ADA Tejas Mark-II/Medium Weight Fighter

[Steven Rogers]

Lots of "if's", so let me give some as well...

"If" we would had been smarter and less obsessed with pride and over ambition , we wouldn't had wasted time and money on a useless NLCA development, that redirected the focus of the LCA programme to unnecessary areas.

"If" we had taken up the Airbus / Eurojet offer, to select EJ 200 engines for MK2 and jointly develop and sell an advanced trainer version, Tejas would had been far more capable and a success by now, because we would had focused on the land based version only (naval version made GE414 unavoidable), could have improved manuverability with 3D TVC, export trainer versions to countries, that now order KAI T50s and could have brought an experienced partner into the programme, not just for consultancy.

"If" we wouldn't always try to make more out of Tejas than it actually could be, we would be less disappointed, when the reality of delays, performance shortfalls, or simply lack of space hits.
It never will outclass fighters, since it never was suppose to be a leading fighter of a generation. It was meant to give India a modern aviation industry base and a low end fighter for IAF (a modern Mig 21), that's all it needs to deliver, but that's also what we still are waiting for.

What ever the jibe you make, the tejas AF mk2 design was completed in 2016 only. If Air force had to adopt Tejas mk2 AF, (it was nothing more but minimal design improvements with higher rated engine) , it would have been prototyped and would be been flying. The design now says is still going on and will only be available in 2019, so wait for aero India show 2019. Since Mk2 navy is almost finished the debates will only go on AF version. And all those ifs and buts, comparing with SK F50(I prefer Lockheed F50) is only sold and marketed due to the assurance of Lockheed. Buying off the shelve avionics and then mass manufacturing is easy than RnD. The fact is modern mig21 don't exist, and the last model can only do a small part of what tejas has in its envelope, the reason why IAF went for 1000nds of mig21s . Just to remind, the GSQR of IAF back in 1983 said they require "an air superiority fighter with limited ground attack roles. "

Sent from my Aqua Ace II using Tapatalk

 

[Steven Rogers]

Nonsense. All of the mentioned systems will remain not only in the serial production versions of FOC, but also in MK1A, or the MK2. The reason for that is, that we have no indigenous alternative and whenever that is the case we have to import. Be if for parts and systems, or a full fighter!

And don't distract from you earlier claim, that the UK could not be trusted and that's why we couldn't get EJ200.



If you had any idea what you are talking, you would know, that only IN required additional internal fuel tanks, to meet the operational requirements for carrier operations, just as that was a way to meet their 4 x BVR missile requirement in air defence config.
IAF on the other side, didn't want to add more weight and required "only" more thrust and upgraded radar and avionics. That's why there are 2 proposals for an IAF MK2 and an IN MK2 based on NLCA, which means same subsystems but different airframe modifications based on different requirements.



Which again shows your lack of knowledge, since any MK2 version was planned to remain with 7+1 hardpoints only, contrary to the Mirage 2005 or Gripen E, that both added stations to increase the number of weapons that can be carried.
That's why an MK2 remains to be a modern Mig 21 light class predecessor and not an MMRCA. It was an upgrade to fix the problems of MK1, not to make a medium class fighter out of it.

Strange since Admin of Tejas LCA Facebook page confirmed that Tejas is getting one more store.

Sent from my Aqua Ace II using Tapatalk

 

[Steven Rogers]

Nonsense. All of the mentioned systems will remain not only in the serial production versions of FOC, but also in MK1A, or the MK2. The reason for that is, that we have no indigenous alternative and whenever that is the case we have to import. Be if for parts and systems, or a full fighter!

And don't distract from you earlier claim, that the UK could not be trusted and that's why we couldn't get EJ200.



If you had any idea what you are talking, you would know, that only IN required additional internal fuel tanks, to meet the operational requirements for carrier operations, just as that was a way to meet their 4 x BVR missile requirement in air defence config.
IAF on the other side, didn't want to add more weight and required "only" more thrust and upgraded radar and avionics. That's why there are 2 proposals for an IAF MK2 and an IN MK2 based on NLCA, which means same subsystems but different airframe modifications based on different requirements.



Which again shows your lack of knowledge, since any MK2 version was planned to remain with 7+1 hardpoints only, contrary to the Mirage 2005 or Gripen E, that both added stations to increase the number of weapons that can be carried.
That's why an MK2 remains to be a modern Mig 21 light class predecessor and not an MMRCA. It was an upgrade to fix the problems of MK1, not to make a medium class fighter out of it.

Yep for sure, but that all said in old brochures which was indeed that tejas mk2 is uprated fighter with the capability to match the GSQR designed in 2002. But now various sources including trusted say that tejas mk2 will be more than what was earlier stated, else air force would haven't convinced to induct 201 mk2 which is nothing but just an Upg on mk1 for meeting their old GSQR. GSQR of 2002 will not work In the next decade.

Sent from my Aqua Ace II using Tapatalk

 

[Sancho]

What ever the jibe you make,

I don't make jibes, but fight the nonsense, hype and pride based expectations, with rational and fact based views!

That's why I know, that this:

If Air force had to adopt Tejas mk2 AF, (it was nothing more but minimal design improvements with higher rated engine) , it would have been prototyped and would be been flying.

That this is simply wrong and unrealistic, because it neither factors in the design changes necessary for the MK2 airframe to integrate a new engine and additional avionics (longer and wider fuselage!), nor that IAFs plans were troubled by ADAs proposal of NLCA MK2! That's when the MK2 upgrade got far more complicated, because it included requirements of IN too!

As said before, additional internal fuel was not required by IAF. They also initially asked for a 90kN engine, but with weight kept increasing and the higher weight of NLCA just as the need for a navalised engine for NLCA, the GE414 was needed and not because IAF wanted 98kN thrust.

Not to mention that you ignore the problems of IOC and FOC! We are nearly a decade behind the plan for FOC, which logically also delayed any plans for an MK2 as well. But people who don't want to see the reality of programme, can claim that everything would be easy and that it somehow is something special, while ignoring the delays and shortfalls.

No it's not easy to design and develop a fighter. We made a lot of mistakes and still suffering from them and all Tejas is meant to be, is a decent 4th gen light class fighter and we still need to fight to achieve that with the MK2.

Strange since Admin of Tejas LCA Facebook page confirmed that Tejas is getting one more store.

Sent from my Aqua Ace II using Tapatalk

OK

 

[Steven Rogers]

I don't make jibes, but fight the nonsense, hype and pride based expectations, with rational and fact based views!

That's why I know, that this:



That this is simply wrong and unrealistic, because it neither factors in the design changes necessary for the MK2 airframe to integrate a new engine and additional avionics (longer and wider fuselage!), nor that IAFs plans were troubled by ADAs proposal of NLCA MK2! That's when the MK2 upgrade got far more complicated, because it included requirements of IN too!

As said before, additional internal fuel was not required by IAF. They also initially asked for a 90kN engine, but with weight kept increasing and the higher weight of NLCA just as the need for a navalised engine for NLCA, the GE414 was needed and not because IAF wanted 98kN thrust.

Not to mention that you ignore the problems of IOC and FOC! We are nearly a decade behind the plan for FOC, which logically also delayed any plans for an MK2 as well. But people who don't want to see the reality of programme, can claim that everything would be easy and that it somehow is something special, while ignoring the delays and shortfalls.

No it's not easy to design and develop a fighter. We made a lot of mistakes and still suffering from them and all Tejas is meant to be, is a decent 4th gen light class fighter and we still need to fight to achieve that with the MK2.




OK

To be honest, mk2 navy should be called as a brand new design, unlike gripen which has no significant aerodynamic change, mk2 N is designed from the ground up, and that's what it should have been for AF but it's not. And if it's not the prototyping should have done as AF mk2, has been shown as the same tejas with stretched fuselage and some improvement to reduce drag by 8 percent(not significant since mk1a reduces drag by 7 percent). Mk1A now offers the same, air force wanted as per GSQR 2002,with new added hard point making total 8+1.

FOC is decades behind but technically it's not possible in short duration, it itself takes more than 6 to 7 years after IOC. LCA Tejas mk1 and 1a are ordered in 123, now if the mk2 is not much significant(since 59 improvements will be made on mk1a from previous 43) , it is foolishness to buy even 100s of those, the technology which will go in making is of last decade, at best Tejas mk2 (of taken from last brochures) is half the capability of Rafale F3 not the F4 which will be available before it. INDUCTING a 4th gen, possible 4++ in 2030s is a pure disaster, and not to forgot it is chosen after scrapping single engine MRCA, even after their is no such MMRCA 2.0 exist other than media hype.

Sent from my Aqua Ace II using Tapatalk

 

[Kshithij]

Nonsense. All of the mentioned systems will remain not only in the serial production versions of FOC, but also in MK1A, or the MK2. The reason for that is, that we have no indigenous alternative and whenever that is the case we have to import. Be if for parts and systems, or a full fighter!

And don't distract from you earlier claim, that the UK could not be trusted and that's why we couldn't get EJ200.

From when did these minor things become critical technology that India is incapable of making? What eactly is so special about ejection seats that India has to keep importing forever? If India has no indigenous ones today, it can be made tomorrow. Unless the technology is complicated to make, you should stop blaring.

Here - ARDE made ejection cartridge (which is used in ejection seats): https://www.drdo.gov.in/drdo/labs1/ARDE/English/indexnew.jsp?pg=achieve.jsp

DRDO made ejection canopy; https://punemirror.indiatimes.com/p...ced-by-private-firms/articleshow/56739559.cms

If you had any idea what you are talking, you would know, that only IN required additional internal fuel tanks, to meet the operational requirements for carrier operations, just as that was a way to meet their 4 x BVR missile requirement in air defence config.
IAF on the other side, didn't want to add more weight and required "only" more thrust and upgraded radar and avionics. That's why there are 2 proposals for an IAF MK2 and an IN MK2 based on NLCA, which means same subsystems but different airframe modifications based on different requirements.

Are you the IAF chief who decided all this? If not, you are hallucinating. The IAF and IN MK2 is an old concept and was simply a confused idea. There was absolutely no proper design made on any of these older design. That was just UPA era delays.

Don't make up stories like adding weight etc. If the engine is of higher thrust, then higher fuel requirement will exist to maintain endurance. This is something obvious. Also, there is no reason to have a higher thrust engine if payload is not going to increase. This is also obvious.

Which again shows your lack of knowledge, since any MK2 version was planned to remain with 7+1 hardpoints only, contrary to the Mirage 2005 or Gripen E, that both added stations to increase the number of weapons that can be carried.
That's why an MK2 remains to be a modern Mig 21 light class predecessor and not an MMRCA. It was an upgrade to fix the problems of MK1, not to make a medium class fighter out of it.

This is also your own assumption without any basis. How do you know that LCA MK2 will also have same number of hardpoints as MK1 when the fuselage is said to be increasing in both length and width? What do you think the additional length and width be used for?

Don't behave like an ignorant and claim that a plane is made with the focus on the number of hardpoint. The number of hardpoints will be decided according to the mission. Sometimes. a single hardpoint may be split into 2 hardpoint. All this depends on the configuration.

WIthout your own hallucinations, you claim MK2 as a modern MiG21. MiG21 has air suction from the front, not with inlet pipes as in tejas. Tejas MK1 was to be a modern MiG21 but MK2 is supposed to be modern Mirage 2000.

Don't hallucinate your own scenarios.

 

[Kshithij]

To be honest, mk2 navy should be called as a brand new design, unlike gripen which has no significant aerodynamic change, mk2 N is designed from the ground up, and that's what it should have been for AF but it's not. And if it's not the prototyping should have done as AF mk2, has been shown as the same tejas with stretched fuselage and some improvement to reduce drag by 8 percent(not significant since mk1a reduces drag by 7 percent). Mk1A now offers the same, air force wanted as per GSQR 2002,with new added hard point making total 8+1.

FOC is decades behind but technically it's not possible in short duration, it itself takes more than 6 to 7 years after IOC. LCA Tejas mk1 and 1a are ordered in 123, now if the mk2 is not much significant(since 59 improvements will be made on mk1a from previous 43) , it is foolishness to buy even 100s of those, the technology which will go in making is of last decade, at best Tejas mk2 (of taken from last brochures) is half the capability of Rafale F3 not the F4 which will be available before it. INDUCTING a 4th gen, possible 4++ in 2030s is a pure disaster, and not to forgot it is chosen after scrapping single engine MRCA, even after their is no such MMRCA 2.0 exist other than media hype.

Sent from my Aqua Ace II using Tapatalk

Unless ADA is foolish, there is no need to make 2 designs separately and waste 10 years of time. If Navy can use a plane, the same can be used by Air Force too. If the design for Naval MK2 is ready, that will alos be the MK2 for Air Force.

Just be logical for once and stop parroting the same thing again and again. Either accept that ADA is mentally unsound and hence decided to make 2 MK2- one for Navy and other for AF or accept that ADA is reasonable and hence made one single MK2 with variants having minor modification for Navy and Air Force

 

[Sancho]

mk2 N is designed from the ground up,

Not exactly, because it's still based on the NLCA design and that's where most of the differences to IAF LCA come in.
IAF doesn't need angled cockpit, LEVCONS, airframe and gear modifications for carrier operations...
The NLCA MK2 changes only come on top of that.

Mk1A now offers the same, air force wanted as per GSQR 2002

No it doesn't, since the flight performance improvement can only be achieved with the higher thrust engine. That's the key change IAF wanted, MK1A is just a minor modernisation of the MK1 airframe, with the easy changes of the MK2, while the difficult once are still to come and will take time.

 

[Rahul Singh]

As per recent release of livefist, MK2 will be 14.2m in length. Canards are at a distance to the wing, generally 0.5m and has a length of 1m - 2m. The canards will require fuselage length to be increased to 15m from current 13.2m. This is not enough to have canards.

This means that either the size of the wings will be drastically reduced or the fuselage will increase to 15m in length or there will be no canards.

Gripen with Canard:

Tejas MK1 Navy with LEVCON:

Tejas MK1 with double delta and a crank (instead of LEVCON):

The slight bend downwards in the place of LEVCONs is the crank.

I personally believe AF Tejas Mk-2 will be built around N LCA MK-2 circa 2015. And ADA won't increase length beyond 14.5m.

As for Canard placing. If you closely look at the model of N LCA MK-2(see pic below), there is enough space behind canopy to mount a canard in a close-couple configuration, if the LEVCONs are removed. However, size of the canard won't be in same proportion as Gripen. I believe it should be rather in the similar proportion with Rafale.

NLCA Mk-2 circa 2015

Rafale vs Gripen. Size of Canards in proportion with the main wing.

 

[Steven Rogers]

Not exactly, because it's still based on the NLCA design and that's where most of the differences to IAF LCA come in.
IAF doesn't need angled cockpit, LEVCONS, airframe and gear modifications for carrier operations...
The NLCA MK2 changes only come on top of that.



No it doesn't, since the flight performance improvement can only be achieved with the higher thrust engine. That's the key change IAF wanted, MK1A is just a minor modernisation of the MK1 airframe, with the easy changes of the MK2, while the difficult once are still to come and will take time.

It should have been the best option, as it will excel the performance just like French approach, they developed a naval aircraft from which airforce version was derived. GSQR do says higher performance, but it can be achieved by loosing weight(priority for mk1a) and a 90kN engine, apart from official site every where(even in GE brochure ) that GEF404IN20 produces 84kN of Thrust not 90. An uprated 90kN and decreased weight will do the job which iaf wanted. Mk1a was developed in 3re years of time, it has changes in design with original mk1, the only similarity is it is not an extended version, the performance parameters are same, thus no need of mk2 which will come with the same performance. Mk2 as per ada report was completed in design in 2016. Avionics to be completed by this year.

Sent from my Aqua Ace II using Tapatalk

 

[Rahul Singh]

Unless ADA is foolish, there is no need to make 2 designs separately and waste 10 years of time. If Navy can use a plane, the same can be used by Air Force too. If the design for Naval MK2 is ready, that will alos be the MK2 for Air Force.

Logically it is how things should progress now on. The time which the marginally improved AF MK-2 circa 2009 was to save has already been lost. So no point going for it.

On another hand, NLCA MK-2 is a new design from the ground up. The similarity is only in contours. Internally and externally it is nothing but new. And just like Rafale and F/A-18 it can be developed into a land-based version easily.

By next AI lot of things would be clear.

 

[Sancho]

From when did these minor things become critical technology that India is incapable of making?

More distractions from your earlier claim?

Don't make up stories like adding weight etc

Lol don't blame your lack of understanding on me. Even a little bit of research should make you understand, that a naval varient usually is 500 to 1000Kg heavier than it's land based version. NLCA is overdeveloped and got LEVCONS added, which adds more weight too and that doesn't even include the MK2 changes IN wanted.

How do you know that LCA MK2 will also have same number of hardpoints as MK1 when the fuselage is said to be increasing in both length and width?

Because all official ADA brochures and graphics of MK2 show the same 7+1 stations very clearly.
The airframe modifications were needed for the internal size increase (engine, avionics, fuel tanks) and not meant to add more stations.
The payload was meant to increase, which makes LCA able to use the centerline station in addition to the currently integrated wing loads (that's why the graphics of MK2 show 3 x LGBs instead of 2 so far). That's similar to the upgrade from Gripen A/B to C/D for example, same number of stations, payload increased to 4 to 5t (depending on internal fuel).

 

[Sancho]

It should have been the best option, as it will excel the performance just like French approach, they developed a naval aircraft from which airforce version was derived.

Not even close! Rafale was designed and developed with an naval varient in mind too and with less modifications than between LCA and NLCA. So planing with mavalisation from scratch is easier than what ADA did, changing everything that was designed for land based operations only.

 

[Kshithij]

More distractions from your earlier claim?

What distractions? UK and USA are not trustworthy. They never agree for any transfer of technology and only try to get their product sold.

Lol don't blame your lack of understanding on me. Even a little bit of research should make you understand, that a naval varient usually is 500 to 1000Kg heavier than it's land based version. NLCA is overdeveloped and got LEVCONS added, which adds more weight too and that doesn't even include the MK2 changes IN wanted.

It is your lack of understanding, not mine. The hardened fuselage and LEVCONS are extra fitting. The overall design is the same but the minor variation in underbelly and wing tip will be different. Essentially, the aerodynamics of IN and IAF Tejas MK2 will be same.

It is quite obvious that the Naval planes need to land using arrestor wires and hence need very strong landing gear and fuselage which will rise weight.

Because all official ADA brochures and graphics of MK2 show the same 7+1 stations very clearly.
The airframe modifications were needed for the internal size increase (engine, avionics, fuel tanks) and not meant to add more stations.
The payload was meant to increase, which makes LCA able to use the centerline station in addition to the currently integrated wing loads (that's why the graphics of MK2 show 3 x LGBs instead of 2 so far). That's similar to the upgrade from Gripen A/B to C/D for example, same number of stations, payload increased to 4 to 5t (depending on internal fuel).

These are older versions. There has been no news for the actual finalised version of MK2. The older version was just paper based and none of them were even tested in wind tunnels. It was after Modi govt came that the MK2 was actually started to be designed. It was finalised in 2017 and livefist had released the dimensions. The drag reduction of 8% was also mentioned at this time. But additional information is not yet available. You are drawing premature conclusions

 

[Kshithij]

I personally believe AF Tejas Mk-2 will be built around N LCA MK-2 circa 2015. And ADA won't increase length beyond 14.5m.

As for Canard placing. If you closely look at the model of N LCA MK-2(see pic below), there is enough space behind canopy to mount a canard in a close-couple configuration, if the LEVCONs are removed. However, size of the canard won't be in same proportion as Gripen. I believe it should be rather in the similar proportion with Rafale.

NLCA Mk-2 circa 2015

Rafale vs Gripen. Size of Canards in proportion with the main wing.

Canards are not put under the pilot in any plane. I am not sure of the reasons but all planes have canards before the pilot's seat. So, I don't think any close coupled canard will work.

Also, the canard can't be just a streak. So, it will require at least 1m length in addition to about 0.5m gap with the wings. If the canard is too close to wings, it becomes a LEVCON. So, I don't see any way a 14.2-14.5 m long Tejas can have canards without compromising wing size

 

[Rahul Singh]

Canards are not put under the pilot in any plane. I am not sure of the reasons but all planes have canards before the pilot's seat. So, I don't think any close coupled canard will work.

Also, the canard can't be just a streak. So, it will require at least 1m length in addition to about 0.5m gap with the wings. If the canard is too close to wings, it becomes a LEVCON. So, I don't see any way a 14.2-14.5 m long Tejas can have canards without compromising wing size

All depends on the size of the Canard chosen.

EFT has canards almost under pilot/cockpit.

 

[Kshithij]

All depends on the size of the Canard chosen.

EFT has canards almost under pilot/cockpit.

I guess I was wrong about canard under pilot. However, one thing I have noticed is that none of the Eurofighter, Rafale or Gripen have flaps on the wings which Tejas has. Also, none of them are double delta or crank.

If you ask me, the design of Tejas is a work of genius and carefully done so as to avoid Canards altogether. The flaps, double delta and cranks appear to give enough controls that a canard may not be needed.

 

[Rahul Singh]

If you ask me, the design of Tejas is a work of genius and carefully done so as to avoid Canards altogether. The flaps, double delta and cranks appear to give enough controls that a canard may not be needed.

That's is true.

Canard is known to aid in having better Pitch Control over just Elevons with obvious drawback of adding extra weight. In Tejas particularly there is only Elevons fulfilling the role of both an elevator as well as ailerons. And it is sufficient to fulfil all sorts of practical requirements including required STR.

However, if ASR for Tejas requires it to have an Empty weight of just 5500Kgs when all other contemporaries weigh around and above 6500kgs. Then who knows what's its STR as required in ASR equals to? Maybe it is around to that of Mig-29.

Nowhere in the world, a true/cropped delta can be practically asked to match STR of Mig-29 type. However same is not true about IAF. They practically prepared Tejas ASR using stated features of Mirage 2000 F-16 and Mig-29s.

So to fulfil such an exorbitant requirement Canards became indispensable.

After years of studies, ADA has finalized the shape of Canard for Tejas Mk-2. AI-19 will disclose it all.

I guess I was wrong about canard under pilot. However, one thing I have noticed is that none of the Eurofighter, Rafale or Gripen have flaps on the wings which Tejas has. Also, none of them are double delta or crank.

Sorry, I did not get you.

Both Rafale and EFT have Elevons. Gripen has split Elevons which can be separately deployed as Flap and Ailerons. Each of them has Leading edge Slats.

WRT Tejas. It is true that none of these three has cropped delta-like Tejas or a cranked delta. Each one of them has a true delta.

Gripen. Split Elevons(1st pic). 2pc Leading Edge Slats (2nd pic)

EF 2000. Leading Edge Slats visibly deployed.

Rafale. Leading edge slats.

 

[Kshithij]

That's is true.

Canard is known to aid in having better Pitch Control over just Elevons with obvious drawback of adding extra weight. In Tejas particularly there is only Elevons fulfilling the role of both an elevator as well as ailerons. And it is sufficient to fulfil all sorts of practical requirements including required STR.

However, if ASR for Tejas requires it to have an Empty weight of just 5500Kgs when all other contemporaries weigh around and above 6500kgs. Then who knows what's its STR as required in ASR equals to? Maybe it is around to that of Mig-29.

Nowhere in the world, a true/cropped delta can be practically asked to match STR of Mig-29 type. However same is not true about IAF. They practically prepared Tejas ASR using stated features of Mirage 2000 F-16 and Mig-29s.

So to fulfil such an exorbitant requirement Canards became indispensable.

After years of studies, ADA has finalized the shape of Canard for Tejas Mk-2. AI-19 will disclose it all.



Sorry, I did not get you.

Both Rafale and EFT have Elevons. Gripen has split Elevons which can be separately deployed as Flap and Ailerons. Each of them has Leading edge Slats.

WRT Tejas. It is true that none of these three has cropped delta-like Tejas or a cranked delta. Each one of them has a true delta.

Gripen. Split Elevons(1st pic). 2pc Leading Edge Slats (2nd pic)

EF 2000. Leading Edge Slats visibly deployed.

Rafale. Leading edge slats.

I see. Thanks for that info. I am wondering whether the wings are going to get smaller or if the canards are coming under the pilot. I guess we will know in 2019

 

[Rahul Singh]

I see. Thanks for that info. I am wondering whether the wings are going to get smaller or if the canards are coming under the pilot. I guess we will know in 2019

Changing the wing dimensions certainly won't be the option for obvious reasons.

Placing of Canard, of course, is going to interesting because of lesser space margins. A lot will depend on the shape of it.