ADA Tejas Mark-II/Medium Weight Fighter

[Sancho]

So if we put this Kaveri 95 in Mk-1A & implement some of the weight saving measures planned for MK II, we get
the T/W required and not only that but we also get a 42cm plug in aircraft without making any structural change.

Good summery and correct except of this part. The shorter engine doesn't make space that can be plugged with other stuff. It only means that the air ducts of the intakes gets extended to the shorter engine face.
The plug that was planned for MK2 was aimed in between the air intakes and behind the cockpit, therfore not interfering with the airflow towards the engine.

So lobbies get to work, single engine RFI is cancelled, talks of MMRCA2 starts...... is this end of Tejas MK-II... well I don't think so, Tejas MK-II for IAF will now shape up around AMCA engine (K-10 or GE 414 EPE)

The one has nothing to do with the other!

Tejas MK2 = fix to make Tejas meet the ASR requirements, roughly 2 decades behind schedule.

MMRCA requirement (SE or TE) = addition of more capable fighters "above" Tejas, to address the increased threat potential that we face today.

 

[Babloo Singh]

The shorter engine doesn't make space that can be plugged with other stuff. It only means that the air ducts of the intakes gets extended to the shorter engine face.
The plug that was planned for MK2 was aimed in between the air intakes and behind the cockpit, therfore not interfering with the airflow towards the engine.

What you are saying is the easiest way to install a shorter engine.. I am sure designers will be able to make some usable space if they redo the intake ducts... won't be very complex exercise as they had initial work done for shorter engine.any way they will have some work adjusting the center of gravity, when a shorter engine is installed. The space may not be as much as when you do a plug but Idea is to extract the usable space they lost by using longer engine.

Nothing is unconnected in murky world of defense deals.... but I take your point and leave it out on this discussion thread.

 

[Steven Rogers]

IAF never asked for an MK2 in the ASR, but for performance, that sadly only the MK2 will be able to deliver! So the main goal of MK2 is still to achieve the ASR requirements. Just because we needed decades to achieve it, doesn't change that.




Not even close! We have issues with nearly every conventional aircraft design, with the result of drag and overweight for LCA, IJT, Saras, or even LCH.
The material issues of the LCA radome also showed us limitations, not to mention that we needed to hire Airbus, to get the mess in our flight testing and NLCA design fixed again. Stealth design is even more complex, not only to divert radar signals, but also to minimise the drag from the unconventinal design, that is not aimed at aerodynamic performance. That alone will be a major problem and would require a design and development partner from scratch.
And even if I put my hopes on Samtel, the likely choice for AMCAs cockpit, was the JV between HAL and Elbit, for a similar LAD that Gripen E or F18 B3 uses (MMRCA RFI asks about LAD). Not to mention that even with Israeli support, DRDO was not able to develop an EW suitable for MK1A, let alone a more advanced one for AMCA (MMRCA RFI also asks about GaN and EW capabilities).

The standard quote, "we have developed composites", is not enough to make a 5th gen fighter, since the difference between a 4th gen LCA and a 5th gen AMCA is too big.

The EW suite is still under development for Mk2, it was never for mk1a as mk1a came into picture only in 2015.

Sent from my Aqua Ace II using Tapatalk

 

[Babloo Singh]

Tejas Mark II -- Crystal Ball Gazing

Is Tejas Mk2 shelved ? Well as @Sancho rightly points out,


Tejas started with design weight of 5.5 ton & powered by 80+ Kn Kaveri, thanks to materials & additional capability requirements we ended up with 6.6 Tons.... 20% higher empty weight. and Kaveri wasn't there.
So we added GE 404 which gave us approx 8-10% higher thrust to offset some of the weight gain but GE 404 was 42 cm longer than Kaveri, so it eat up valuable space inside Tejas.
Result compromise on internal SPJ or internal fuel quantity... or may be both.along with less than required T/W ratio hence performance.

So here comes Tejas Mark II, with a 50 cm fuselage plug, to regain internal space, aerodynamic improvements & weight reduction & most importantly 98 Kn GE-414 to cover up for drop in T/W ratio. Aim here was to maintain 6.6 Ton weight even after adding space. This should deliver the performance required by air force.
This suits air force as they not only get required performance but are able to ask for ordering of single engine jets from foreign vendors as this will take time and they are short on Sqn strength.

Now come to Tejas Mk1A a stop gap arrangement forced down the throat of IAF, giving them many bells & whistles required by them but still lacking the performance due to inherent T/W deficit. But there was small twist here... Rafale & Safran. Now suddenly a 95 Kn Kaveri started looking like a real possibility.
So if we put this Kaveri 95 in Mk-1A & implement some of the weight saving measures planned for MK II, we get
the T/W required and not only that but we also get a 42cm plug in aircraft without making any structural change. Oops now this can be done faster than even foreign jet supplies and MK-II not required.

So lobbies get to work, single engine RFI is cancelled, talks of MMRCA2 starts...... is this end of Tejas MK-II... well I don't think so, Tejas MK-II for IAF will now shape up around AMCA engine (K-10 or GE 414 EPE)

Tejas Mark II -- Crystal Ball Gazing

A Tejas Mk 1A with Kaveri 95 will go into mass production with HAL upping production rate, all the noises after Gagan Shakti indicates the same, but Tejas Mk II won't be going to sleep.

Navy will continue work on NLCA 2, 1st let's see why....
1. 5th gen aircraft's are maintenance heavy, that too when they are operating from ground, non of them are in regular operation on a carrier, so we don't know what impact sea air is going to have on their delicate coatings.
so maintaining a AMCA or even F-35 is going to be unknown challenge.
2. 5th Gen birds are going to cost bomb, Rafale isn't cheap either.

Given Risk reward ratio Navy should develop MK II, in worse case they will have a custom made trainers and practice aircraft's to train their pilots before they graduate on 5th gen or 4++ gen, This bird can be used to train for deck landing & takeoff too by keeping the carrier close to shore, there will be demand for this kind of dedicated naval trainer from other Navies which will further reduce the risk on money invested.
In best case if this works navy will have mix of AMCA / Tejas on carriers. ( may be F-18+Tejas or Rafale+Tejas)
The combo will have same engine to keep things simple.
(Small note on Single engine not suitable for Navy theory: There was time when twin engine commercial flights were not crossing Pacific due to safety reason, only 4 engine one's did... and no single engine bird on 26th Jan flypast... this year we had tejas.... point is Engines have become reliable)

Coming to Tejas MK II - A belly plug, a nose plug, space for extra fuel, a reworked air intake for GE 414, (I think air intake will be reworked to GE 414EPE / K-10 requirement) our NLCA will take lead in Mark II development. Given reliability requirement this will be powered by GE 414. If this meets expectations of Navy we will have Birds on deck powered by 414 EPE we won't see Kaveri here till Kaveri has put in 10 years of service.
If this fails to live up to Deck requirements, still we will have 10-20 no's for training Naval Pilots and some more for land based operations form Naval bases.

The above NLCA will be re done in Air Force version, powered by 110+ Kn engine (one for AMCA),

I read a parliament report on DRDO which said NP-3 is under assembly, NP-3 was MK-II specification and given the fact that GE has delivered few 414's already, make me believe that NLCA Mk II may actually fly before tender for MMRCA is out. This NP-3 will take the Tejas MK II forward.

 

[Steven Rogers]

Tejas Mark II -- Crystal Ball Gazing

Is Tejas Mk2 shelved ? Well as @Sancho rightly points out,


Tejas started with design weight of 5.5 ton & powered by 80+ Kn Kaveri, thanks to materials & additional capability requirements we ended up with 6.6 Tons.... 20% higher empty weight. and Kaveri wasn't there.
So we added GE 404 which gave us approx 8-10% higher thrust to offset some of the weight gain but GE 404 was 42 cm longer than Kaveri, so it eat up valuable space inside Tejas.
Result compromise on internal SPJ or internal fuel quantity... or may be both.along with less than required T/W ratio hence performance.

So here comes Tejas Mark II, with a 50 cm fuselage plug, to regain internal space, aerodynamic improvements & weight reduction & most importantly 98 Kn GE-414 to cover up for drop in T/W ratio. Aim here was to maintain 6.6 Ton weight even after adding space. This should deliver the performance required by air force.
This suits air force as they not only get required performance but are able to ask for ordering of single engine jets from foreign vendors as this will take time and they are short on Sqn strength.

Now come to Tejas Mk1A a stop gap arrangement forced down the throat of IAF, giving them many bells & whistles required by them but still lacking the performance due to inherent T/W deficit. But there was small twist here... Rafale & Safran. Now suddenly a 95 Kn Kaveri started looking like a real possibility.
So if we put this Kaveri 95 in Mk-1A & implement some of the weight saving measures planned for MK II, we get
the T/W required and not only that but we also get a 42cm plug in aircraft without making any structural change. Oops now this can be done faster than even foreign jet supplies and MK-II not required.

So lobbies get to work, single engine RFI is cancelled, talks of MMRCA2 starts...... is this end of Tejas MK-II... well I don't think so, Tejas MK-II for IAF will now shape up around AMCA engine (K-10 or GE 414 EPE)

Now AIM is make Tejas 1.3mts approx long with empty weight over 7tons, to make it an MCA which was missing in ASR. Now TEJAS MK2 is replacing the more capable medium combat aircraft rather than mig21, 23 and 27.

Sent from my Aqua Ace II using Tapatalk

 

[Steven Rogers]

IAF never asked for an MK2 in the ASR, but for performance, that sadly only the MK2 will be able to deliver! So the main goal of MK2 is still to achieve the ASR requirements. Just because we needed decades to achieve it, doesn't change that.




Not even close! We have issues with nearly every conventional aircraft design, with the result of drag and overweight for LCA, IJT, Saras, or even LCH.
The material issues of the LCA radome also showed us limitations, not to mention that we needed to hire Airbus, to get the mess in our flight testing and NLCA design fixed again. Stealth design is even more complex, not only to divert radar signals, but also to minimise the drag from the unconventional design, that is not aimed at aerodynamic performance. That alone will be a major problem and would require a design and development partner from scratch.
And even if I put my hopes on Samtel, the likely choice for AMCAs cockpit, was the JV between HAL and Elbit, for a similar LAD that Gripen E or F18 B3 uses (MMRCA RFI asks about LAD). Not to mention that even with Israeli support, DRDO was not able to develop an EW suitable for MK1A, let alone a more advanced one for AMCA (MMRCA RFI also asks about GaN and EW capabilities).

The standard quote, "we have developed composites", is not enough to make a 5th gen fighter, since the difference between a 4th gen LCA and a 5th gen AMCA is too big.

The "consultancy" was asked for "naval" variant, they didn't asked Airbus to design for them, it was related with some aerodynamic issue which ended up in 2017 and mk2 navy became an independent project of ADA. SARAS has overweight issue rather than drag. LCH is neither overweight nor has drag issue, IJT had issue related with spin and stall test. LCA has issue of being so heavy so that the thrust to weight required for maneuvering in indian climate doesn't match the requirements(ask Gripen to perform same in India, I suppose that will be the most disastrous trip Gripen ever had) .
Jaguar has Indian developed RADOME which it currently flies with. LCA Radome case acc to CAG report complains about bad design and choice of materials rather than material constraints. However Kevlar wasn't a bad choice since it has certain properties such as low specific gravity and moisture absorption.
The problem gets solved with NAL version, NAL has built quartz Radome with polyester resin and BMI and has electromagnetic tests solver. Kevlar and quartz how ever have similar dielectric constant, quartz has some what better and that somewhat actually made somewhat increase in range, from 50km to 57.5, and that's why LCA mk1 and foc variants have Derby 50km range missile and not a longer range missile. So in that case the argument doesn't stand much that Radome showed us the limitation.
Would like to have a consultancy partner on AMCA design but since preliminary design is completed, I don't see that consultancy has a future. WAD concept has been shown by various Indian firms, including SAMTEL, DARE showed their own concept while HALBIT shown the concept used on bl3 SH, drdo wasn't able to develop EW then what are on MIG29UPG of Indian airforce, DRDO developed both the EW suite, one which is podded which is pitted for Tejas also along with Su30mki and other one is another integrated EW suite which is installed internally not on pods which is being tested on PV2 as of new while new pod is being tested by sukhoi aircrafts. Do you Have an idea what EW suite is being developed for Tejas which acc to you failed???... MMRCA RFI asked tot of everything, since GaN radar, new EW suite, active array sensors, IRST sensors will begin development in the early next decade, with tot they will only be on fast track but also will not be delayed. And last I heard DRDO will keep developing the variants of radars under project Uttam in which GaN based one will go on AMCA.... I had quoted more that just that standard one.

Sent from my Aqua Ace II using Tapatalk

 

[ersakthivel]

Most likely yes.



None. Offsets from Rafale will only get you so far.



It doesn't. Mk2 is an expensive progam with very uncertain returns. Even if everything goes right which most assuredly won't what you are looking at is last of the Mk2 to enter service in around year 2038 and retiring in 2068 or even after that. I don't care much you love LCA but no sane mind wants IAF to fly them in 2070s.

India needs to go balls to the walls on Mk1A and AMCA. There is no other way around. Mk2 is a distraction at best and a disaster waiting to happen at worst.

Mk2 in 2038??
Joke or serious statement ?

 

[ersakthivel]

Bad example. Flanker program was a very successful one. Later iterations came into being after a large number of Su-27 entered into service. This is not the case with LCA.



You are talking about subsystems. You don't a new air frame for that. That is not how this works. Mk2 is not a low risk program as you put it. It is a completely new air frame with completely new propulsion and will share very parts with Mk1.

Mk1A is a low risk program not Mk2.



No you don't. Let's be clear on some things. IAF wanted light fighters to replace Mig-21 hence the "light" in LCA. Mk1A is a light fighter, Mk2 is not.

Now that MMRCA has been reincarnated, why would you need another medium fighter?



Another bad example. Both PLAAF and PAF were flying Mig-19 based Q-5 well into the 2010s, I never found anyone saying that India should continue to use Su-7 because neighbours were doing so.

Both PLA and PA are still using modernized Type-55s. Never heard the same argument for T-55s in Indian service.

PAF might as well use JF-17s in the 22nd century, should we follow the suit too?[/QUOT

Bad example. Flanker program was a very successful one. Later iterations came into being after a large number of Su-27 entered into service. This is not the case with LCA.



You are talking about subsystems. You don't a new air frame for that. That is not how this works. Mk2 is not a low risk program as you put it. It is a completely new air frame with completely new propulsion and will share very parts with Mk1.

Mk1A is a low risk program not Mk2.



No you don't. Let's be clear on some things. IAF wanted light fighters to replace Mig-21 hence the "light" in LCA. Mk1A is a light fighter, Mk2 is not.

Now that MMRCA has been reincarnated, why would you need another medium fighter?



Another bad example. Both PLAAF and PAF were flying Mig-19 based Q-5 well into the 2010s, I never found anyone saying that India should continue to use Su-7 because neighbours were doing so.

Both PLA and PA are still using modernized Type-55s. Never heard the same argument for T-55s in Indian service.

PAF might as well use JF-17s in the 22nd century, should we follow the suit too?

Mk2 will hv the same wingloading & wing designs. as mk1.
Even AMCA is planned with similar wingloading.

So control laws developed for digital fly by wire RSS tejas mk1 will be used in both the programs. Drastically. Reducing development timeline.


New propulsion is not a new engine design either.

 

[ersakthivel]

MK2 is a light fighter. It is lighter than Gripen E and F16 and much lighter than Rafale. It is still a light fighter, not medium fighter. Mirage 2000 was also a light fighter.


The MMRCA is still not confirmed and it is very unlikely that another country will simply provide all the technology for making it in India. India must have major equipment by itself like engines, avionics etc. It is better to have indigenous project as backup and then obtain additional ToT than be reliant on mercy of foreign country. Tejas MK2 is also much smaller than Rafale and is going to be easier to manufacture en masse when needed. The MMRCA may be redundant but not Tejas MK2.



The airframe is definitely new but the design is not. The airframe is only a bit more extended than what it was in MK1 but no major design changes exist. The FBW is quite robust and is capable of flying a plane even when parts of its body is damaged. FBW is meant to include all scenarios including those in which the wings or tail get damaged from enemy SAM or BVR missile. The propulsion change will not be a big deal as Tejas always had been designed to be replaced by Indian engine. So, the system is built to accept change.


The acquisition of technology and knowledge is a key thing in life. Irrespective of the threat, technology acquisition must always be pursued. Threat perception only dictates amount of mass manufacturing, not research. Research is in general cheap and costs only limited natural resources and requires labour of only a few scientists.

Mk2 a new airframe??
How come??

A plug doesn't make it a new airframe.
No drastic change is proposed in wing design either.
If wing Area increases to cater for higher empty weight & if same wing loading (most likely)as that of mk1 is arrived then they r almost the same airframes.
A lighter mk2 with same engine powsr as that of gripen E is a better fighter.

So no risks in mk2

Airframe neednt weigh more to get a better fighter tag!!

 

[Kshithij]

Mk2 a new airframe??
How come??

A plug doesn't make it a new airframe.
No drastic change is proposed in wing design either.
If wing Area increases to cater for higher empty weight & if same wing loading (most likely)as that of mk1 is arrived then they r almost the same airframes.
A lighter mk2 with same engine powsr as that of gripen E is a better fighter.

So no risks in mk2

Airframe neednt weigh more to get a better fighter tag!!

The 1 metre long plug will have some weight too. Also, there are rumours of canards coming back to get lower stall speed, increase maneuverability and make LCA MK2 land on an aircraft carrier with lower landing speed

 

[ersakthivel]

The 1 metre long plug will have some weight too. Also, there are rumours of canards coming back to get lower stall speed, increase maneuverability and make LCA MK2 land on an aircraft carrier with lower landing speed

If that weight is offset by proportional increase in wing area,.
Then we get the same wing loading (wing surface area/empty weight of fighter) as tejas mk1.(most likely)

So not a brand new airframe.

Most of the mk1 control laws wil be used in evolving mk2 s control laws.
Predictable behaviour. Shorter development time as well.

 

[Kshithij]

If that weight is offset by proporu increase in wing area.
Then we gef the same wing loading (wing surface area/empty weight of fighter) as tejas mk1.(most likely)

So not a brand new airframe.

Mostvof the mk1 control laws wil be used in evolving mk2 s control laws.
Predictable behaviour. Shorter development time as well.

If there is a canard, then wing area is unlikely to increase as the additional length will be needed for placing canards at sufficient distance. Else. wing area will increase. Control laws will be similar as design is similar. But canards may add one more control surface and alter some of the control laws. But, then LCA navy already has levcons. Hence, even canards is likely to be minor difference

 

[darshan978]

i dont get it why ppl do lots of hallabol about tejas wight to thrust ratio and draggy air frame according to one gripen fanboy here its best aircraft for iaf but he dont/never mentioned about its drag and least thrust to weight ratio of gripen e/ gripen c why hypocrisy?? as per my knowledge tejas has low empty weight , higher thrust than gripen C

 

[Kshithij]

Gripen E is in the same stage as Tejas Mk2. It is absurd to even bring it into discussion for comparing LCA MK1A. Gripen E is not yet ready and by the time it will be ready, Tejas Mk2 will also be ready. So, Gripen E can only be compared with Tejas MK2. But, the fanboy is not reasonable person

i dont get it why ppl do lots of hallabol about tejas wight to thrust ratio and draggy air frame according to one gripen fanboy here its best aircraft for iaf but he dont/never mentioned about its drag and least thrust to weight ratio of gripen e/ gripen c why hypocrisy?? as per my knowledge tejas has low empty weight , higher thrust than gripen C

 

[Enquirer]

If that weight is offset by proportional increase in wing area,.
Then we get the same wing loading (wing surface area/empty weight of fighter) as tejas mk1.(most likely)

So not a brand new airframe.
.

Same wing loading equals same airframe????
Weird logic!!!!!!!

 

[sthf]

Mk2 in 2038??
Joke or serious statement ?

Joke if you think ACM was joking. Induction in 2027 and production run of 10 years gives you 2037.

Last MK2 will enter service more than 50 years after M2K, Mig-29 or F-16 entered service and will serve long after F-22 has stopped flying.

To each his own but to me that is a sorry state of affairs.

Mk2 will hv the same wingloading & wing designs. as mk1.
Even AMCA is planned with similar wingloading.

So control laws developed for digital fly by wire RSS tejas mk1 will be used in both the programs. Drastically. Reducing development timeline.


New propulsion is not a new engine design either.

Similar wing design doesn't mean same wings. MK2 will be designed from the bottom up.

MK2 will have just 5-10% commonality in parts with Mk1 so yeah it is a new plane with same name.

 

[Steven Rogers]

Joke if you think ACM was joking. Induction in 2027 and production run of 10 years gives you 2037.

Last MK2 will enter service more than 50 years after M2K, Mig-29 or F-16 entered service and will serve long after F-22 has stopped flying.

To each his own but to me that is a sorry state of affairs.



Similar wing design doesn't mean same wings. MK2 will be designed from the bottom up.

MK2 will have just 5-10% commonality in parts with Mk1 so yeah it is a new plane with same name.

Well by that time RAFALE F4, Gripen E and EFT 2020 concept will be manufactured. The current rafale for India will be flying beyond the F22's retirement

Sent from my Aqua Ace II using Tapatalk

 

[ersakthivel]

Joke if you think ACM was joking. Induction in 2027 and production run of 10 years gives you 2037.

Last MK2 will enter service more than 50 years after M2K, Mig-29 or F-16 entered service and will serve long after F-22 has stopped flying.

To each his own but to me that is a sorry state of affairs.



Similar wing design doesn't mean same wings. MK2 will be designed from the bottom up.

MK2 will have just 5-10% commonality in parts with Mk1 so yeah it is a new plane with same name.

Tell me the year last fighter of
gripen E,
eurofighter typhoon,
Rafale,
Will retire

Mk2 is good till date.

Check with technical guys & update your views on wing design.

 

[sthf]

Tell me the year last fighter of
gripen E,
eurofighter typhoon,
Rafale,
Will retire

None of them will be flying in 2070s or 2080s if that is what you are asking.

Mk2 is good till date.

If you say so.

Check with technical guys & update your views on wing design.

Thanks for the elaborate reply.

 

[Kshithij]

None of them will be flying in 2070s or 2080s if that is what you are asking.

2070s? 2080s? Do you understand that these are 50-60 years ahead? Do you have a distorted view of time that things don't go into your mind in a straight manner