ADA Tejas Mark-II/Medium Weight Fighter

[tejas warrior]

Stealth requires design in airframe and aerodynamics. Tejas is already stealthy and has RAM coating too. I don't understand what do you mean by MK3. MK2 has high amount of composite, no canards and is small in size. What more addition do you want?

I mean to say, there should always be upgrades on LCA.

LCA Mk1 > LCA MK1-A > LCA MK2 > LCA Mk3

Once ADA develops Mk2 and then AMCA, there will be a hell lot of upgrades possible which can be done on MK2 - better Stealth features, upgraded AESA radars, Avionics.

There will be always a requirement for Single Engine Fighters along with twin engine fighters.

 

[harish.kaks]

Does this approval mean ADA will start working on the prototypes ??

 

[Sancho]

I mean to say, there should always be upgrades on LCA.

LCA Mk1 > LCA MK1-A > LCA MK2 > LCA Mk3

Once ADA develops Mk2 and then AMCA, there will be a hell lot of upgrades possible which can be done on MK2 - better Stealth features, upgraded AESA radars, Avionics.

Of course there will be upgrades every 10 to 15 years, similar to Darin upgrades on Jags for example. It is very likely that the MK1As at some point get the MK2 upgrades, it's not if, but when the MK2 comes and if it's worth to order newly build airframes by then?

However, Tejas and AMCA are 2 totally different fighters by design, layout and even techs. It's just a few subsystems that offer commonality, like radar (in different sizes though), some parts of avionics and maybe the engines, but even that is no certain at this point.
Tejas MK2 could come with the Kaveri / Snecma engine, if 95kN thrust can be achieved, while AMCA requires even an upgraded GE414.
If you than take systems like IRST or TV that are planned for AMCA but not for LCA at this point, or the fact that a stealth fighter has different operational priorities for the choice of weapons too, it gets clear both are very different.

Wrt stealth - the base of stealth is the design itself, which requires internal fuel and weapon carriage. Both are not possible with LCA, unless you can add CFTs or weapon pods. CFTs were not planned so far and the prefered option for IN was additional internal fuel, which however is limited. Weapon pods will be restricted by size and weight limitations of the external hardpoints (see advanced F18SH).
Another design issue is the vertical tail of course, which won't be changed either, since a twin tail adds more weight.

There is only so much you can do to reduce the RCS of non stealth fighters, because they were designed with other priorities in mind.

 

[Kshithij]

I mean to say, there should always be upgrades on LCA.

LCA Mk1 > LCA MK1-A > LCA MK2 > LCA Mk3

Once ADA develops Mk2 and then AMCA, there will be a hell lot of upgrades possible which can be done on MK2 - better Stealth features, upgraded AESA radars, Avionics.

There will be always a requirement for Single Engine Fighters along with twin engine fighters.

A new plane means new airframe. That is not worth it. Upgrades in terms of subsystems will always be there. It is best to design MK2 now itself in a way so as to have additional space which can be used for 200 litre of fuel for now but also for equipment in case needed in future.

 

[Prashant12]

AMCA and Mk2 has been sanctioned. Hopefully funds will also start to flow in soon.



Source - Indranil @BR

Tejas Mk-II was sanctioned in November 2009 at a cost of Rs.2431.55 Crore with Probable Date of Completion (PDC) of December 2018

http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=124301

 

[Kshithij]

Tejas Mk-II was sanctioned in November 2009 at a cost of Rs.2431.55 Crore with Probable Date of Completion (PDC) of December 2018

http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=124301

The reason for delay? Congress under foreign pressure. Is that comparable to today's scenario? Nope

 

[Sancho]

The reason for delay? Congress under foreign pressure. Is that comparable to today's scenario? Nope

If you search for excuses for sure, otherwise the delays in IOC, IOC 2, FOC, the lack of orders to keep the production running till MK2 could be developed and finally the decision to get MK1A in between are real reasons.

 

[Kshithij]

If you search for excuses for sure, otherwise the delays in IOC, IOC 2, FOC, the lack of orders to keep the production running till MK2 could be developed and finally the decision to get MK1A in between are real reasons.

How is it an excuse? If it is an excuse, please give me reasons for the same:
1) Lack of progress in Tejas from 2009 to 2014.
2) Funding Kaveri engine only 2100 crores and denying test bed

Next, delays in IOC, IOC2 and FOC is not really big delay. As I have said, Tejas was in a limbo without any progress and all of a sudden it got pushed into IOC and FOC. So, the sudden knee jerk reaction was what made it appear slow. IOC, to FOC will be acquired from 2015 to 2018 - in 4 years. That is a big deal indeed. One can't simply make IOC and FOC immediately. Otherwise, countries like Turkey will be making planes already

 

[Sancho]

How is it an excuse? If it is an excuse, please give me reasons for the same

Because you blame politics, when it's development delays that is the core problem. But you can't admit that and blame others or simply distract to other things. But finding excuses or ignoring problems, doesn't help Tejas nor the country!

Excuses =>
1) Lack of progress in Tejas from 2009 to 2014.
2) Funding Kaveri engine only 2100 crores and denying test bed

More excuses =>
FOC is not really big delay.

Twisting facts to distract =>
IOC, to FOC will be acquired from 2015 to 2018

IOC was achieved in 2013, FOC was planned for 2015 and even MK1A now is waiting for it.

 

[Kshithij]

Because you blame politics, when it's development delays that is the core problem. But you can't admit that and blame others or simply distract to other things. But finding excuses or ignoring problems, doesn't help Tejas nor the country!

Excuses =>
1) Lack of progress in Tejas from 2009 to 2014.
2) Funding Kaveri engine only 2100 crores and denying test bed

More excuses =>
FOC is not really big delay.

Twisting facts to distract =>
IOC, to FOC will be acquired from 2015 to 2018

IOC was achieved in 2013, FOC was planned for 2015 and even MK1A now is waiting for it.

IOC in 2013 was a sham. Without radar, EW what IOC is that?

Lack of funding is excuse but "failure after decades of research" is reason? DO you think research is about googling things? Lol!

How much time did T50 of Russia take from IOC to FOC? Is 4 years a big delay?

 

[Pandeyji]

BS Dhanoa confirms mk2
http://m.hindustantimes.com/india-n...f-bs-dhanoa/story-cgpjIpskxeiVcy8NT2gIqN.html

He said the IAF would induct Mark 2 fighters with higher thrust engines and new weapons by 2027.

 

[Sancho]

BS Dhanoa confirms mk2
http://m.hindustantimes.com/india-n...f-bs-dhanoa/story-cgpjIpskxeiVcy8NT2gIqN.html

The report is from Nov 2017, so nothing new.

 

[Pandeyji]

The report is from Nov 2017, so nothing new.

I posted it because almost all indian defence forum missed the news when it was published. Even BRF missed it. And we all were thinking that mk2 & AMCA were at conjecture stage & blaming the IAF for not supporting the programs.

 

[Pandeyji]

Only if you fake specs as the author did, otherwise it's more than evident, that a light class fighter, that doesn't even meet it's own requirements, can't keep up with medium class fighters.
Tejas can only compare itself to other light class fighters and as you pointed out yourself, the MK2 will only in roughly a decade.

India can't afford to be naive when it comes to the defence of the country, we need fighters with the capability to take on China and only MMRCAs can do that apart of MKIs of course.

2027 is worst case scenario. And as for capabilities of SEF & Tejas I think there is no point in restarting that debate again. It would be better if we politely agree to disagree.

Regarding lying about capabilities everybody does that. The brochures of each & every plane are full of lies & omissions. So there is no point in fighting on that matter.

P.S.:- I remember you mentioning that SEF RFI have been issued. Could you show any report that?

 

[Sancho]

2027 is worst case scenario. And as for capabilities of SEF & Tejas I think there is no point in restarting that debate again. It would be better if we politely agree to disagree.

Nope, that's an optimistic scenario, because we still need to develop the MK1A first, which is already at risk of delays, because it's dependent on the FOC as well.

People need to stop making up stuff about Tejas, just to make it compete with other fighters.We need Tejas to be fixed and ready to defend the country, not to show off and claim that it can compete with MMRCAs.
It needs FOC to provide minimum capability for IAF and it needs MK2 to provide the planned capability. None of that has anything to do with MMRCAs, but is a matter of the Tejas programme itself and that's why the success of Tejas is dependent on finishing the development work.

 

[Babloo Singh]

Ok friends here is a serious point regarding Tejas Mark-II, please come in with your views...

You see we designed Tejas from day one with Kaveri in mind & I believe that if & when Kaveri is ready it can be used in Tejas without any modifications.

Now coming to Tejas Mark-II, we are extending the length of Tejas by 1meter (almost 50 cm on nose cone & 50 cm on fuselage) to create extra internal space, there will be increase in wing area & there will be modification in air intake to take care of extra air flow requirement for the GE 414 engine.

Going through specs of GE 414 & Kaveri GTX-35VS on wikipedia I find
Air mass flow requirement for GE-414 is 77.1Kg/s where as for Kaveri it is 78 Kg/s

also Length of engine.. GE-414 is 391 cm long where as Kaveri is 349 cm the GE-404 has same length as GE-414

Now question which comes to my mind is, why do we need to modify Air Intake for Mk-2, when MK-1 was designed for Kaveri which need little bit more airflow compared to GE-414,

Second if we get a working Kaveri in say MK-1A we also get additional space of 42cm in fuselage as Kaveri is shorter than GE-404, which is close to 50 cm which was planned. Change in nose cone doesn't require changes in air frame.

So if Safarnazied Kaveri happens and delivers 95Kn+ do we need MK-2 as MK1A with this engine will have space for internal EW suite and some extra fuel too.
Please let me know your views.

 

[Pandeyji]

Ok friends here is a serious point regarding Tejas Mark-II, please come in with your views...

You see we designed Tejas from day one with Kaveri in mind & I believe that if & when Kaveri is ready it can be used in Tejas without any modifications.

The original plan was for an imported engine Kaveri entered the scene after 1998 sanctions.

Now coming to Tejas Mark-II, we are extending the length of Tejas by 1meter (almost 50 cm on nose cone & 50 cm on fuselage) to create extra internal space, there will be increase in wing area & there will be modification in air intake to take care of extra air flow requirement for the GE 414 engine.

Going through specs of GE 414 & Kaveri GTX-35VS on wikipedia I find
Air mass flow requirement for GE-414 is 77.1Kg/s where as for Kaveri it is 78 Kg/s

also Length of engine.. GE-414 is 391 cm long where as Kaveri is 349 cm the GE-404 has same length as GE-414

Now question which comes to my mind is, why do we need to modify Air Intake for Mk-2, when MK-1 was designed for Kaveri which need little bit more airflow compared to GE-414,

Second if we get a working Kaveri in say MK-1A we also get additional space of 42cm in fuselage as Kaveri is shorter than GE-404, which is close to 50 cm which was planned. Change in nose cone doesn't require changes in air frame.

So if Safarnazied Kaveri happens and delivers 95Kn+ do we need MK-2 as MK1A with this engine will have space for internal EW suite and some extra fuel too.
Please let me know your views.

Mk1 & Mk2 will have Ge-404 & Ge-414 respectively. Kaveri could be fitted there on an experimental basis but doing it on a permanent basis would require significant changes & massive reworking.

 

[cannonfodder]

Quote from BR:

Technology is like a building, you build the latest generation atop the work done in earlier generations. If every desi product is compared with the latest gizmo from abroad and is discarded because it does not match or overmatch the latest & greatest, we will never be able to catch up. If the service says 'not my job to root for an unmade untested article' then they will never be able to design/use technology to shape the battlefield.

They can take a risk management approach towards unmade/untested articles, but again **IMHO** it should be a part of their mandate to shape the technological lay of the battlefield as much as it is part of their mandate to shape the physical lay of the battlefield

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tejas MK1 in current state without FOC is a capable fighter in my opinion. Whatever TODO's are present in Tejas can be addressed with incremental improvements. It is just a matter of fine tuning the home designed product which requires user feedback and stabilizing the production( bringing up the entire aerospace infrastructure with Tier1-2 manufacturers). When I visit Airshows here, i see like 100 of different aircraft experimented; we don't have that kind of luxury. Better improve on what we have and see through the entire development cycle rather than whining and addressing all deficiencies as must haves.

 

[Sancho]

You see we designed Tejas from day one with Kaveri in mind & I believe that if & when Kaveri is ready it can be used in Tejas without any modifications.

Now coming to Tejas Mark-II, we are extending the length of Tejas by 1meter (almost 50 cm on nose cone & 50 cm on fuselage) to create extra internal space, there will be increase in wing area & there will be modification in air intake to take care of extra air flow requirement for the GE 414 engine.

Going through specs of GE 414 & Kaveri GTX-35VS on wikipedia I find
Air mass flow requirement for GE-414 is 77.1Kg/s where as for Kaveri it is 78 Kg/s

also Length of engine.. GE-414 is 391 cm long where as Kaveri is 349 cm the GE-404 has same length as GE-414

Now question which comes to my mind is, why do we need to modify Air Intake for Mk-2, when MK-1 was designed for Kaveri which need little bit more airflow compared to GE-414,

Second if we get a working Kaveri in say MK-1A we also get additional space of 42cm in fuselage as Kaveri is shorter than GE-404, which is close to 50 cm which was planned. Change in nose cone doesn't require changes in air frame.

So if Safarnazied Kaveri happens and delivers 95Kn+ do we need MK-2 as MK1A with this engine will have space for internal EW suite and some extra fuel too.
Please let me know your views.

LCA MK1 length 13.2m
LCA MK2 length 13.7m

So the extention was just aimed at 50cm and that behind the cockpit to add space for avionics and fuel tanks (IN requirement):
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-I40Q_WKDw8I/TgzusFozLkI/AAAAAAAAAJs/YLqrL8qRqzA/s1600/Tejas+LCA+Mk2.jpg

Now if you use a shorter engine, it only creates space in front of the compressor, which can't be filled to not disrupt the airflow, therfore only the air intake would be extended. The planned gap behind the cockpit on the other side, is in between the air intake and in front of it, therefore creates new space, without interrupting the intakes or the airflow.

Kaveri might not need internal modifications, if the size remains the same. The question however is, if the air intakes need to be modified to increase airflow. F18SH needed larger intakes when they moved from GE404 to 414, Gripen E has slightly larger intakes as well and even Rafale is said to need no modifications till the M88 is limited to a max of 83kN thrust, anything above will require larger intakes.
According to the airflow specs of Kaveri, the air intakes might be large enough for higher thrust engines too, but thathe needs to be tested and certified, when the engine is integrated on a Tejas testbed.

 

[Sancho]

Quote from BR:


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tejas MK1 in current state without FOC is a capable fighter in my opinion. Whatever TODO's are present in Tejas can be addressed with incremental improvements. It is just a matter of fine tuning the home designed product which requires user feedback and stabilizing the production( bringing up the entire aerospace infrastructure with Tier1-2 manufacturers).

The problem is, that only Tejas fans compare it to foreign counterparts, while IAF compares it to the ASR requirements => it's own development goals!

If you hire a construction company to build a house for you, with a specific number of doors and windows, that should be delivered at a specific date, you expect the work to be done according to the plan. You wouldn't accept the house if it hasn't doors or windows, nor would you accept delays in the construction, that are caused by the company either. But that's what you suggested with Tejas!

- Tejas IOC haven't expanded it's already limited flight envelope to operationally needed levels => that's what FOC is for
- Tejas IOC doesn't have a gun, BVR missiles, nor the new WVR missiles => can't replace Mig 21s in the interception role without FOC
- Tejas IOC has limited range and endurance => requires the integration of IFR probe during FOC
- Tejas MK1 in general does not meet the ASR flight performance requirements => that's why a higher thrust engine in the MK2 was required.

These are major issues that remains until IAF can accept the fighter for operational service, while the MK1A upgrade is basically fine tuning (modernising of existing capabilities like radar and EW, because of the development delays, improving maintenance based on customer feedback) like you said.

So FOC is the key for Tejas, while MK1A is just a stop gap fine tuning measure, till MK2 is developed, to finally meet the ASR and make Tejas capable enough, according to it's own goals!