ADA Tejas Mark-II/Medium Weight Fighter

[ash2win]

Who told you that?

LCA Navy MK2 is still on the cards, they only rejected the MK1 in the current specification, which was obvious.

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

 

[binayak95]

I feel Navy is not interested in single engine fighter for carrier ops owing to limited range.

The bigger worry is safety issues. SE fighters are a no go unless we have no other choice (we had a bad experience with Harriers as it is, but then, we had no choice)

 

[Flame Thrower]

The bigger worry is safety issues. SE fighters are a no go unless we have no other choice (we had a bad experience with Harriers as it is, but then, we had no choice)

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.

We boast LCA's safety records and no accident till date.

I think we need to give a deep thought before calling SE fighters are less safe than Twin Engine fighters.

I wonder whether if there is a scientific study on how much (percentage) safety twin engine fighter would give over a single engine fighters and would the principle & operational costs and safety records give reason to go for twin engined fighters over single engined ones!?

 

[binayak95]

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.

We boast LCA's safety records and no accident till date.

I think we need to give a deep thought before calling SE fighters are less safe than Twin Engine fighters.

I wonder whether if there is a scientific study on how much (percentage) safety twin engine fighter would give over a single engine fighters and would the principle & operational costs and safety records give reason to go for twin engined fighters over single engined ones!?

It's the principle that the Navy is worried over. As it is with the initial issues with the MiG29K, the Navy was forced to operate close to Goa for quite some time.

A twin engine fighter with one engine failure, can still recover and bring the plane back - there's a chance, atleast. No such luck with an SE fighter.

 

[singh100ful]

The bigger worry is safety issues. SE fighters are a no go unless we have no other choice (we had a bad experience with Harriers as it is, but then, we had no choice)

NLCA MK2 can really be a good maritime strike aircraft to be used by IN.
This in turn will put less stress of IAF assets and a temporary relief from dwindling numbers

 

[binayak95]

NLCA MK2 can really be a good maritime strike aircraft to be used by IN.
This in turn will put less stress of IAF assets and a temporary relief from dwindling numbers

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

 

[Babloo Singh]

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

I foresee a mix of NLCA & Mig29K/ RafaleM / F-18 on carriers.... with NLCA tasked for protection & the medium aircraft for strike roles. In future we may have same Kaveri engine powering both NLCA & Mig 29K / Rafale M
In other case it can be GE 414 powering NLCA & F-18 on deck... keeping maintenance requirements simple.

 

[HariPrasad-1]

Who told you that?

LCA Navy MK2 is still on the cards, they only rejected the MK1 in the current specification, which was obvious.

This is in pupubl and not any private information. I will be very happy if it still on.

 

[HariPrasad-1]

Actually the avionics are getting compact and compact. this will not reduce much space but it will liberate a lots of space.

Please readr" not much weight but much space".

 

[Pulkit]

Who told you that?

LCA Navy MK2 is still on the cards, they only rejected the MK1 in the current specification, which was obvious.

Mk2 is on cards as Navy wants more powerful engine. MK1 was on cards and was not long when they rejected it. It was IN which kept pushing Tejas Mk1 when IAF had given up on it. From what i heard it was the weight which killed IN dreams of getting Tejas Mk1.

I feel Navy is not interested in single engine fighter for carrier ops owing to limited range.

They are interested in single engine not just for there A/C carriers. They wanted to have some of those for A/C carriers as well as bases which we usually refer to as unsinkable ships.

 

[S.Balaji]

N-LCA s primarily a tech demonstrator for realizing indigenous carrier borne fighter aircraft technology. This will compress the N-AMCA timelines. This is the primary objective of ADA/Navy project.

Remember meeting ADA guy last year who said 3rd proto would start testing from December.....seems timelines have slipped....understandable as everyone is working towards the June 2018 FOC....

The guy had said that all TDs and upto LSPs have been provisionally budgeted by ADA/HAL (even if Navy pulls out).....if all goes well will fly from our ACs .... but will it transform into a carrier borne fighter with clear Orbat only time will tell....with the capex crunch and Navy's penchant for indigenous products, wont be surprised N-LCA figuring as a part of Naval doctrine....

 

[lcafanboy]

LCA Tejas MK2 with Canards............................

 

[Kshithij]

Nonsense article. He is quoting Parrikar as source for the 2019-2022 timeline.

Plus the article mentions that IAF ordered 83 Tejas Mk-2. First time I've heard about 83 Tejas-Mk2 ordered (unless the writer got confused between Mk1A and Mk2, which he did).

Although, if the timeline is still workable, I would be happy

Tejas MK2 design has been finalised - length is increased to 14.2 m.

I think it's navy mk2 the iaf mk2 is different , also for iaf now hal in last stages of mk1a development they will start the prototype works soon


Mark my word's we can see mk1a sooner than 2020

You are confusing the plans of 2010 with current plans. Tejas Mk2 has been evolving continually. In UPA time, the intention of MK2 was to simply delay whereas now the intention is to make it a better fighter with longer range (higher fuel) and better engine.

In 2010 there was plan to make Tejas for Navy and Airorce differently. But I don't think it is meaningful to ask ADA to design 2 separate fuselage without any added benefit but with huge time and cost overrun. It is best that there is only one fuselage with minor modifications for Navy and Air Force. Most likely, this is being pursued now

Radar Absorbent Material is going to increase turnaround time of the fighter. Also, not sure how much difference RAM will make when engine's front is not hidden by a serpentine intake. This, along with cockpit will give the largest radar return. Increasing composites might help though.

Tejas engine is hidden by Y shaped duct. Serpentine intakes matter in twin engine planes, not in single engine ones.

Mk1A, 8% aerodynamic improvement is planned in MK1A. That will give it a 20% better transsonic acceleration and 2% higher speed. Can you please post the research paper in which these diagrams appeared. I am unable to locate it.

This improvement is in Tejas Mk2, not in MK1A. Such improvements require fuselage changes. Since MK2 is being designed anew, there is a chance of fuselage changes.

He is being too generous here as far as the timeline of production is concerned. They haven't even finalized the design yet. I'll be happy if they manage to fly it by 2022.

Who told you that design has not been finalised? Design has been finalised and the length increased by 1metre with wingspan remaining same but with larger wing due to longer length

He is merely giving the official figures and as I said before, on twitter he is basically stating opinions with some bias, while in his well researched and sourced reports, he also shows the bad facts.
Air Chief Dhanoa stated, that MK2 delivery is planned for 2027, the production of an LCA takes 3 years, so start in 2024 makes sense...

...we talk about an ideal scenario here!

Given the track record of the programme and the delays in FOC, I prefer to wait and see, till there is a real achievement and take all these estimates with caution.

Dhanoa said s but why do you hold the statement of Subhash Bhamre in Parliament that FOC will be obtained by 2025 as invalid?

What track record do you have? Is the track record about inordinate delays caused by UPA or that no work or progress happened from 2008-2013? Is this the track record? Is it even worth considering?

Remember ADA wanted tejas to carry the tag of world's smallest, even if it is made in 2025, it won't be a match to Gripen E.

Sent from my Aqua Ace II using Tapatalk

Why do you think the tag of "world's smallest" matters? Is it a competition? Tejas is still heavier than MiG21 and is larger than MiG21

Tejas MK 2 naval fighter will be equipped INS Vikramaditya and INS Vikrant. I think so?

It is likely to be MiG29 or MiG35 (upgraded MiG29). Russia has offered full toT if India opts for MiG35. India already operates MiG29 and even makes the engine of RD33. So, this should be a good deal.

The bigger worry is safety issues. SE fighters are a no go unless we have no other choice (we had a bad experience with Harriers as it is, but then, we had no choice)

The safety issue exists even in ground take off, not just carrier take off. In case the plane fails, the pilot can eject safely in the sea and send the coordinates via satcom to be rescued by some speed boat. There is always risk. It is just that Indian fighter is more easy to maintain and replace and the choice must always be or Indian made planes. No matter what, the risk is always lower for Indian made planes than foeign made ones.

Having said that, the main reason why twin engine fighters are preferred is due to the fact that the carrier has limited space and it is desirable to have a plane that can carry maximum payload using minimum hangar space. I do believe that MiG35 or MiG29K made in India with UTTAM radar is the best way to go.

 

[Steven Rogers]

Tejas MK2 design has been finalised - length is increased to 14.2 m.



You are confusing the plans of 2010 with current plans. Tejas Mk2 has been evolving continually. In UPA time, the intention of MK2 was to simply delay whereas now the intention is to make it a better fighter with longer range (higher fuel) and better engine.

In 2010 there was plan to make Tejas for Navy and Airorce differently. But I don't think it is meaningful to ask ADA to design 2 separate fuselage without any added benefit but with huge time and cost overrun. It is best that there is only one fuselage with minor modifications for Navy and Air Force. Most likely, this is being pursued now



Tejas engine is hidden by Y shaped duct. Serpentine intakes matter in twin engine planes, not in single engine ones.


This improvement is in Tejas Mk2, not in MK1A. Such improvements require fuselage changes. Since MK2 is being designed anew, there is a chance of fuselage changes.


Who told you that design has not been finalised? Design has been finalised and the length increased by 1metre with wingspan remaining same but with larger wing due to longer length



Dhanoa said s but why do you hold the statement of Subhash Bhamre in Parliament that FOC will be obtained by 2025 as invalid?

What track record do you have? Is the track record about inordinate delays caused by UPA or that no work or progress happened from 2008-2013? Is this the track record? Is it even worth considering?


Why do you think the tag of "world's smallest" matters? Is it a competition? Tejas is still heavier than MiG21 and is larger than MiG21



It is likely to be MiG29 or MiG35 (upgraded MiG29). Russia has offered full toT if India opts for MiG35. India already operates MiG29 and even makes the engine of RD33. So, this should be a good deal.


The safety issue exists even in ground take off, not just carrier take off. In case the plane fails, the pilot can eject safely in the sea and send the coordinates via satcom to be rescued by some speed boat. There is always risk. It is just that Indian fighter is more easy to maintain and replace and the choice must always be or Indian made planes. No matter what, the risk is always lower for Indian made planes than foeign made ones.

Having said that, the main reason why twin engine fighters are preferred is due to the fact that the carrier has limited space and it is desirable to have a plane that can carry maximum payload using minimum hangar space. I do believe that MiG35 or MiG29K made in India with UTTAM radar is the best way to go.

What's the source for air force version tejas mk2 length increase to 14.2mts, not very far but acc to 2015 Ada report, it was 13.7mts. Smallest aircraft with GSQR capability designed years back.

Sent from my Aqua Ace II using Tapatalk

 

[Kshithij]

What's the source for air force version tejas mk2 length increase to 14.2mts, not very far but acc to 2015 Ada report, it was 13.7mts. Smallest aircraft with GSQR capability designed years back.

Sent from my Aqua Ace II using Tapatalk

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

 

[HariPrasad-1]

This improvement is in Tejas Mk2, not in MK1A. Such improvements require fuselage changes. Since MK2 is being designed anew, there is a chance of fuselage changes.

Mk2 deal with increasing the length to improving area ruling.That will certainly add to aerodynamic improvement but Canopy redesign is certainly a part of arodynamic im-improvement which can be added in MK1+. Look at the pictures I posted 2-3 pages back.

 

[HariPrasad-1]

RCS of Tejas is already very small compared to other 4.5 gen fighters , adding radar absorbent and frontal stealth shaping with composite materials will make it 4.5++ gen fighter.

Mk1 itself is designed to improve RCS. necessary changes are already made withing aerodynamic constrain to make it less visible.

 

[HariPrasad-1]

I really want ADA to add canards to tejas mk 2....
View attachment 23576

Canard has cons of its own. US designers always avoid canard but Europeans add it. It is for designers to evaluate Pros and cons. Canard creates the issue diverting the air flow while it increases the lift and used as break too. . So basically it is a choice.

 

[HariPrasad-1]

I had compared Tejas MK2 and Gripen E here.

Since the time India show its interest in buying a single engine fighter, there is a lots of discussion going on whether India should buy F 16 or Saab Gripen. Both the companies i.e Lockheed martin and Saab are pushing their planes very very hard. Both the companies have made some very very attractive offer including Make in India and total technology transfer. Both the companies have promised their latest technology to India. Lockheed martin has offered its top of the line F16 with Block 70 version, Saab has offered Gripen E. Both the companies has offered to shift their assembly line to India and make India a hub of all future production and export. Saab has shown interest of 100 years of business relationship and ensure that they will export more planes from India than what they sell to India.

While both the companies are making trying to make their offer more attractive, HAL has come out with a news that they can make LCA MK2 by 2018-19 and production may begin in 2020. This is a time frame by which we may expect F 16 and Saab Gripen to produce their Aircraft if we take decision today and give them green signal to start the work on their plant.Now there is a question whether we should go for Gripen E or we should opt for LCA MK2. And this question needs an analysis to evaluate the pros and cons of both proposals. I am trying to analyse both the planes on various parameters in Indian context.

- Engine and power.

Both the planes are using GE 414 with Dry thrust 62 kn and wet thrust 98 KN. So both the derives the power from same engine. However, India is working on Kaveri engine. They are taking consultency from fom France and France has promised to make plane operational within 18 month. New engine is supposed to have same power as GE 414. Hence, LCA MK2 will have an additional engine option and most important of all is that it is a desi option. Gripen uses US engine and if gripen is bought, the separate agreement with US is required for the engine which adds to the vulnerability to the Gripen make in India deal.

-Dimension, Aerodynamics and T/W ratio

Saab Gripen NG has following specifications. I will compare them one by one against the specification of LCA Mk2.

KEY DATA

• Length overall 15.2 m
• Width overall 8.6 m
• Basic mass empty 8000 kg
• Internal fuel 3400 kg
• Max takeoff weight 16500 kg
• Max thrust 98 kN
• Min takeoff distance 500 m
• Landing distance 600 m
• Max speed at sea level > 1400 km/h
• Max speed at high altitude Mach 2
• Supercruise capability: Yes
• Max service altitude > 52.500 ft
• G-limits -3G / +9G
• Hardpoints 10
• Combat turnaround air-to-air 10 min
• Full engine replacement 1 hour

LCA Mk2 will be a 14.2 M long plane which is 1 meter short in length of Gripen. Both planes will have same g limits. LCA mk2's service ceiling shall be 18000 m which will be much higher than the 52500 Ft which is 16000 meter. This will be because of low wing loading and will give protection to LCA Mk2 against many short range and shoulder fire missiles.

So far as highest speed is concern, both the planes will have almost same highest speed or gripen may have a little bit higher highest speed which does not make a big difference.

LCA MK1 has 500 m take off distance and it will reduce 15% atleast in Mk2 so LCA mk2 will have short take off distance compared to Gripen.

Speed at sea level is concern, MK1 has a speed of 1350 KM/Hr at sea level so LCA mk2 with lower weight, better aerodynamic and almost 20% higher dry thrust engine and 9% higher after burner thrust should easily cross 1400 Kmph figure of Gripen.

The most important difference between the 2 plane is the weight of both plane. Designers of LCA Mk2 has said that they have designed the plane with 6100 Kg weight and target is 6000 Kg. Even if we take it 6200 Kg , LCA mk2 shall be significantly lighter than Gripen . It will have 2 ton lower weight. and that is going to make big difference. I will discuss that later on.

So far as MTOW is concern, Gripen DATA shows that at 16.5 Ton. Ideally it should be 2.5 times the dry thrust which comes around 15.62 tons but let us assume that it is 16.5 tons as stated in specification. LCA Mk2 uses the same engine so it should have an ability of 16.5 tons MTOW but let us apply that 2.5 factor rule. LCA Mk2 should carry atleast 15.62 MTOW. Now Gripen with 8 ton weight +3.4 ton fuel is left with 5.1 ton payload on plane. On the other hand LCA MK2 with 6.2 ton empty weight and similar fuel of 3.4 ton should left Tejas with 5.7 ton weight which compares favorably to Gripen.

Fuel fraction of tejas shall be 0.35 against 0.29 of gripen which is favorable. So far as range is concern, Tejas should have higher range as both planes are using same engine and same quantity of fuel but Tejas being significantly lighter should have a longer range. However, as we show in case of MK1 vs Gripen C, Gripen has a higher range.

So far as aerodynamics is concern, Gripen is n excellently designed plane so far as aerodynamics is concern which give it a very good speed and long range. LCA Mk1 was considered to be a bit draggy but a lots of studies have been made to improve its aerodynamics is concern. Making LCA Mk2 0.5 m longer is already a part of Aerodynamic improvement process for better compliance of Area rule. There are some other aerodynamics changes which are coming in LCA Mk1+/LCA Mk2. Study says that it will reduce drag by 8% and improve trans sonic acceleration by 20% (For MK1). So these aerodynamic changes should make LCA Mk2 a plane with very good aerodynamic characteristic.

-Radar, Electronic, EW, Sensor fusion.

So far as radar is concern, Gripen has a very good radar. LCA Mk2 is also all set to get top of the class AESA radar till Uttam is ready with 150 KM range. Israel has already offered ELTA 2052 but india has issued a tender for the same with TOT. So India will either get ELTA 2052 or any better radar and it will not be any way inferior to the one of Gripen.

So far as EW is concern, India and Israel are making EW for Tejas and has designed MAYAVI Ew suite for Tejas and work is on for better EW. India has got spectra confugered for Indian requirement. If spectra technologies goes in LCA MK2 by the way of buy back clause, It will be superior to Gripen. If not, Indo-Israeli EW will match that of gripen.

So far sensor fusion is concern, Gripen is a top class plane. India is also working on sensor fusion but how much effective that will be is not known and time will tell the story. Here is an area where I see gripen is leading in current scenario.

So far as other avionics are concern, Gripen uses lots of imported Avionic compared to India. I do not see any plane a clear winner here.

- Weapons: Both will use very good targeting pod and imported missile. India shall use Python and derby and Russian missiles along with Astra. Gripen can uses AIM Series and Meteor missile. Meteor is a top class missile but new Israeli I Durby will provide 80% of meteor performance claims rafael. How ultimately ASTRA will turn out to be is not know but it will be a promising missile. Both planes are neck to neck in A to A missiles but If Meteor is used, Gripen will have an edge. Both will have gun according to their requirement and both can use guided bombs. India has just tested SAAW bomb which will give LCA MK2 an edge in anti airfield strike capability.

-BVR and close combat

Both the planes have excellent BVR and top AESA radar. However, because of small size and extensive use of Composite should give LCA Mk2 first detecting capability. I see LCA Mk2 at a slight advantage.

In combat configuration of 50% fuel and 800 KG Air to air missile, Tejas will have a significant advantage because of very high combat TWR. it is 6200 KG empty weight+1700 KG fuel +800 KG missiles against the gripen figures of 8 ton empty weight+1700 KG fuel+800 Kg air to air missile. Tejas has figure of 1.11 against 0.93 of gripen with GE 414 engine of 98 KN Wet thrust. Tejas shall be at a big advantage because of its light empty weight and should maneuver fast and beat Gripen in close combat. Tejas shall have an advantage of low wing loading also which should give it an edge at high altitude fighting.

-Conclusion: Both plane are very good having their edge over others in different area. However, Tejas with its small size and very high T/W ratio offers many advantages as a platform. There is nothing in Gripen which gives it any significant advantage over LCA Mk2. LCA Mk2 shall be very cost effective and offer India a platform to integrate its own weapon , Own engine to which Thrust victor can be added (Russia has already offered) . It will have a lots of configuration options also. Once it is ready in next 5 years with Indian engine , Indian AESA, it will be a weapon very difficult for any other system to match and will give India and edge over any other rival in air combat. It will easily outclass anything china or pakistan has. India can mass produce it and offer it to many friendly countries across the world including Vietnam, Indonesia, African countries and even to the countries like Brazil who are interested in Gripen. It will offer everything which Gripen offers + many more. What India need at this stage is to expedite LCA Mk2 program and make it it sure that it goes into production in 2020 as promised.


-Hari Prasad

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...b-gripen-an-analysis-in-indian-context.78098/

Now Defense tube has made a video out of my article.

 

[Kshithij]

Canard has cons of its own. US designers always avoid canard but Europeans add it. It is for designers to evaluate Pros and cons. Canard creates the issue diverting the air flow while it increases the lift and used as break too. . So basically it is a choice.

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