ADA Tejas Mark-II/Medium Weight Fighter

[HariPrasad-1]

The difference between IAF and IN Tejas is the presence of Crank or LEVCON. IAF has crank on its wing whereas IN has LEVCON. The design of LEVCON was made for IN Tejas to get shorter landing by breaking airflow.

The option of using canards was considered but rejected and the above mentioned solution was implemented

True. However it was not just for breaking but for increasing lift as well.

 

[Kshithij]

True. However it was not just for breaking but for increasing lift as well.

LEVCONS are not Canards. Levcons don't generate additional lifts nor do they provide additional maneuverability. Breaking is the main purpose of LEVCONS.

 

[Steven Rogers]

In 2015 the ADA brochure was of the previous year. Tejas MK2 has got changed with Parrikar

This is from ADA brochure, the aircraft is 13.7m long not 14.2, wing span is 8.2 and height is 4.4mts, apart from length every thing is same as in Tejas mk1. Not big improvement to make tejas comparable to one mts longer, wider and taller Gripen E.

Sent from my Aqua Ace II using Tapatalk

 

[Kshithij]

This is from ADA brochure, the aircraft is 13.7m long not 14.2, wing span is 8.2 and height is 4.4mts, apart from length every thing is same as in Tejas mk1. Not big improvement to make tejas comparable to one mts longer, wider and taller Gripen E.

Sent from my Aqua Ace II using Tapatalk

Yes, I know that. Look at the year of the brochure. Things have changed after that.

 

[Steven Rogers]

Yes, I know that. Look at the year of the brochure. Things have changed after that.

That's 2015 year brochure. Since then no brochure was published so without the confirmation from officials about any change , this is the latest source.

Sent from my Aqua Ace II using Tapatalk

 

[Kshithij]

That's 2015 year brochure. Since then no brochure was published so without the confirmation from officials about any change , this is the latest source.

Sent from my Aqua Ace II using Tapatalk

The information is 2014 based. Even then, the design was not finalised. This is not final brochure. The idea of 2 Mk2 is really absurd and involves unnecessary manufacturing of 2 fuselages and 2 designs which add to logistics cost without any reasonable gain. Unless ADA or MoD is not stupid or treasonous, that is not going to happen.

The news of 8% drag reduction etc were also of 2016 which means that the MK2 was not yet finalised in 2014. So, it is wrong to call the 2015 brochure as final. It is official data but only tentative

 

[Steven Rogers]

The information is 2014 based. Even then, the design was not finalised. This is not final brochure. The idea of 2 Mk2 is really absurd and involves unnecessary manufacturing of 2 fuselages and 2 designs which add to logistics cost without any reasonable gain. Unless ADA or MoD is not stupid or treasonous, that is not going to happen.

The news of 8% drag reduction etc were also of 2016 which means that the MK2 was not yet finalised in 2014. So, it is wrong to call the 2015 brochure as final. It is official data but only tentative

The specs don't change in short period of time. In the same pdf the specs for Mk2 navy says what everyone talk when comes mk2 AF. Mk2 navy is 14.56mts long and other changed specs not AF. And here is the link of pdf which says its from 2015. An year earlier than 2016 report.
Aircraft - Tejas
PDFwww.tejas.gov.in › ADA-Tejas Brochure...
.html

Sent from my Aqua Ace II using Tapatalk

 

[Steven Rogers]

The specs don't change in short period of time. In the same pdf the specs for Mk2 navy says what everyone talk when comes mk2 AF. Mk2 navy is 14.56mts long and other changed specs not AF. And here is the link of pdf which says its from 2015. An year earlier than 2016 report.
Aircraft - Tejas
PDFwww.tejas.gov.in › ADA-Tejas Brochure...
.html

Sent from my Aqua Ace II using Tapatalk

Link
http://www.tejas.gov.in/ADA-Tejas Brochure-2015.pdf

Sent from my Aqua Ace II using Tapatalk

 

[Kshithij]

The specs don't change in short period of time. In the same pdf the specs for Mk2 navy says what everyone talk when comes mk2 AF. Mk2 navy is 14.56mts long and other changed specs not AF. And here is the link of pdf which says its from 2015. An year earlier than 2016 report.
Aircraft - Tejas
PDFwww.tejas.gov.in › ADA-Tejas Brochure...
.html

Sent from my Aqua Ace II using Tapatalk

The specs of 2015 brochure was speculation of 2014. In 2016-17 new information about aerodynamic drag decrease etc have been made. This should be reflected in 2017 or 2018 brochure. But no new brochure has been released. Specifications of MK1A is also not released, forget MK2.

So, don't harp on to the 2015 brochure. In fact ADA had another brochure before it whereby different specs are mentioned. So, until final parameters are not available, no point taking those tentative data as final.

Just use reason and logic to extrapolate things and arrive at conclusion. Reason dictates that it is highly wasteful to design 2 new planes. Can you provide me any reason why IAF plane should also not be the same as IN plane? What is the problem if IAF MK2 has 14.56m length?

 

[Steven Rogers]

The specs of 2015 brochure was speculation of 2014. In 2016-17 new information about aerodynamic drag decrease etc have been made. This should be reflected in 2017 or 2018 brochure. But no new brochure has been released. Specifications of MK1A is also not released, forget MK2.

So, don't harp on to the 2015 brochure. In fact ADA had another brochure before it whereby different specs are mentioned. So, until final parameters are not available, no point taking those tentative data as final.

Just use reason and logic to extrapolate things and arrive at conclusion. Reason dictates that it is highly wasteful to design 2 new planes. Can you provide me any reason why IAF plane should also not be the same as IN plane? What is the problem if IAF MK2 has 14.56m length?

Coz even in the last Aero India, Tejas had two designs, once for air force and other for navy.

Sent from my Aqua Ace II using Tapatalk

 

[Kshithij]

Coz even in the last Aero India, Tejas had two designs, once for air force and other for navy.

Sent from my Aqua Ace II using Tapatalk

I find it unintuitive. I can't say that it is not true but I can guarantee that it is not a rational decision. Will they become more rational or not has to be seen yet.

 

[HariPrasad-1]

LEVCONS are not Canards. Levcons don't generate additional lifts nor do they provide additional maneuverability. Breaking is the main purpose of LEVCONS.

So far as I know, LEVCON adds up the advantage of LERX and Canard while eliminating the disadvantage of canard (Decoupling of air flow from wings). So if canard provides lift, LEVCON also provides lift and increases the airflow at high angle of attack.

 

[HariPrasad-1]

This is from ADA brochure, the aircraft is 13.7m long not 14.2, wing span is 8.2 and height is 4.4mts, apart from length every thing is same as in Tejas mk1. Not big improvement to make tejas comparable to one mts longer, wider and taller Gripen E.

Sent from my Aqua Ace II using Tapatalk

There is a lots of confusion of because of 2 things.
1. There was a proposal to prolong nosecone by 0.5m.
2. Fuselage was proposed to be made 0.5 m longer.

Now some people thinks that both shall be done in MK2. So in all 1 m length shall be increased. Some people thinks that only fuselage shall be prolonged (It is to be surely done). While 2 is surly to be done, people have different opinion on 1.

 

[Steven Rogers]

There is a lots of confusion of because of 2 things.
1. There was a proposal to prolong nosecone by 0.5m.
2. Fuselage was proposed to be made 0.5 m longer.

Now some people thinks that both shall be done in MK2. So in all 1 m length shall be increased. Some people thinks that only fuselage shall be prolonged (It is to be surely done). While 2 is surly to be done, people have different opinion on 1.

Read the Article published by ADA in March 2017, based on 2015 and 2016 works and progress. LCA MK2 is being developed since mk1 didn't met the requirements. LCA MK2 is more focused on meeting those than a new complete aircraft. Why on earth its been even developed when mk1a will partial meet the requirements. In today's world their is not much requirement of an ultra light aircraft in indian airforce, they are more focused on mid and heavy. 123 would have been enough but making mk2 and that's too inducting in next decade when China will be maturing J20 and possible Pakistan could have their hands on J31, LCA mk2 at best is not only taking share of best engineers at HAL and ADA but also a big sum of money when it will get into the service, 201 aircraft will surely take 20billion. And our fifth gen fighter is yet to get sanctioned while drdo demands for Tejas not AMCA.

Sent from my Aqua Ace II using Tapatalk

 

[Sancho]

Navy chief said that. Program is still alive because IN is ready to fund it. It will be limited as TD.

Correct, the NLCA MK2 will not be procured for IN as a carrier fighter, since the development risks are too high and it probably won't be able to meet INs ooerational requirements either.
Admiral Lamba confirmed only, that IN will keep supporting ADA on the NLCA tech demo programm, because that was INs main goal anyway, to create indigenous expertise in navalising a fighter.
The requirements for carrier fighters however, will be taken over by the 57 foreign fighters, that IN is considering for both carriers alongside Mig 29Ks.

 

[Kshithij]

Read the Article published by ADA in March 2017, based on 2015 and 2016 works and progress. LCA MK2 is being developed since mk1 didn't met the requirements. LCA MK2 is more focused on meeting those than a new complete aircraft. Why on earth its been even developed when mk1a will partial meet the requirements. In today's world their is not much requirement of an ultra light aircraft in indian airforce, they are more focused on mid and heavy. 123 would have been enough but making mk2 and that's too inducting in next decade when China will be maturing J20 and possible Pakistan could have their hands on J31, LCA mk2 at best is not only taking share of best engineers at HAL and ADA but also a big sum of money when it will get into the service, 201 aircraft will surely take 20billion. And our fifth gen fighter is yet to get sanctioned while drdo demands for Tejas not AMCA.

Sent from my Aqua Ace II using Tapatalk

Tejas is a 4.5 generation aircraft. It is also very stealthy in design. the only difference between 5th gen AMCA and Tejas is the lack of weapons bay in Tejas. But, if you only use internal weapons bay, the MACA will be able to carry only 2 bombs or 4 Astra missiles. So, for all roles except air superiority, AMCA is not ideal. Tejas is the best bet for most of A2G roles and can also lend a hand for A2A role. Tejas has better A2A capacity than F16 due to small RCS.

Also, the 5th generation technology like sensor fusion will also be incorporated in Tejas MK2, not just AMCA. So, Tejas MK2 will be almost equivalent to a 5th generation plane when both are carrying external payloads

 

[Kshithij]

Correct, the NLCA MK2 will not be procured for IN as a carrier fighter, since the development risks are too high and it probably won't be able to meet INs ooerational requirements either.
Admiral Lamba confirmed only, that IN will keep supporting ADA on the NLCA tech demo programm, because that was INs main goal anyway, to create indigenous expertise in navalising a fighter.
The requirements for carrier fighters however, will be taken over by the 57 foreign fighters, that IN is considering for both carriers alongside Mig 29Ks.

Carriers are likely to use MiG35 and MiG29K. India already makes engine of MiG29 and Russia is ready to give ToT for MiG35 (upgraded version of MiG29) for aircraft carrier based operation

 

[binayak95]

Carriers are likely to use MiG35 and MiG29K. India already makes engine of MiG29 and Russia is ready to give ToT for MiG35 (upgraded version of MiG29) for aircraft carrier based operation

No. The very fact that the IN issued a fresh tender for Carrier Borne Fighters means that the MiG 29K (where the hell did you dig up the MiG 35 from?) will never again be ordered. NEVER.

Its too much of a headache to operate and in its present config doesn't do justice to the range and payload expected for a modern CBF.

Its either the Rafale M or the F-18. Why do you think MoD wants a joint IAF IN order?

 

[Sancho]

I understand that SE fighters are inheritantly less safe than Twin Engine fighters.

But, this is neither 90's nor GE F404/414 are less safer engines.

That's true, engines are safer, especially western once. However, the real issue is not reliability of the engine, but the risk of bird strikes or damage to the engine caused by air defences, where a twin engine fighter offers higher survivability.

SINGLE ENGINE - COST BENEFITS, RELIABILITY, THRUST...
Issue: 7 / 2009
By Air Marshal (Retd) V.K. Bhatia

...Safety and survivability of twin-engine aircraft both during peace (bird strikes and technical failures) and war (enemy action) have been quoted as the most important driving factors for such a configuration. First, looking at peacetime scenarios, advocates of twin-engine fighters themselves agree on the utmost degree of reliability of modern day jet engines. Take the case of the single-engine Mirage 2000 aircraft. Since its induction a quarter of a century ago, there has been no known case of engine failure causing the loss of a Mirage 2000 in the history of the Indian Air Force. Moreover, modern day engines are being made as bird-proof as possible. On the other hand, during war, the close positioning of engines in all modern aircraft designs would make the twinengine safety factor largely irrelevant if subjected to enemy action (say, for instance, if the engines’ compartment is hit by AAM/SAM weapons)...

http://www.sps-aviation.com/story/?id=307

 

[Sancho]

A land based NLCA deployed from A&N (and Assumption island in the future) makes a lot of sense! But carrier deployment seems doubtful.

An anti ship missile like Harpoon would make LCA as a good replacement for maritime attack Jags, but they would be more suitable to our western coast lines and the enemy in that area.
The larger area that needs to be covered in the east and the far more capable potential enemy there, makes the MKI/Brahmos combo the best choice, although IAF also wanted to have MMRCAs in addition initially.