC Mfg ecosystem, will sit around waiting for the trickle-feed AMCA orders to come, desperately trying to figure out the mfg technologies of these next-gen parts (and their relevant mfg processes), ab-initio.

Actually, only a desperate import-pasand shill can be suggesting such ideas - the lifafas must have started arriving thick and fast - after all, cancelled Mk2, only means,
1) lip-smacking 150+ imported 4/4.5 Gen toys, in the near term
2) in the medium term, fatally delay the AMCA program, so that need for an imported 5th Gen platforms can be argued for - starting with emergency-purchase tranches (e.g 36 odd)
3) long-term, cancel the AMCA, and fully move on to these imported 5th Gen platforms (similar to another MRFA like tamasha)

However, what I find surprising is, and SJha does mention it as well, with the principal adversary demonstrating so starkly, what all can be achieved via developing a true-blue atmanirbharata based mil capability, there are still folks around who simply are not able to see thru these sinister designs being employed.

Oh well ...

[Manish_P]

...
You missed the most important point - ... the parts-commonality between Mk1A and Mk2 is merely 25-27% - whereas between Mk2 and AMCA is 75%+ ...
...

Thank you sir for highlighting this very very basic truth.

It's amazing how often this gets under-estimated, ignored or lost (or not well understood by non-engineers like me)

[drnayar]

A squadron of gold plated rafale f4 = entire tejas mark 2 program .. might have some left over for AMCA.

Key is time. No delays. Start spending and get right people and infrastructure

And please to invest in the high altitude engine test center

As some one pointed out the Chinese 6th generation fighter is for PR " look how mighty we are.. don't fight us..Just roll over "

[BenG]

...
You missed the most important point - ... the parts-commonality between Mk1A and Mk2 is merely 25-27% - whereas between Mk2 and AMCA is 75%+ ...
...

F-35-A models had utmost commonality of 40% after detailed engineering and manufacturing. The commonality of parts between the different F-35 models if you ignore cousin parts and unique parts is between 20-25%. You can refer this interview ---> https://youtu.be/3-EufOSYEu4?si=SE3yJhakvnXuJVUt&t=2938 by former F-35 program executive officer, USAF Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan. The claims by DRDO that a single engine fighter and twin-engine fighter will share 75% of parts is beyond a statistical error. It is B*. Even if you ignore size difference in airframe, the power transmission, other parts which connect the subsystems will be far different and contribute more than 30% of aircraft value rendering DRDO's claims as canard. The engineering efforts on those parts will be extremely divergent as will as the manufacturing process. MK2 will take human, financial and industrial capital away from AMCA leading to more delays.

You have ZERO idea how vital Dr Girish Deodhare was to the success of the LCA program. He was one of the pioneers of the Flight Control System team that delivered spectacular results even after the setback when they were kicked out of the US and their computers seized. He has a doctorate from Univ of Waterloo in Control Systems and was someone who could've built a very good career outside of India for a far bigger paycheck but decided to instead work in India and work in the LCA program.

At an individual level, he has contributed a lot. But once you get into managerial duties, the outcomes of your efforts are more aligned with the consensus reached by powers that be. As a head of the organization he has to work with people who do not share his enthusiasm and bosses who are more interested to preserve the organization's narrow interests. But they make people like him poster boys to hide their own failures. I definitely hope people like him enter the private sector in India post retirement and build technology for cutting edge aircraft as well as share holder wealth.

He didn't push the Tejas Mk2, the IAF did! It was the IAF that asked for an enlarged Tejas Mk1 with F-414/EJ200 engine. It was the IN that asked for a new clean sheet TEDBF rather than the single engine NLCA Mk2 that was at that time in a far more mature state of design.

The gall to make such rubbish allegations!

But he is the one on record stating that without the mk2 there is no AMCA or TEDBF. Either he was willing to go with the official narrative and retire quietly or he himself believed it. I believe it was the former. At retirement age, unless you have family money, you can't fight a losing fight against govt organizations and risk your pension.

IF IAF asked for a more powerful mk1, DRDO should have put in F414, improved the area ruling and tried to get IOC for that frame. The fact of the matter is that it was Indian Navy which asked for a more powerful engine explicitly. DRDO should have delivered an IOC version of such a airframe before beginning mirage 2000 replacement. The could have begun Mirage-2000 replacement after MMRCA was cancelled. But the problem was Tejas mk1 did not even attain IOC-2 when mk2 was proposed. I'm not complaining about FOC since its normal to induct before FOC. DRDO is hand in glove with IAF in some aspects to cover up their own shortcomings. All the organizations also suffer from institutional amnesia and produce the same reasons like ab-initio development of aircraft, technology denial and inadequate funding etc every time they are questioned over the span of this quarter century.

[uddu]

The commonality mentioned is mostly for the electronics, avionics, engines, weaponary and other components that will need much more frequent replcement and upgrades. Any kind of commonality is a welcome step and a positive development.

[Manish_P]

..
As some one pointed out the Chinese 6th generation fighter is a tamasha..mainly for PR " look how mighty we are.. don't fight us..Just roll over "

Going by the popular dictum that consider Chinese Gen as Minus 1. This aircraft would be nearer 5th gen.. (or IMHO 4.5/4.75 gen).

Still a fact which cannot be ignored is that they might have this aircraft, or it's iterative development, in the numbers in the next 10 years or so. Probably with a variant equipped with long range AWACs killer AAMs. Possibly with capability of supporting Unmanned wing-man UCAVs

Will we then still look at it as a tamasha?

[srai]

^^^
Just like their jet engines WS-10 series, WS-20 …
Just like their FC-1, J-10, J-11, J-15, J-16, J-20, J-35, et al …
Just like their Y-20 …

[Baikul]

I’m a complete layman on this subject, but I flat out refuse to believe that the Chinese 6th gen is tamasha.

The last two decades on this forum - how we derided Chinesium, our great hopes for Kaveri and our fighter program and the crushing reality we face today - have taught me that much at least.

So those who think China is indulging in tamasha, well dil ko khush rakhne ke liye Ghalib ye khaya accha hai…

[VKumar]

One squadron of Rafale every year till AMCA is available

[sanjayc]

If the Chinese are not there in 6th Gen fighter yet, they will be there in another 10 years as they keep working on the prototype. Where will India be in 10 years? We will be lucky to induct a single Tejas MK2.

The trick is always to get the first prototype built, induct a few, and then start working on an improved version, induct a few, and then again start working on yet another improved version. The problem arises when Indian armed forces insist that the first prototype must absolutely be perfect for their needs and compete with the best in the world

[Jay]

One squadron of Rafale every year till AMCA is available

Repeat after me...MONEY SPENT OF FOREIGN FIGHTERS IS MONEY NOT SPENT ON OUR OWN WELLBEING....

What we have is enough and we need to learn to live with it.

[Cain Marko]

F-35-A models had utmost commonality of 40% after detailed engineering and manufacturing. The commonality of parts between the different F-35 models if you ignore cousin parts and unique parts is between 20-25%. You can refer this interview ---> https://youtu.be/3-EufOSYEu4?si=SE3yJhakvnXuJVUt&t=2938 by former F-35 program executive officer, USAF Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan. The claims by DRDO that a single engine fighter and twin-engine fighter will share 75% of parts is beyond a statistical error. It is B*. Even if you ignore size difference in airframe, the power transmission, other parts which connect the subsystems will be far different and contribute more than 30% of aircraft value rendering DRDO's claims as canard. The engineering efforts on those parts will be extremely divergent as will as the manufacturing process. MK2 will take human, financial and industrial capital away from AMCA leading to more delays.

75% commonality between mk1a and mk1, I'll believe that. Between mk1a and MK2, I'll believe that with a pinch of salt and olive oil (only if it is extra and virgin). Between MK2 and AMCA, I'll go tell you to keep the salt and whatever snake oil you're trying to sell with it.

I notice that the ADA/drdo is some kind of sacred cow on this forum. Sorry, I'm not buying it. Thank you for posting some hard and provocative questions here.

[BenG]

Thank you so much, Cain Marko. I really appreciate that.

ADA/DRDO has a mandate within their charter which says that it should say yes to every r&d project. This was a reply Kalam sir had given to a now prominent but then a young defence correspondent. I can't remember the name of the journalist or his book. It was in private so that in future he won't admonish and demoralise the political class about the drdo led system. Back then, there was no backup for any drdo led research initiatives. In my opinion, if any scientist or engineers don't come out of DRDO/HAL till retirement to start or collaborate with others on their own thing. Then they were probably comfortable with systemic issues of the organisation. They will defend it at the cost of reason, logic and national interest. It is just typical human tendency.

IAF too is not a saint. They had an option to buy 18 more Rafale. But the option was not exercised. It was a political circus at the time as well. However it was IAF's desire to float MRFA which made them complicit with the charade. Mrfa and the prospect of foreign trips at the cost of OEM is what motivates senior managers at the middle level to indulge in perpetual RFI/RFP. This desire for mrfa was also a huge factor in their dragging out negotiations for mk1a. IAF and MoD wanted the mk1a deal done at half the cost that was eventually agreed to. But for MMRCA, the vice-chief had remarked that he does not care about cost and IAF's mandate was to enhance capacity and capability

HAL is quite a competent organisation despite their flaws. HAL was not initially enthusiastic about 20 IOC and 20 FOC orders. They were holding back their investments for MMRCA and put up token manpower for Tejas. But Once MMRCA was scrapped, the came up with mk1a and pushed it with full gusto to get meaningful production numbers. Parrikar ji could not have done it on his own without HAL. Now, they are doing the equivalent of ioc/foc of a new fighter within an year of it's flight. I'm sure given the autonomy, despite the constant nagging from CAG wrt HTFE-25 and hjt 36, they can bring out good products. I hope they spend 50% of profits on R&D from current 15%. They are never going to create share holder wealth. The govt will just take any profits and cash as dividend. So it's better to setup more r&d infrastructure on their own.

I don't want to admonish DRDO, HAL or IAF. Instead of using tinted glass, I just see them for what they are.

Wrt Chinese fighters, new fighters/bombers are coming and they will be more capable than all aircraft in our inventory. No matter the amount of squadrons, we can't deter China. We need to develop asymmetric capabilities. Our aircraft need not be uber sophisticated like the Americans or Chinese. They need to be cheap, niche towards their role and easy to manufacture. For eg, Small, stealthy drones armed with only air-air munitions will be undetectable by AWACS let along fighters, these can be deployed at our borders. They don't need range/endurance to perform strikes deep into enemy territory. These should be networked with our satellite surveillance and SAM systems. We need AI to create the level of synergy which will allow rapid response from theatre commands. No country on the face of this planet can develop full spectrum capabilities to completely overcome an enemy half it's size. Hopefully, the private sector will be able to do the needful and provide our jawans with the disruptive techs needed for future wars.

Wrt tejas mk2, during aero India 2025, I expect to see some sort of modification to it's air intake based on onera testing. If the scientists again display the same mockup from 2 years prior with the ppt of how mk2 evolved and how it's vital for AMCA, then it'll confirm that we have a bunch of lazy bums in positions of bureaucracy stifling any change in order to save themselves from doing any re-work and just kick the can down the road.

The other post was supposed to be my last. I need to be back at work now. But I wanted to say thanks.

[Rakesh]

One squadron of Rafale every year till AMCA is available

Repeat after me...MONEY SPENT OF FOREIGN FIGHTERS IS MONEY NOT SPENT ON OUR OWN WELLBEING....

What we have is enough and we need to learn to live with it.

You are wasting your time. Do not bother. This is his MO. Best ignored.

[Rakesh]

Rakesh ji, your post about repeating 'mk2 as essential' mantra just hit me like a ton of bricks. It is this line of thinking which allows DRDO to get away with repeted failures. I am sorry for not being to answer to your posts. I got family work now.

Let me humour you

Lets say we follow your suggestion of cancelling Tejas Mk2 and replace it with HFLT-42.

Which organization do you want to develop the latter? If it is the same organization that is developing the Tejas Mk2, good luck!

You are on record stating that the forum is taking words of our bureaucratic scientists as holy gospel. For your review below...

The forum taking the words of our bureaucratic scientists as holy gospel is just sad. Continuing to parrot mk2 as essential is just like making committees to solve technical and managerial problems. Our system made by bureaucrats is self-serving, opaque and prone to dysfunction. It does not serve national interests nor it is open to scrutiny by elected officials/taxpayers.

And you want this same organization to develop the HLFT-42? Sit down bro! Get real

IAF too is not a saint. They had an option to buy 18 more Rafale. But the option was not exercised.

This is not true at all. It had to be written into a signed contract for the above statement to be valid. Does that exist?

Opinions, suggestions and discussions of IAF officers, cannot be taken as fact.

[Rakesh]

In the context of engines, maityas post makes sense. In the context of tejas to AMCA, not so much. Mk1 itself is a leap over many 4g technologies (carbon composites, aesa, spjj fbw ityadi). MK2 is not anything remotely 5g. No skins, no recessed weapons, no internal bays, no planform alignment. It's a bigger frame, that's it. Decidedly in the same gen as a mk1a. If one were to say this of the TEDBF, at least that might be more reasonable, but MK2?. Btw the Yanks did jump from the f16a/b to the f117, f23, b2, f22. Well before the f35 came along. Like I said, even the Turks, Koreans and Japanese are doing it.

It is not about the 5G or the skins or the recessed weapons or the internal bays or the planform alignment. That is not the issue here. It is about the sub-systems on the Tejas Mk2.

Why is the F-16 Block 70/72 a much better aircraft than the F-16 Block 15? The former has a much higher payload capacity, more powerful engine, a far more advanced radar, more capable weaponry, etc when compared to the latter. This is exactly what the Tejas Mk2 is, over the Tejas Mk1A.

Saar, TEDBF has yet to receive sanction of funds. Why are we following an imaginary bird versus one that is in active development?

Remember the saying ---> A bird in hand (Tejas Mk2), is better than two (TEDBF, ORCA) in the bush?

Before the F-22 arrived into active service (Dec 2005), see the number of subsequent block improvements that the F-16 had already produced. It is not just about the airframe. It is the entire package (radar, sensors, weapons, etc). The F-117, B-2 are not fighters. The F-23 never entered active service.

[maitya]

<snip>useless rant<snip>

75% commonality between mk1a and mk1, I'll believe that. Between mk1a and MK2, I'll believe that with a pinch of salt and olive oil (only if it is extra and virgin). Between MK2 and AMCA, I'll go tell you to keep the salt and whatever snake oil you're trying to sell with it.

I notice that the ADA/drdo is some kind of sacred cow on this forum. Sorry, I'm not buying it. Thank you for posting some hard and provocative questions here.

Cain Marko-ji you fell for the troll isn't it?
Last time, this genius was trying to sell the idea of F414 on Mk1A platforms, just because, some random-google search told him, the F414/Kaveri have the same mass-flow and F404 and F414 have the same dimensions (which is incorrect by the way)?
So get F414 for Mk1As etc ...

Now he's surfaced again with another ingenious idea of HAL's paper-proposal trainer to be replacing the on-the-verge-of-a-rollout, of true-blue MWF, the Mk2. With ample dollops of make-believe narrative of IAF not asking for MK2, and it's somehow forced upon them etc etc etc.
On the top of it, he sure has an axe to grind against the top (now ex) scientists who has dedicated their lifetime nurturing indigenous programs (Mk1 -> Mk2 -> AMCA) to their current successes. I wonder what the motivation would be ...

But since in the current new-and-improved BRF, it is now the norm to allow such blabberings, under benign gaze of the mods - then so be it, I guess!!

But you sir, who has been with (and contributed +vely) the forum for so long, falling for such trolls, is really surprising ...
I mean, it's ok to have opposing/contrarian view-point wrt Indian Def R&D, PSUs etc. A forum remains vibrant/lively because of a variety (so some would be opposing as well) of viewpoints, which allows the debate to be taken forward etc - but does that have to be based on such clueless narrative-building nonsense utterings!!

The least you could have done is, ask/analyse,
1) What has a program like F-35 got to do with MK1/MK1A, Mk2 or AMCA?
(unless in some pure-google-search-induced-narrative building, the search keyword "stealth" throws up for both F-35 and AMCA, which incidentally this troll specializes in)

2) How is the part count at a platform level, linked to various surface structure as it has been pointed out of A/B/C variants (of F-35)?
(or was the intent to highlight the specific portion of the platforms)

3) How about trying to figure out the part-commonality between these A/B/C variants wrt,
i) DFCC and the attended FBW systems (incl FC laws)
ii) Avionics subsystems like AN/APG-85, EoDAS/EoTAS, EW Suite, MADL, Various Radio Systems etc etc.
iii) CFC based structural design and fabrication technology (IIRC they are now all UHM based) - just because the shapes may be slightly different, the "parts" must be different right?
iv) DAI Intakes, Hydraulic and Pneumatic system architecture (Reservoir, Pumps, Valves, Actuators, Pressure Regulators etc)
v) Various Cockpit Displays/HMDS, Radio Altimeter, ILS/TACAN/VOR etc
vi) Other subsystems like HOTAS, OBOGS etc
... etc etc etc.
That should have provided clues about this whole part-commonality etc between these variants - however, this being "Bharat" Rakshak forum, there's no point in trying to list out such stuff (and analyze them) of a videshi platform.


Now coming back to the AMCA-via-Mk2 saga, I know for a fact that you, of all people, needn't to be told/lectured about the following:
1) IAF lead design-changes (necessitated by 4-5 iterations of requirements change) that saw the MTOW go from 15000T to a whopping 17500T (with 45% and 25% increment of payload and Int uel respectively) full-blown MWF.
After all why did the QRs took full 9 years (2009 - 2018) to be finalized - who led the whole iterative Initial Req->design->Rev Req->Redesign-> ... ->Frozen Design initiatives?
So, where's the question of Mk2 being "imposed" or something on the IAF?

2) The difference between Unkil MiC and our desi MiC, and how the approach of capability dev has to be completely different:
Unlike Unkil, in our case, we have a "developing" MIC and supply chain partners, mostly via MSMEs - with whom we can't expect them have substantial in-house R&D and capability-building investments.
So we'll need to incrementally build technological capability in them via continuous and uninterrupted "on-the-job" platform series production - so that when your 5th Gen series Mfg capability is needed, it's just about there.

Also the volume of platforms that Unkil's MiC is supposed to support is large enough, to have dedicated industrial units, with ample parallel and alternate programs to supply to and sustain themselves - same for our desi MiC, is it?

Quick example, without naming names (but should be quite easy to search and find out though):
Do you expect the relevant MSME to somehow directly graduate to producing GaN TR modules for AMCA radars - without producing the GaAs TR modules (for Mk2) first.
After not only investing in relevant GaN foundries, but also developing the relevant expertise amongst it workforce, ab initio.
(PS: This is an deliberately chosen this example - after all, Trolls need opportunities to parade their ignorance, will wait eagerly)

So the question remains, without building for Mk2, how will this MSME-based MIC, directly graduate to producing/building AMCA - ADA/DRDO et all will hold hands, no doubt, but capability building, require certain base technical capability, to build upon - where will that come from.

3) And as per the "part-commonality" between Mk2 and AMCA is concerned ... let's consider the system/subsystem list for F135 A/B/C above (pt 3), and try to map the diff wrt them, between what is envisaged for AMCA vis-a-vis those going to be in MK2.

I'll start with a few:
i) Why would CSIR-NAL develop various algorithms for multi-target tracking/fusion using onboard sensors such as IRST,MAWS, Radar, & RWR for BOTH LCA Mk 2 & AMCA ... why not only for AMCA? Is it that they want real-world usage data in MK2 before fine-tuning it for AMCA?

ii) Which IAF platform uses co-cured co-bonded hybrid composites technology (as opposed to composite skins riveted etc) for air intake-duct assembly?
(anxiously waiting for the troll to start blabbering about cocured cobonded tech of Mk1/Mk1A tailfin)

iii) Structurally, where will the CF2 grade CFCs (designed by NAL) be used, before going into almost entire structure of AMCA?

iv) Which IAF platform has/will have internal/integral DRFM based ASPJ + DRWR (produced indigenously), which can then miniaturized and modified to be able to integrated in a 5th Gen planform (of AMCA)?
Something like INTERNAL within the wingtips, wing trailing edges, horizontal stabilisers and either side of aircraft's exhaust.
Will the capability wrt external ASPJ of Mk1A suffice to be able to miniaturise it sufficiently? Isn't the first step to distribute the subsystems to a hump below the tailfin and other parts of the fuselage etc?

v) Which IAF platform will have a LAD - something that will be used directly on AMCA? Or is it that a LAD is the same technological capability wrt 6in x 8in MFDs?

vi) Any IAF platform with indigenous MAWS - which can then be miniaturized and distributed for an integral implementation in AMCA? Without having an implemented integral MAWS, how can that system be miniaturised and then distributed across the AMCA platform?

vii) What about IRST? If AMCA is envisaged to have EOTS, should atleast a 3rd Gen IRST be first developed and used somewhere, to be able to morph into a EOTS later?
...
...
I'll stop here, but I hope you'll take it from here and do the required research to understand the Mk2-AMCA part commonality etc ...
No, you don't have to agree with the 75% part commonality figure (or 74.9999% figure) etc - all these are approximations from whatever little gets published via tenders and public utterings/announcements anyway.
But such a research will certainly help understand the extent of this part-commonality between Mk2 and AMCA and why Mk2 is considered as an mandatory pre-requisite for the AMCA program.

Assorted Trolls and import-pasand shills not withstanding ...

[Cain Marko]

75% commonality between mk1a and mk1, I'll believe that. Between mk1a and MK2, I'll believe that with a pinch of salt and olive oil (only if it is extra and virgin). Between MK2 and AMCA, I'll go tell you to keep the salt and whatever snake oil you're trying to sell with it.

I notice that the ADA/drdo is some kind of sacred cow on this forum. Sorry, I'm not buying it. Thank you for posting some hard and provocative questions here.

Cain Marko-ji you fell for the troll isn't it?
Last time, this genius was trying to sell the idea of F414 on Mk1A platforms, just because, some random-google search told him, the F414/Kaveri have the same mass-flow and F404 and F414 have the same dimensions (which is incorrect by the way)?
So get F414 for Mk1As etc ...

Now he's surfaced again with another ingenious idea of HAL's paper-proposal trainer to be replacing the on-the-verge-of-a-rollout, of true-blue MWF, the Mk2. With ample dollops of make-believe narrative of IAF not asking for MK2, and it's somehow forced upon them etc etc etc.
On the top of it, he sure has an axe to grind against the top (now ex) scientists who has dedicated their lifetime nurturing indigenous programs (Mk1 -> Mk2 -> AMCA) to their current successes. I wonder what the motivation would be ...

But since in the current new-and-improved BRF, it is now the norm to allow such blabberings, under benign gaze of the mods - then so be it, I guess!!

But you sir, who has been with (and contributed +vely) the forum for so long, falling for such trolls, is really surprising ...
I mean, it's ok to have opposing/contrarian view-point wrt Indian Def R&D, PSUs etc. A forum remains vibrant/lively because of a variety (so some would be opposing as well) of viewpoints, which allows the debate to be taken forward etc - but does that have to be based on such clueless narrative-building nonsense utterings!!

The least you could have done is, ask/analyse,
1) What has a program like F-35 got to do with MK1/MK1A, Mk2 or AMCA?
(unless in some pure-google-search-induced-narrative building, the search keyword "stealth" throws up for both F-35 and AMCA, which incidentally this troll specializes in)

2) How is the part count at a platform level, linked to various surface structure as it has been pointed out of A/B/C variants (of F-35)?
(or was the intent to highlight the specific portion of the platforms)

3) How about trying to figure out the part-commonality between these A/B/C variants wrt,
i) DFCC and the attended FBW systems (incl FC laws)
ii) Avionics subsystems like AN/APG-85, EoDAS/EoTAS, EW Suite, MADL, Various Radio Systems etc etc.
iii) CFC based structural design and fabrication technology (IIRC they are now all UHM based) - just because the shapes may be slightly different, the "parts" must be different right?
iv) DAI Intakes, Hydraulic and Pneumatic system architecture (Reservoir, Pumps, Valves, Actuators, Pressure Regulators etc)
v) Various Cockpit Displays/HMDS, Radio Altimeter, ILS/TACAN/VOR etc
vi) Other subsystems like HOTAS, OBOGS etc
... etc etc etc.
That should have provided clues about this whole part-commonality etc between these variants - however, this being "Bharat" Rakshak forum, there's no point in trying to list out such stuff (and analyze them) of a videshi platform.


Now coming back to the AMCA-via-Mk2 saga, I know for a fact that you, of all people, needn't to be told/lectured about the following:
1) IAF lead design-changes (necessitated by 4-5 iterations of requirements change) that saw the MTOW go from 15000T to a whopping 17500T (with 45% and 25% increment of payload and Int uel respectively) full-blown MWF.
After all why did the QRs took full 9 years (2009 - 2018) to be finalized - who led the whole iterative Initial Req->design->Rev Req->Redesign-> ... ->Frozen Design initiatives?
So, where's the question of Mk2 being "imposed" or something on the IAF?

2) The difference between Unkil MiC and our desi MiC, and how the approach of capability dev has to be completely different:
Unlike Unkil, in our case, we have a "developing" MIC and supply chain partners, mostly via MSMEs - with whom we can't expect them have substantial in-house R&D and capability-building investments.
So we'll need to incrementally build technological capability in them via continuous and uninterrupted "on-the-job" platform series production - so that when your 5th Gen series Mfg capability is needed, it's just about there.

Also the volume of platforms that Unkil's MiC is supposed to support is large enough, to have dedicated industrial units, with ample parallel and alternate programs to supply to and sustain themselves - same for our desi MiC, is it?

Quick example, without naming names (but should be quite easy to search and find out though):
Do you expect the relevant MSME to somehow directly graduate to producing GaN TR modules for AMCA radars - without producing the GaAs TR modules (for Mk2) first.
After not only investing in relevant GaN foundries, but also developing the relevant expertise amongst it workforce, ab initio.
(PS: This is an deliberately chosen this example - after all, Trolls need opportunities to parade their ignorance, will wait eagerly)

So the question remains, without building for Mk2, how will this MSME-based MIC, directly graduate to producing/building AMCA - ADA/DRDO et all will hold hands, no doubt, but capability building, require certain base technical capability, to build upon - where will that come from.

3) And as per the "part-commonality" between Mk2 and AMCA is concerned ... let's consider the system/subsystem list for F135 A/B/C above (pt 3), and try to map the diff wrt them, between what is envisaged for AMCA vis-a-vis those going to be in MK2.

I'll start with a few:
i) Why would CSIR-NAL develop various algorithms for multi-target tracking/fusion using onboard sensors such as IRST,MAWS, Radar, & RWR for BOTH LCA Mk 2 & AMCA ... why not only for AMCA? Is it that they want real-world usage data in MK2 before fine-tuning it for AMCA?

ii) Which IAF platform uses co-cured co-bonded hybrid composites technology (as opposed to composite skins riveted etc) for air intake-duct assembly?
(anxiously waiting for the troll to start blabbering about cocured cobonded tech of Mk1/Mk1A tailfin)

iii) Structurally, where will the CF2 grade CFCs (designed by NAL) be used, before going into almost entire structure of AMCA?

iv) Which IAF platform has/will have internal/integral DRFM based ASPJ + DRWR (produced indigenously), which can then miniaturized and modified to be able to integrated in a 5th Gen planform (of AMCA)?
Something like INTERNAL within the wingtips, wing trailing edges, horizontal stabilisers and either side of aircraft's exhaust.
Will the capability wrt external ASPJ of Mk1A suffice to be able to miniaturise it sufficiently? Isn't the first step to distribute the subsystems to a hump below the tailfin and other parts of the fuselage etc?

v) Which IAF platform will have a LAD - something that will be used directly on AMCA? Or is it that a LAD is the same technological capability wrt 6in x 8in MFDs?

vi) Any IAF platform with indigenous MAWS - which can then be miniaturized and distributed for an integral implementation in AMCA? Without having an implemented integral MAWS, how can that system be miniaturised and then distributed across the AMCA platform?

vii) What about IRST? If AMCA is envisaged to have EOTS, should atleast a 3rd Gen IRST be first developed and used somewhere, to be able to morph into a EOTS later?
...
...
I'll stop here, but I hope you'll take it from here and do the required research to understand the Mk2-AMCA part commonality etc ...
No, you don't have to agree with the 75% part commonality figure (or 74.9999% figure) etc - all these are approximations from whatever little gets published via tenders and public utterings/announcements anyway.
But such a research will certainly help understand the extent of this part-commonality between Mk2 and AMCA and why Mk2 is considered as an mandatory pre-requisite for the AMCA program.

Assorted Trolls and import-pasand shills not withstanding ...

Maityaji,
Thank you for your informative post (once again). However it does not convince me of the need for a MK2 as a stepping stone to AMCA. the platforms are too different and a number of subsystems that the MK2 uses has been already (or can be) developed in the mk1a.

The parts that you mention which are being developed for AMCA via MK2 need not be developed first for MK2, and then for AMCA. Are you saying that these can't be developed in the AMCA program? And if not, why not? The example you give of distributing and internalizing the rer/spj illustrates my point. Iirc This has already been done for the mig29 and even the tarang system ages ago for the mk1. It's not as though the AMCA is even smaller than the lca. For a much larger platform like the AMCA, developing and integrating subsystems should be easier. . Ditto with scaling and including sme partners... Isn't that being already done with the lca mk1? Iirc about 1000 such units have been brought into the ecosystem.

Second, no other country has found the need for a 4.5 (which in any case the mk1a already is) to jump to a 5gen platform.
Let's face it, countries like Turkey are doing it with zero experience in manned fighters compared to what India has done..

The other points in your post I can agree with, and as you might have noticed, I feel that the MK2 should continue but only if tied to the kaveri. It would be a mistake of gargantuan proportions to be dependent on the GE engines (ones done kind of iron class guarantee can be secured) for what will become the most common fighter in IAF inventory.

It's enough to get 250 of mk1a with GE 404 and even this needs to be recalibrated with caution.

The big focus HAS to be in getting the kaveri productionized and into the IAF en masse. If needed build a 2 engined TEDBF/orca with 8.5 to kaveri first and make this the base of the IAF pyramid.

JMT

[Cain Marko]

It is not about the 5G or the skins or the recessed weapons or the internal bays or the planform alignment. That is not the issue here. It is about the sub-systems on the Tejas Mk2.

Why is the F-16 Block 70/72 a much better aircraft than the F-16 Block 15? The former has a much higher payload capacity, more powerful engine, a far more advanced radar, more capable weaponry, etc when compared to the latter. This is exactly what the Tejas Mk2 is, over the Tejas Mk1A.

Saar, TEDBF has yet to receive sanction of funds. Why are we following an imaginary bird versus one that is in active development?

Remember the saying ---> A bird in hand (Tejas Mk2), is better than two (TEDBF, ORCA) in the bush?

Before the F-22 arrived into active service (Dec 2005), see the number of subsequent block improvements that the F-16 had already produced. It is not just about the airframe. It is the entire package (radar, sensors, weapons, etc). The F-117, B-2 are not fighters. The F-23 never entered active service.

Admiral guru, if you were to say that MK2 is simply an iterative development of mk1 and mk1a ala various f16 cip blocks, I have no problem in accepting that and even it's need for the lower end of IAF inventory.

But when MK2 is put forth as a need for the AMCA, that's a bone that won't go down. The twist that MK2 is mandatory for the AMCA is ridiculous at a point when every other country has moved to 5gen development without the last iteration of their previous generation says a lot. Otherwise, f22 wouldnt have been possible without f16 blk70 which came much later. The f22 program started in the early 80s and the yf23 with all it's stealth was test flying in 1990. Hell, LM was playing with stealth fighter designs well before the mid f16 blks came along. And the Turkish Kaan fighter would've been nowhere in sight if they took the same approach.

The only reason I mention TEDBF as a possibility is because
1. It would serve as a much better stepping stone to AMCA vs mk2
2. It provides a path for a fighter that can be procured in bulk numbers for multiple services independent of a foreign engine. If India can make it an approximate rafale sized fighter, it can be powered by baseline kaveri. This will allow India to have a truly indigenous craft and make the countrys services independent of the vagaries of geopolitics.
3. Being twin engined means a pair of lower thrust, older gen engine can provide the needed power. This is the poor man's choice and was adapted by the Russians to great effect with the fulcrums. And even the French with the m4k.
4. Being a larger twin tailed airframe replete with 5gen features like chining, crossteeth joints, planform alignment and recessed weapons, it'll be far more suitable as a stepping stone for a trueblue 5gen AMCA.

Btw I've been saying this long before the TEDBF was around. If such an approach was taken 15 years ago, maybe India would've had its own fighter for the mrca and mrfa.

[srin]

The reason that Mk2 is being questioned today is because there was never a case for it.

Mk2 happened because supposedly because Mk1 was too heavy and therefore it needed a more powerful engine. That would make sense if the Mk2 had the same or near the MTOW as Mk1 but that didn't happen. Mk2 is MWF with much higher MTOW. Therefore, the case of Mk2 due to weak F404 engines doesn't hold water.

Mk2 might have still made sense if N-LCA was ordered (due to higher empty weight), but since N-LCA morphed into TEDBF, that necessity ceased to exist too.

The IAF has woken up somewhat late that the neighbours are going for 5th gen aircraft, and on the other hand, Mk2 is non-stealthy, MRFA doesn't have any stealth aircraft candidates and AMCA is too late (not having a 5th gen fighter till mid-30s). And that's why the IAF wants more focus on AMCA.

And these two factors - there really was no need for Mk2 and that there needs to be more focus on AMCA - are driving the latest news cycle. There is no point in blaming anyone (there's plenty to go around), it is all water under the bridge and the focus should be where to go next.

Personally, as an armchair airmarshal, I don't understand why Mk2 is an *essential* stepping stone for AMCA. Even an AMCA that's not fully stealthy and with all systems not in place (ex: IRST) would still be more valuable.

[Aditya_V]

I don't think any neighbor or any Airforce is going 100% stealth fleet, a 4.5 Gen aircraft sharing Production Ecosystems is way to Go. Thats how we caught up with Missiles, Automobile Industry etc. Big orders for Mk1A, MK2 is only way 10 years down the line we will have a good fleet of 5th-6 gen aircraft with Desi weaponry, otherwise will continue to go in circles. in 1998 our ATV projects were pipe dreams, today it is a different story

[Prasad]

Mk2 happened because the Indian NAVY had a vision for a better LCA. IAF just jumped on that bandwagon and ran with it. Mk2 is a single engined fighter and was supposed to be a quicker solution to overcome Mk1's shortcomings. But given the way things happen in this country, the quick solution has taken >10 years for prototype roll out, with CCS sanction only last year because we couldn't tie up the damn engine local production deal.

Mk2 will have EOTS, IRST, MAWS, EW commonality with AMCA. It will give scale to producers (tons of private sector in this btw) to reduce costs for Mk2 AND AMCA. Antennas are a significant fraction of radar costs. And by adding more Mk2 instead of some pie in the sky thing, we bring down costs across the board, let our private sector guys making them make money and get better at making the next gen radars for ALL our airborne platforms. We have a dozen aew&c coming up too. An AL-31 based single engined fighter will be an entirely clean sheet design. Might as well make a 4th gen twin engined a/c like the F18 based on the F414 instead!

AMCA will be a twin engined stealth platform and will be more expensive to build and operate in large numbers. IAF will have to have a mix of types. We do not have the money to do the former. It makes perfect sense except in the minds of dreamers.

[srai]

India with its economy and MIC should be able to support multiple combat aircraft R&D.

No need to make it either-or type of argument.

[Rakesh]

But when MK2 is put forth as a need for the AMCA, that's a bone that won't go down. The twist that MK2 is mandatory for the AMCA is ridiculous at a point when every other country has moved to 5gen development without the last iteration of their previous generation says a lot. Otherwise, f22 wouldnt have been possible without f16 blk70 which came much later. The f22 program started in the early 80s and the yf23 with all it's stealth was test flying in 1990. Hell, LM was playing with stealth fighter designs well before the mid f16 blks came along. And the Turkish Kaan fighter would've been nowhere in sight if they took the same approach.

If what you are stating above is true, then from J-10 could the PLAAF jump straight to their sixth generation designs? Their fifth generation design (i.e. the J-20) had to exist first. And also manufactured in significant numbers (300+ as of 2025). The lessons learnt from the J-20, gave birth to the single engine J-35 (another fifth generation fighter). And this too will be manufactured in numbers, far higher than the J-20.

And the Chinese are learning valuable lessons - R&D, production and operationally - with their J-20 (and the soon-to-arrive J-35). The lessons learnt here will pave the way (i.e. reduced R&D time) for their sixth generation designs to enter active service.

In the US, could the NGAD (Next Generation Air Dominance) program exist without the F-22 and F-35? Fighter programs have to follow the laws of science, R&D, etc. This takes time and that time is largely measured in decades. So while the F-22 development program started in the early 80s, when did the first YF-22 take to the air? And from that first flight of the YF-22, when did the first production ready F-22 enter active service? You ask Google about these two dates and then you get back to us all on BRF. And the superiority of F-22 is not just in her shape, but also in her radar, sensors, engine, weapons, etc. Just having a stealth design means little if the other elements are not there.

Was the APG-77 AESA - aboard the F-22 - already present when the YF-22 entered development in the early 80s? Or was that also developed alongside the development of the F-22? Why is the foundation of the tech in the APG-81 AESA - aboard the F-35 - from the APG-77? Why waste money on developing the F119 turbofan for the F-22, when an in-service turbofan (from that era) could likely have worked? What is so special about the F-119, that the F-35 uses a derivative of that same turbofan, called F135?

The jump the Turks did from F-16 assembly to Kaan is primarily because of the involvement of the US and the UK. The Kaan would not exist otherwise. The engine of the Kaan is American and there is only a JV - to date - between Rolls Royce and Turkey to develop another turbofan for the Kaan. And Turkey will be beholden to Rolls Royce (despite all the lies they tell their people that the turbofan is 100% Turkish) for engine upgrades and even a MRO. And that turbofan will take at least a decade to arrive. Many of the A2G weaponry to be used on the Kaan is of the Mk8X variety, with Turkish PGM kits. If the US did not hand hold the Turks, there would be no Kaan program. That is a fact. Kaan is really not a good example to lean on.

Aircraft development is not akin to Bollywood i.e. boy runs behind a bus and when he comes out from the other side of the bus, he is now a fully grown man! Without learning how to walk, you want to run like Usain Bolt?

The only reason I mention TEDBF as a possibility is because
1. It would serve as a much better stepping stone to AMCA vs mk2
2. It provides a path for a fighter that can be procured in bulk numbers for multiple services independent of a foreign engine. If India can make it an approximate rafale sized fighter, it can be powered by baseline kaveri. This will allow India to have a truly indigenous craft and make the countrys services independent of the vagaries of geopolitics.
3. Being twin engined means a pair of lower thrust, older gen engine can provide the needed power. This is the poor man's choice and was adapted by the Russians to great effect with the fulcrums. And even the French with the m4k.
4. Being a larger twin tailed airframe replete with 5gen features like chining, crossteeth joints, planform alignment and recessed weapons, it'll be far more suitable as a stepping stone for a trueblue 5gen AMCA.

TEDBF cannot be powered by a baseline Kaveri. We are still struggling with getting the afterburner to operate effectively. I just had this discussion with basant in another thread.

TEDBF has yet to receive sanction of funds. Her air force variant - ORCA - is not even on anyone's radar. Until we get our own turbofan, this is a pipe dream.

First get a working tubrofan. Then sanction funds for prototype development of ORCA. And then we can dream about the above.

Btw I've been saying this long before the TEDBF was around. If such an approach was taken 15 years ago, maybe India would've had its own fighter for the mrca and mrfa.

But it is not, is it?

Why fantasize about something that does not exist (TEDBF / ORCA), but will abandon the program that does exist (Tejas Mk2)?

[williams]

Aircraft development is not akin to Bollywood i.e. boy runs behind a bus and when he comes out from the other side of the bus, he is now a fully grown man! Without learning how to walk, you want to run like Usain Bolt?

good analogy sir. Right now it looks like a lot of D&D activity is needed and I kind of feel futile to compare ourselves with the Chinese. We are not there yet and no need to start a panic and immediately run to Russia or Khan land to buy something and kill domestic efforts. It is an old trick the import lobby wants to forge within our bureaucratic setup. I don't see GoI changing direction soon. In a few more years we will start seeing these fighters arrive and we will then crib about something else. The fact remains both the Chinese and the Pakis avoided escalation when we responded aggressively to their mala fide action. We have some time and we should use that on more focused local development.

[Rakesh]

@ williams: Unfortunately, we will need both. A relatively small order of imports (i.e. 3+ squadrons of Rafale F4) and a larger order devoted to local maal (i.e. 97 additional Tejas Mk1As + 200 Tejas Mk2s). The local maal needs to be ordered in one get-go and not this piece meal bokwas.

AMCA, TEDBF, ORCA or whatever other acronym are a decade away at least.

[williams]

@ williams: Unfortunately, we will need both. A relatively small order of imports (i.e. 3+ squadrons of Rafale F4) and a larger order devoted to local maal (i.e. 97 additional Tejas Mk1As + 200 Tejas Mk2s). The local maal needs to be ordered in one get-go and not this piece meal bokwas.

AMCA, TEDBF, ORCA or whatever other acronym are a decade away at least.

I agree. Also I think it is better to go for quick G2G deal for that 3+ squads instead of this MRFA tamasha again. It is the price we pay for years of lethargy.

[drnayar]

@ williams: Unfortunately, we will need both. A relatively small order of imports (i.e. 3+ squadrons of Rafale F4) and a larger order devoted to local maal (i.e. 97 additional Tejas Mk1As + 200 Tejas Mk2s). The local maal needs to be ordered in one get-go and not this piece meal bokwas.

AMCA, TEDBF, ORCA or whatever other acronym are a decade away at least.

i want a rafale assembly line in India for 3 squadrons ., heck we can export a few , the French can make some moolah too [ low cost of labour.. yadaa yadaa..]

[Cain Marko]

If what you are stating above is true, then from J-10 could the PLAAF jump straight to their sixth generation designs?

Admiral-ji, the j-10 is 4gen no? J10c = mk1a = 4.5 gen. So what's the need to MK2 as a stepping stone for AMCA. And I'm not asking sda to jump from 4gen to 6gen.
AMCA is 5gen wonlee - it will serve as the stepping stone for 6gen fighter. So the following point is moot.

Their fifth generation design (i.e. the J-20) had to exist first. And also manufactured in significant numbers (300+ as of 2025). The lessons learnt from the J-20, gave birth to the single engine J-35 (another fifth generation fighter). And this too will be manufactured in numbers, far higher than the J-20.

In the US, could the NGAD (Next Generation Air Dominance) program exist without the F-22 and F-35? Fighter programs have to follow the laws of science, R&D, etc. This takes time and that time is largely measured in decades.

Again. Moot point. Nobody is asking India to skip gen5 and jump to gen 6.

So while the F-22 development program started in the early 80s, when did the first YF-22 take to the air? And from that first flight of the YF-22, when did the first production ready F-22 enter active service? You ask Google about these two dates and then you get back to us all on BRF. And the superiority of F-22 is not just in her shape, but also in her radar, sensors, engine, weapons, etc. Just having a stealth design means little if the other elements are not there

This is analogy really doesn't work. Saying that the f22 depended on the subsystems of the final f16 variant is cheeky and logically incorrect. The f22 flew in 97 when the latest blk was the f16.blk50. even the uae blk60s with the apg80 hadn't flown yet. The f22h had already started lrip when the first blk60with aesa flew in 2003. And here you saying that f22 couldn't have flown without blk70 or that no blk70 = no f22?

Was the APG-77 AESA - aboard the F-22 - already present when the YF-22 entered development in the early 80s? Or was that also developed alongside the development of the F-22? Why is the foundation of the tech in the APG-81 AESA - aboard the F-35 - from the APG-77? Why waste money on developing the F119 turbofan for the F-22, when an in-service turbofan (from that era) could likely have worked? What is so special about the F-119, that the F-35 uses a derivative of that same turbofan, called F135?

Again, try to understand Saar: Even blk 60 aesa, the apg 80 was derived from the f22s apg77 and not the other way around. There was no 4.5 gen fighter even remotely required for the f22 as a "stepping stone". The f22 was in production by the time the best variant of the f16, the blk60 (equivalent to the tejas MK2) had made it's first flight in 2023. If you insist that a blk30 or 40 or 50 was the necessary step for f22 development, then we have already passed that stage thru the tejas, mk1and mk1a.

Iows, the MK2 is absolutely not necessary for the AMCA.

The jump the Turks did from F-16 assembly to Kaan is primarily because of the involvement of the US and the UK. The Kaan would not exist otherwise. The engine of the Kaan is American and there is only a JV - to date - between Rolls Royce and Turkey to develop another turbofan for the Kaan. And Turkey will be beholden to Rolls Royce (despite all the lies they tell their people that the turbofan is 100% Turkish) for engine upgrades and even a MRO. And that turbofan will take at least a decade to arrive. Many of the A2G weaponry to be used on the Kaan is of the Mk8X variety, with Turkish PGM kits. If the US did not hand hold the Turks, there would be no Kaan program. That is a fact. Kaan is really not a good example to lean on.

Handholding of Turks by US? by that standard India has been handheld by not just the US, but a retinue of other countries like Russia and Israel. The entire test program runs on the gef404 lest we forget. How many excuses can India afford one wonders.

Aircraft development is not akin to Bollywood i.e. boy runs behind a bus and when he comes out from the other side of the bus, he is now a fully grown man! Without learning how to walk, you want to run like Usain Bolt?

And I suppose it is akin to what drdo, IAF and hal have done so far? If so, then please enjoy the bed they have made and will continue to make. I call it "fluffy nails" because it's fluffy like a pie in the sky, but full of nails.

Why fantasize about something that does not exist (TEDBF / ORCA), but will abandon the program that does exist (Tejas Mk2)?

Like I said, don't abandon her, but pump money into kaveri turbofan development. Order extra mk1a until the engine is ready. As far as fantasizing goes, what else can one do when the powers that be have given nothing but pie in sky dreams to us for so long. At least I'm fantasizing about a different approach (not buying the pie-in-sky that the establishment is throwing out).

[Rakesh]

Saar, your post above was one entire quote

Please use quotes properly when replying. Makes it easier for readers to follow the thread. I have edited your post.

Admiral-ji, the j-10 is 4gen no? J10c = mk1a = 4.5 gen. So what's the need to MK2 as a stepping stone for AMCA. And I'm not asking sda to jump from 4gen to 6gen.
AMCA is 5gen wonlee - it will serve as the stepping stone for 6gen fighter. So the following point is moot.

Look at the number of J-10s that were produced before the first J-20 entered service in 2017 with the PLAAF. And look at the number of J-10s in active service today. At the end of 2024, they have produced a grand total of 600+ J-10s. That number is more than the 30 odd squadrons that presently exist in the IAF. Forget the number of J-11s, J-15s, J-16s, etc that the Chinese have been producing concurrently.

Look at all the platforms that the Shenyang WS-10 powered, before she went onto the first production ready J-20. Multiple variants of the WS-10 powered the J-10, the J-11, the J-15, the J-16...before the production ready J-20 got the WS-10C turbofan. The Chinese put that engine through the ringer and today their front line 5th gen stealth aircraft is powered by that turbofan. Same story with the J-20's radar, sensors, weaponry, etc. It is not about the shape alone of the J-20 that gives it the ability to be LO/VLO. It is the entire package and they have put all those sub-systems through rigorous testing, validation and have successfully mass produced them before they ended up on the J-20. The Chinese are well aware of how the sub-systems on the J-20 work (and their weaknesses) because they have measurable in-service data from the end user over a plethora of earlier platforms. They know (and have addressed) the technical challenges and the production bottle necks on these sub-systems.

Only 32 single seater Tejas Mk1s have been inducted into the IAF, along with ~ 8 twin seater Tejas trainers. We have a grand total of 83 Tejas Mk1As on order, of which 1 - 2 production variants have been flight tested to date. Not a single Mk1A has been accepted into active service with the IAF. And the follow on order of 97 Mk1As is not even signed.

We are now proposing to drop the Tejas Mk2 in favour of mythical unicorns called TEDBF / ORCA / HLFT-42 and which have yet to receive sanction of funds to develop even a single prototype. And we want these platforms to be our stepping stone to the AMCA. We want a 5th gen plane (along with all the proven accoutrements) from 83 Mk1As. Eighty Three birds versus the hundreds upon hundreds (if not a few thousand) that every other nation has produced before they moved on to a 5th gen platform. And please do not say that ordering additional Mk1As will solve this problem, because it clearly will not. That is a whole other discussion!

When every human being on earth puts chaddi on first and then wears his/her pant, we want to be Superman and put pant on first and then wear chaddi. And when that strategy fails (which it eventually will), we end up as Shaktiman.

Again. Moot point. Nobody is asking India to skip gen5 and jump to gen 6.

From 83 Mk1As we will jump straight to AMCA. Great logic.

This is analogy really doesn't work. Saying that the f22 depended on the subsystems of the final f16 variant is cheeky and logically incorrect. The f22 flew in 97 when the latest blk was the f16.blk50. even the uae blk60s with the apg80 hadn't flown yet. The f22h had already started lrip when the first blk60with aesa flew in 2003. And here you saying that f22 couldn't have flown without blk70 or that no blk70 = no f22?

Come on Saar, please do not pull wool over our eyes. We might be SDREs, but we know how to google.

A simple google search will tell you that the YF-22 had her first flight on 29 Sept 1990 and she was formally inducted into the USAF in Dec 2005. The Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF) program was launched in 1981. It took nearly quarter of a century to formally induct the aircraft into USAF service. Now compare that with the the number of production blocks of the F-16 that was already completed by Dec 2005.

The Block 50 that you mentioned above entered USAF service in late 1990, the very same year that the YF-22 had her first flight. And a substantial production run of the Block 50/52 variants were completed before the first F-22 entered service in Dec 2005.

The first Block 60 production variant flew into UAE in May 2005. Before the first F-22 entered service with the USAF in Dec 2005, Lockheed Martin had produced nearly 4,000 F-16s in multiple production blocks. Production in Scale of Iterative Improvements is one of the foundations on which one stands upon to move to the next generation. This should not be hard to comprehend.

Again, try to understand Saar: Even blk 60 aesa, the apg 80 was derived from the f22s apg77 and not the other way around. There was no 4.5 gen fighter even remotely required for the f22 as a "stepping stone". The f22 was in production by the time the best variant of the f16, the blk60 (equivalent to the tejas MK2) had made it's first flight in 2023. If you insist that a blk30 or 40 or 50 was the necessary step for f22 development, then we have already passed that stage thru the tejas, mk1and mk1a.

Please read my post again and show me where I said that APG-77 came from APG-80.

Handholding of Turks by US? by that standard India has been handheld by not just the US, but a retinue of other countries like Russia and Israel. The entire test program runs on the gef404 lest we forget. How many excuses can India afford one wonders.

Hand holding is what the Kaan is. The Turks can spin it as much as they want, but that is the reality.

Same story with the KF-21 Boramae which uses a F414-GE-400K turbofan from the US.

Let these nations develop their own turbofan and then we can revisit this discussion.

And I suppose it is akin to what drdo, IAF and hal have done so far? If so, then please enjoy the bed they have made and will continue to make. I call it "fluffy nails" because it's fluffy like a pie in the sky, but full of nails.

The only thing IAF has successfully managed to do is order local maal in piecemeal orders. Listen to the comments from the present ACM over the Tejas Mk1 production ---> https://x.com/OsintTV/status/1876589545468440822

Order 200 Tejas Mk2s in one go. I dare them to. And then I will stand toe to toe with you on TEDBF / ORCA or whatever else.

I say again ---> Production in Scale of Iterative Improvements.

Like I said, don't abandon her, but pump money into kaveri turbofan development. Order extra mk1a until the engine is ready. As far as fantasizing goes, what else can one do when the powers that be have given nothing but pie in sky dreams to us for so long. At least I'm fantasizing about a different approach (not buying the pie-in-sky that the establishment is throwing out).

But we are NOT pumping money Saar into Kaveri development. That is why we are in the mess we are in.

The stakeholders are still twiddling thumbs over the second tranche of 97 Mk1As. And you are expecting these folks to order additional Mk1As?

[hemant_sai]

https://x.com/writetake/status/1098841211056533505?mx=2

aero india 2019 - we are soon to witness aero india 2025. again new dates and new promises.

Can this forum accept that there are deliberate attempts to sabotage? And why ADA and HAL officials cannot be taken to serious questioning?
After all they are the one giving the commitment on public forums.

Let them show the spine to call out real culprits else they deserve to suffer for lack of courage in the interest of national security.

This aero india 2025 should be different when it comes to reporting. MoD has to be exposed in this aero India 2025.

[Cain Marko]

Saar, your post above was one entire quote

Please use quotes properly when replying. Makes it easier for readers to follow the thread. I have edited your post.

Guruji, I'm neither woolly headed nor trying to pull wool over anyones eyes. But we are at this point going round in circles. Just answer the following questions if you will:
1. How many sub systems (a % figure is fine) from the blk50 made it into the f22
2. If indeed a large amount did, how is the tejas mk1a any less advanced than the blk50 of the 90s that it's subsystems can't get into the AMCA?
3. Repeat the same scenario for the concept of operations and scaling.

Again, I have no problem in developing the the MK2 as a follow on to the mk1a in the spirit of continuous improvement, esp. at the base of the IAF pyramid. However I would insist that the MK2 be tied to the kaveri or some more reliable engine. There is no way in hell I'm jeopardizing the bulk of the IAF fleet on a technologically sound but geopolitically unreliable supplier (not that I'm in any position to effect this).

In any case, lets not pass this off as some prerequisite for the AMCA.

[Karan M]

Multiple AMCA systems are being validated on the Tejas Mk2 and hence the program is essential to derisk the program. Further, the Tejas Mk2 cannot be replaced by the Mk1A. It's a MMRCA, the Mk1A is a light fighter. Please stop making pointless circular arguments based on vibes as versus actual data provided by both the developer and the user.

[Rakesh]

When replying to this post, please *DO NOT* quote the entire post. Please see your last post (your reply to me) and follow that.

Thanking you in advance for your co-operation in this matter.

Guruji, I'm neither woolly headed nor trying to pull wool over anyones eyes. But we are at this point going round in circles.

The first production variant of the Mk1 (SP-1) flew on 01 Oct 2014. But in reality, the first flight of the Tejas (TD-1) was on 04 Jan 2001. But nobody uses the former date, rather it is the latter date that is the point of reference for the Tejas program

Similarly...the F-22 first flew on 07 Sept 1997, but the YF-22 first flew on 29 Sept 1990. Come on Saar! You *ARE* going around in circles.

Just answer the following questions if you will:
1. How many sub systems (a % figure is fine) from the blk50 made it into the f22
2. If indeed a large amount did, how is the tejas mk1a any less advanced than the blk50 of the 90s that it's subsystems can't get into the AMCA?
3. Repeat the same scenario for the concept of operations and scaling.

Look CAREFULLY at the two pictures below and compare all the sub-systems in both these pictures. Hopefully you will see the light

https://x.com/Firezstarter1/status/1873296382934876647 ---> AMCA and Mk2 are deeply intertwined. Which is what ADA has repeatedly said and you've sought to handwave it away at every turn. To what end.





Secondly, read the tweet below and look at the image. And then answer the following questions...

1) Will the Tejas Mk1A have a 6,500 kg payload carrying capacity?

2) Will the Tejas Mk1A have an internal fuel capacity of nearly 3,400 kg?

3) Will the Tejas Mk1A have 11 external hardpoints?

4) Will the Tejas Mk1A have MAWS and IRST?

All four points above are vital for the Tejas Mk2. You cannot cherry pick one of them and turn the Mk1A into the same vein as the Mk2.

https://x.com/Firezstarter1/status/1873297613208059937 ---> AMCA alone cannot take on the PLAAF. Timeline issues apart, it is not designed to carry the payload Tejas Mk2 is. Because of internal weapons bays, the AMCA cannot carry heavy external payloads on its fuselage. Tejas Mk2 complements the AMCA, it doesn't compete with it.

Again, I have no problem in developing the the MK2 as a follow on to the mk1a in the spirit of continuous improvement, esp. at the base of the IAF pyramid. However I would insist that the MK2 be tied to the kaveri or some more reliable engine. There is no way in hell I'm jeopardizing the bulk of the IAF fleet on a technologically sound but geopolitically unreliable supplier (not that I'm in any position to effect this).

In any case, lets not pass this off as some prerequisite for the AMCA.

The highlighted part is what you are not understanding or you just do not want to understand.

At this point, I am just going to list out facts. And no matter what wizardry anyone does, the Mk1A will never match up to the Mk2.

https://x.com/Firezstarter1/status/1873298684139717020 ---> Counter-air is a system of systems fight. Tejas Mk2 is critical to that end. The Tejas Mk2 has an heavy loadout of 11 pylons with multiple options beyond those on AMCA. If it adds any external loadout it loses stealth. You need Tejas Mk2 to fight V/UHF radars with ALBMs/CMs.

https://x.com/Firezstarter1/status/1873299072083452276 ---> If an AMCA goes into a PLAAF IADS with V/UHF radars, it will most likely be detected and swarmed by 5G, 4G platforms. These systems are targeted first by heavy PGMs before stealth fighters are sent in. Israel did the same before sending in it's F-35s.

https://x.com/Firezstarter1/status/1873299695352852750 ---> This is also why the USAF has a stealth bomber. The lower the band, harder it is for fighter sized platforms to avoid detection (resonance effect). IAF doesn't have any B-2 or B-21. Which is why AMCA and Tejas Mk2 are synergistic. Both offer capabilities the other does not.

https://x.com/Firezstarter1/status/1873300134697848862 ---> The only other fighter the IAF has that can accompany an AMCA package is the Su-30. However, they cannot replace retiring MiGs, Mirages, Jaguars. Expensive to operate, not as easy to add new weapons on them (FBW, structures are Russian IP).

https://x.com/Firezstarter1/status/1873300600953389526 ---> The Tejas Mk2 is the all rounder which can carry a range of munitions, including large missiles the AMCA cannot. AMCA is already aerodynamically constrained due to its stealth shaping. Add extra weight to strengthen the wings, add engineering time delay, reduce performance.

https://x.com/Firezstarter1/status/1873300923935863154 ---> And to what end. You will create a more expensive bomb truck then the Tejas Mk2, which can also be detected as it's no longer stealth, break IAF capex/opex and it will come in later planned. So, import MRFA. Is this what we need or you want.

https://x.com/Firezstarter1/status/1873301411968213010 ---> Instead, the IAF has a sensible plan. A MRFA equivalent Tejas Mk2 which depends on munitions, EW to launch a range of munitions to fight PLAAF IADS. However, to fight 5G platforms one on one, at parity. That's where AMCA comes in. But to fight the whole IADS, you need both.

https://x.com/Firezstarter1/status/1873300134697848862 ---> The only other fighter the IAF has that can accompany an AMCA package is the Su-30. However, they cannot replace retiring MiGs, Mirages, Jaguars. Expensive to operate, not as easy to add new weapons on them (FBW, structures are Russian IP).

By the end of the next decade, the following aircraft will have all been withdrawn from active service;

• Jaguar: Four Squadrons
• MiG-29: Three Squadrons
• Mirage 2000: Three Squadrons

The only thing that will be left are 13 Su-30MKI squadrons (viewtopic.php?p=2607002&hilit=squadrons#p2607002), 2 Rafale squadrons, 2 Tejas Mk1A squadrons and four Tejas Mk1A squadrons.

That is grand total of 21 squadrons and that leaves a gaping hole of another 21 squadrons to fill. For argument's sake, lets say the second tranche of 97 Mk1As also get sanctioned....so that will be another five squadrons. There is still a balance of 16 squadrons to fill. And you cannot take an aircraft like the Mk1A - which does not have the endurance or the capability - to go into highly contested airspace and survive. The IAF is not in the business of running kamikaze missions.

[suryag]

To add to the above, MK2 and TEDBF need to be pursued with good vigour, I visualize AMCA as being tip of the spear while MK1A, MK2 and TEDBF are the body of the spear

[Cain Marko]

Yeah that's what I feel when it is said that AMCA is dependent on MK2. Stop making circular arguments and changing goalposts. be specific and educate us....What systems are in the MK2 that can't be tested on the mk1a or on an AMCA prototype? And why, esp. When nobody in the world has done this.

And fwiw, a simple Google search actually suggests that components/designs developed for the AMCA have found their way into the mk2 and NOT the other way round.

Apart from design commonalities and a few critical systems from its predecessor Tejas Mark 1A, most of the technologies are to be borrowed from whatever has been developed so far for the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft programme

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HAL_Tejas_Mk2

Reality is that the MK2 has not even flown.

And as far as MK2 being an mrca, then what is the rafale? Super heavy? Not long ago it was emphasized that the MK2 is needed for numbers in the low end category of the IAF. Now MK2 is upgraded to outdated late 90s mrca/m2k? Even after the IAF has moved on to a twin engined design? Nomenclatures that make zero sense.

Designing a MK2 and then redesigning components for the AMCA (which is inevitable) will only mean more delays for the 5gen fighter. Surely, this sets up another cry for more phoren 5g figures from the IAF in the coming years. Tamasha will continue.

[Cain Marko]

When replying to this post, please *DO NOT* quote the entire post. Please see your last post (your reply to me) and follow that.

Thanking you in advance for your co-operation in this matter.

Will respond to your detailed post Admiralji, lots to read...

[Rakesh]

Indian team to visit US for GE-414 engine talks, aims to finalise deal by March-end
https://aninews.in/news/national/genera ... 121203527/
21 Jan 2025

[Kartik]

Trying to justify the need for to have another type instead of the Tejas Mk2 is futile. The program is a reality, it has the funding needed for a prototype and the all important customer, the IAF is committed to 120 of these. That itself is a mountain of effort that's gone in to secure the program and a commitment achieved.

Those who think that a different program with whatever engines and whatever size, stealth, etc. is needed instead of the Tejas Mk2 are at least 2 years too late. These arguments are futile and as of now, the Tejas Mk2 is the single most important in development fighter program in the country, given it has the shortest timeline to operationalization and addressing the IAF's fighter shortage issue.