ADA Tejas Mark-II/Medium Weight Fighter

[Prashant12]

Arjun Mark-2 tank set to see light of day

Design of Tejas’ next version almost done, indicates DRDO Chairman

In an important move, the ‘Made in India’ Arjun Mark-2 tank project is set to see the light of the day.

Chairman of the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) Dr S Christopher in an interview to The Tribune said, “We have had a meeting with the Vice-Chief of the Indian Army where it was agreed on accepting Mark-2. Modalities are being worked out”. Once done, the acceptance of necessity (AON) for 118 will be revived, he added.

The AON is decided by the Defence Acquisition Council headed by the Defence Minister. A total of 93 modifications have been done on the first version of Arjun — 124 were inducted — in 2010-2011.

On being asked if the Army was okay with the weight of the tank, the DRDO boss said: “The weight (the tank is almost 58 tonnes) has been accepted; that is a major change”. Most modern European tanks are of the same weight, and tank-transporters (specialised trucks) for Arjun are available.

The DRDO has promised to set up a system to maintain the Arjun Mark-2 within India. It will be an annual maintenance contract with the Bharat Earth Movers Limited (BEML) as a possible agency, Dr Christopher said. On the trials, he said, “These have done 4,000 kms of run, the upgrades will be tested.”

On artillery guns, Dr Christopher said the Advanced Towed Artillery Gun Systems (ATAGS), of which the Army has agreed to accept 40 pieces to start with, will get a more powerful engine to enable rapid movement. The guns designed by DRDO have been made by two private companies under the transfer of technology.

The DRDO is keen to get a slice of the 1,580 towed guns the Army is looking to buy. “Both companies (Tata Power SED and Bharat Forge) are gearing up produce more. We need an order for 200-300 guns to tie up logistics,” he said.


Talking about the next version of the Tejas, called ‘Mark1-A’, Dr Christopher said: “The design other than the AESA radar and the jammer pod is complete.”


Hindustan Aeronautics Limited is looking to import the AESA radar even as DRDO made a radar that will be tested next month. The IAF is looking at 83 ‘Mark1-A’, with 59 improvements over the existing Tejas.


The Indian Air Force has projected a need for 324 fighter jets over 15 years and has officially indicated that it needs the ‘Tejas Mark 2’ (medium combat aircraft). It will carry a more powerful engine and weigh almost 20 per cent heavier than Tejas.

http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/nation/arjun-mark-2-tank-set-to-see-light-of-day/563832.html

 

[HariPrasad-1]

It will carry a more powerful engine and weigh almost 20 per cent heavier than Tejas.

It seems to be a problem here. I think they mean it will carry 20% more payload. 20% heavier tejas shall weigh 7.8 tons which toooooooo much. Actually DRDO had said that Tejam MK2 shall weigh 6100 kg.

 

[Kshithij]

It seems to be a problem here. I think they mean it will carry 20% more payload. 20% heavier tejas shall weigh 7.8 tons which toooooooo much. Actually DRDO had said that Tejam MK2 shall weigh 6100 kg.

20% more payload is the right thing to say. Weight will remain the same as the decrease in weight by some adjustments will be compensated by increase in size.

 

[HariPrasad-1]

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

Sent from my Aqua Ace II using Tapatalk

This is parheps the design of Tejas which exploits its potential fully. This is a design which shall make Tejas less and less draggy. Aerodynamic improvement shall have a great effect on the performance of plane. That is why I have always advocated making Airforce Tejas out of Naval tejas.

 

[Rahul Singh]

Scramble Scramble Scramble........Climb to 9000ft NW for intercepting hostile aircraft entering our airspace.

 

[Rahul Singh]

WRT to IAF MK-2 and Navy MK-2

IAF MK-2 model was originally prepared in 2009. Then it was felt that by re-engining Tejas with a more powerful engine stipulated STR can be met. Also in order to meet increased internal fuel volume requirement due to a powerful engine, it was later decided to marginally increase the length of the fuselage by 0.5 m.

The whole idea behind MK-2 was to be a minimum change in the airframe. In order to minimise testing time and expedited entry into service. A stated date was 2016-18--IOC, FOC.

However many things changed between 2009 and when it was observed that Naval Tejas has to be designed from ground up as a carrier-based fighter because adapting land-based LCA had revealed that it was not feasible in any way. Still, first, N-LCA concept was largely modelled after AF MK-2. But when more studies were carried out it became known that N-LCA Mk-2 would be required larger internal fuel volume than originally thought. This is the time when ADA stated designing N-LCA MK-2 from start as a carrier-borne fighter. This is when latest model of N-LCA MK-2 was shown.

N-LCA MK-2 has been designed taking inputs from AF Tejas and N-LCA. Hence it is much-refined design. It has far greater internal fuel volume than original AF MK-2. By moving main landing gears to wing roots it has not freed extra space in centre fuselage but also streamed line wing body blending at wing roots resulting in better area ruling hence lesser drag.

N-LCA MK-2(latest model) also has increased fuselage length of 1.3 meters. Which in other words means extra internal space. Which could be used to house internal SPJ and IRST in addition to extra fuel for greater range and endurance.

N-LCA MK-2 has increased performance from base model in the similar ratio as Gripen E has over C. Hence there is no logical reason behind IAF not asking N-LCA MK-2 to be adapted as AF Mk-2.

Anyway since we now know for sure that AF MK-2 is getting an all-movable-canard, one thing is sure that upcoming AF MK-2 won't be the one ADA had put in 2015 brochure.

MK-2 and MK-1 side by side. Canard should be placed just behind the canopy in close-coupled configuration.

@HariPrasad-1 @Steven Rogers @Kshithij

 

[Enquirer]

It seems to be a problem here. I think they mean it will carry 20% more payload. 20% heavier tejas shall weigh 7.8 tons which toooooooo much. Actually DRDO had said that Tejam MK2 shall weigh 6100 kg.

I think they're talking about MTOW!

F414 has around 17% more thrust then F404-IN20. If we assume that better Area rule conformance, Canards, better FCS and other improvements adds another 5%-8% performance, then cumulatively Mk2 would enjoy around 22%-25% performance improvement.

20% increase in MTOW would mean 16.2 tonnes; which is totally plausible considering Gripen E (with the same engine) has a rated MTOW as 16.5 tonnes!

I am not sure what the empty weight of Mk2 would be. Even if we assume that there would be around 500-1000 kg additional weight, then the payload+fuel improvement would be in the range of 1.7-2.2 tonnes!
If we assume that Mk2 might be made to carry around an extra tonne of fuel (maybe less than a tonne as space may not come easy) then:
the extra payload might be in the range of 1-1.5 tonnes (which is still 25%-35% increase over Mk1)

 

[Steven Rogers]

WRT to IAF MK-2 and Navy MK-2

IAF MK-2 model was originally prepared in 2009. Then it was felt that by re-engining Tejas with a more powerful engine stipulated STR can be met. Also in order to meet increased internal fuel volume requirement due to a powerful engine, it was later decided to marginally increase the length of the fuselage by 0.5 m.

The whole idea behind MK-2 was to be a minimum change in the airframe. In order to minimise testing time and expedited entry into service. A stated date was 2016-18--IOC, FOC.

However many things changed between 2009 and when it was observed that Naval Tejas has to be designed from ground up as a carrier-based fighter because adapting land-based LCA had revealed that it was not feasible in any way. Still, first, N-LCA concept was largely modelled after AF MK-2. But when more studies were carried out it became known that N-LCA Mk-2 would be required larger internal fuel volume than originally thought. This is the time when ADA stated designing N-LCA MK-2 from start as a carrier-borne fighter. This is when latest model of N-LCA MK-2 was shown.

N-LCA MK-2 has been designed taking inputs from AF Tejas and N-LCA. Hence it is much-refined design. It has far greater internal fuel volume than original AF MK-2. By moving main landing gears to wing roots it has not freed extra space in centre fuselage but also streamed line wing body blending at wing roots resulting in better area ruling hence lesser drag.

N-LCA MK-2(latest model) also has increased fuselage length of 1.3 meters. Which in other words means extra internal space. Which could be used to house internal SPJ and IRST in addition to extra fuel for greater range and endurance.

N-LCA MK-2 has increased performance from base model in the similar ratio as Gripen E has over C. Hence there is no logical reason behind IAF not asking N-LCA MK-2 to be adapted as AF Mk-2.

Anyway since we now know for sure that AF MK-2 is getting an all-movable-canard, one thing is sure that upcoming AF MK-2 won't be the one ADA had put in 2015 brochure.


@HariPrasad-1 @Steven Rogers @Kshithij

Where we got to know that Canards will be used on Tejas Mk2 AF, all we know is LEVCON.

Sent from my Aqua Ace II using Tapatalk

 

[Rahul Singh]

Where we got to know that Canards will be used on Tejas Mk2 AF, all we know is LEVCON.

Saurav Jha's twitter handle and sources on BR.

 

[Steven Rogers]

Saurav Jha's twitter handle and sources on BR.

When Saurav Jha said so, it pointed the possibilities.

Sent from my Aqua Ace II using Tapatalk

 

[Enquirer]

Where we got to know that Canards will be used on Tejas Mk2 AF, all we know is LEVCON.

Sent from my Aqua Ace II using Tapatalk

An Air Force liaison to DRDO has confirmed that Canards are part of the design.

 

[Rahul Singh]

When Saurav Jha said so, it pointed the possibilities.

Sent from my Aqua Ace II using Tapatalk

Indranil on BR is also one. He has been putting information that are turning out to be true in due course. Possibly he is in the loop with FB administrator apart from some of Tejas Team.

Wait till next AI we all know for sure. But I am confident.

 

[rone]

i think lca mk1 aq will be very similar to naval mk2 (2009) design) becoz not points

its based on the same improvement on mk1 ..improved angle of attack ..more payload, more range, shorter take of range, these are things much ore insisted on mk1a thus mk2 (2009§) version design based on these assumptions thus I think

 

[Kshithij]

WRT to IAF MK-2 and Navy MK-2

IAF MK-2 model was originally prepared in 2009. Then it was felt that by re-engining Tejas with a more powerful engine stipulated STR can be met. Also in order to meet increased internal fuel volume requirement due to a powerful engine, it was later decided to marginally increase the length of the fuselage by 0.5 m.

The whole idea behind MK-2 was to be a minimum change in the airframe. In order to minimise testing time and expedited entry into service. A stated date was 2016-18--IOC, FOC.

However many things changed between 2009 and when it was observed that Naval Tejas has to be designed from ground up as a carrier-based fighter because adapting land-based LCA had revealed that it was not feasible in any way. Still, first, N-LCA concept was largely modelled after AF MK-2. But when more studies were carried out it became known that N-LCA Mk-2 would be required larger internal fuel volume than originally thought. This is the time when ADA stated designing N-LCA MK-2 from start as a carrier-borne fighter. This is when latest model of N-LCA MK-2 was shown.

N-LCA MK-2 has been designed taking inputs from AF Tejas and N-LCA. Hence it is much-refined design. It has far greater internal fuel volume than original AF MK-2. By moving main landing gears to wing roots it has not freed extra space in centre fuselage but also streamed line wing body blending at wing roots resulting in better area ruling hence lesser drag.

N-LCA MK-2(latest model) also has increased fuselage length of 1.3 meters. Which in other words means extra internal space. Which could be used to house internal SPJ and IRST in addition to extra fuel for greater range and endurance.

N-LCA MK-2 has increased performance from base model in the similar ratio as Gripen E has over C. Hence there is no logical reason behind IAF not asking N-LCA MK-2 to be adapted as AF Mk-2.

Anyway since we now know for sure that AF MK-2 is getting an all-movable-canard, one thing is sure that upcoming AF MK-2 won't be the one ADA had put in 2015 brochure.

MK-2 and MK-1 side by side. Canard should be placed just behind the canopy in close-coupled configuration.

View attachment 24087

@HariPrasad-1 @Steven Rogers @Kshithij

Navy MK2 has LEVCONS, not Canards. Canards was rejected for MK1 in 2004-5 and instead cranks and double delta was made. Canards was said to slow down the plane with increased drag.

I am surprised that canards will be brought back. Is there a reason?

 

[Rahul Singh]

Navy MK2 has LEVCONS, not Canards. Canards was rejected for MK1 in 2004-5 and instead cranks and double delta was made. Canards was said to slow down the plane with increased drag.

Don't know if Naval MK-2 will also get CANARDS or just continue with LEVCONS but Tejas MK-2 is getting canards.

I am surprised that canards will be brought back. Is there a reason?

STR.

 

[Kshithij]

Don't know if Naval MK-2 will also get CANARDS or just continue with LEVCONS but Tejas MK-2 is getting canards.

STR.

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.

 

[Sancho]

If tejas is made 15+m long and EJ 2300 engine is put into it, It will be a Baap of all 4th generation aircraft and will out class anything in 4th gen...

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.

 

[Sancho]

EJ200 is not made in india. UK is not Indian ally and can't be trusted

That's why Tejas gets Martin Baker seats, Cobham nose and refuelling probe?

 

[Kshithij]

That's why Tejas gets Martin Baker seats, Cobham nose and refuelling probe?

Do you understand that prototypes, LSP and initial production runs are always made using off the shelf items to reduce cost for design, R&D in case the specifications don't match?

Initial trials have any import from tom dick and harry company. But this won't be continued in the actual mass production. These are just that - trials.

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.

If you were any smarter, you would understand that Tejas MK2 is not only for Navy but also for extended range, higher payload and better subsystems by adding extra space.

If we had taken up Ej200, then Tejas would have been exactly that - a modern MiG21. But, Tejas was always meant to be modern Mirage-2000 (Gripen E). Obviously, some people were smarter to acknowledge this and hence went after Mk2. Regardless of whatever was done, production delay was inevitable as the reason for delay was UPA government. if you did not want delay, Vajpayee must have constructed Ram Mandir in 2003-4.

 

[Sancho]

Do you understand that prototypes, LSP and initial production runs are always made using off the shelf items to reduce cost for design, R&D in case the specifications don't match?

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 were any smarter, you would understand that Tejas MK2 is not only for Navy but also for extended range, higher payload and better subsystems by adding extra space.

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.

If we had taken up Ej200, then Tejas would have been exactly that - a modern MiG21. But, Tejas was always meant to be modern Mirage-2000 (Gripen E). Obviously, some people were smarter to acknowledge this and hence went after Mk2.

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.