ADA Tejas Mark-II/Medium Weight Fighter

[Sancho]

So IAF now wants to call the LCA MK2 as MWF ...

It's still called Tejas, but the MK2 with all the planned changes will increase it's weight into the medium weight class, that's why it can't be designated as LCA anymore, that's all.

 

[kamaal]

FINALLY!!!! some progress from IAF/ADA/HAL on MK2 front.

"They have changed it's NAME, we are one step closer to LCA MK2 now"

"NACHO BC"

 

[Steven Rogers]

Again, the need for LEVCONS on Tejas is only for carrier landings, not for improved manuverability, otherwise the IAF MK2 would get it too, but IAF neither asked for LEVCONS, nor wanted the additional internal fuel, which both were specific navy requirements.

Ah stop that crap, which you when repeated last time, I gave you enough evidences that levcon primary objective was achived but those surfaces also improved the MK1 navy performance, for more detail read annual report 2016.

 

[Steven Rogers]

So IAF now wants to call the LCA MK2 as MWF ...

View attachment 25698

https://economictimes.indiatimes.co...edium-weight-fighter/articleshow/64214939.cms

"Post up gradation", these bundalbaaz reporters have hardly any knowledge of aviation, continue to amaze us with their choice of words for any fascinating story or theory.

 

[patriots]

http://idrw.org/indigenous-uttam-aesa-radar-spotted-on-lca-tejas-report/

uttam aesa spotted on lca tejas
..,..........................................................................

 

[Steven Rogers]

Just that NLCAs LEVCONS are limited to a few positions only, since they are not intended to improve manuverability, but slow speed handling during carrier landings. The Su 57 LEVCONS are far more advanced, since they will be operated in the full flight envelop and coupled with the TVC as well, but it's certainly the canard replacement of the future, as Airbus is showing too.

Stop amusing us with hilarious claims, you keep repeating same even after being debunked.

 

[darshan978]

It's still called Tejas, but the MK2 with all the planned changes will increase it's weight into the medium weight class, that's why it can't be designated as LCA anymore, that's all.

i smell tooo much burning man i can feel you bro.................

 

[lcafanboy]

i smell tooo much burning man i can feel you bro.................

ROASTED BUTT....

 

[darshan978]

ROASTED BUTT....

i seriously doubt he is even indian

 

[Narasimh]

Mods going to change the thread name? or are we moving to a new thread MWF/MCF/MMF

 

[mayfair]

As long as the official name is LCA MK2, that is what it should be called.

 

[HariPrasad-1]

So IAF now wants to call the LCA MK2 as MWF ...

View attachment 25698

https://economictimes.indiatimes.co...edium-weight-fighter/articleshow/64214939.cms

Frankly speaking, I am disappointed with the DATA which has come out. Bloody 8 ton weight is just too much. We increased the length just 1 m and wight increased 1.5 ton which 23%. The weight should not have been above 7 ton. Some people say that additional Fuel shall be 700 Kg. If it is so, it is disappointed as well. 1 m increase in iength should have added atlease 1.2 ton additional fuel. Once the engine planned for MK2 wit some 6.5 ton will power a 8 ton aircraft now. Had it been EJ 230, it would have been a different case. Power to weight Ration shall be even lower than current Tejas.

 

[Kshithij]

Frankly speaking, I am disappointed with the DATA which has come out. Bloody 8 ton weight is just too much. We increased the length just 1 m and wight increased 1.5 ton which 23%. The weight should not have been above 7 ton. Some people say that additional Fuel shall be 700 Kg. If it is so, it is disappointed as well. 1 m increase in iength should have added atlease 1.2 ton additional fuel. Once the engine planned for MK2 wit some 6.5 ton will power a 8 ton aircraft now. Had it been EJ 230, it would have been a different case. Power to weight Ration shall be even lower than current Tejas.

The newer Kaveri is expected to be in 105kN class and it may be used in AMCA too. So, LCA MK2 has been increased in size to use the maximum potential of the engine.

About 700kg increase, the current fuel is 2460kg and that will likely be 3.2tonnes. It is 4000 litre fuel. Also, about 1m increase in length, you are not taking the increase in the diameter and length of engine which will also take up some space. EJ230 is a joke and it can't be taken seriously.

About increase in empty weight, if I am right, there have been fitting of many equipment like IFR, IRST, SPJ and several other equipments internally. Also, increase in length and width increases the size by 10-15% by volume which also increases weight by 10-15%. So, it was expected that the weight would increase.

Also, even with weight of 8 ton, from earlier 6.8tonne (with SPJ POD), the increase in weight (<20%) is less than increase in engine thrust (20-25%). So, performance problem is unlikely. The additional wing area can actually help give more lift too.

 

[lcafanboy]

Frankly speaking, I am disappointed with the DATA which has come out. Bloody 8 ton weight is just too much. We increased the length just 1 m and wight increased 1.5 ton which 23%. The weight should not have been above 7 ton. Some people say that additional Fuel shall be 700 Kg. If it is so, it is disappointed as well. 1 m increase in iength should have added atlease 1.2 ton additional fuel. Once the engine planned for MK2 wit some 6.5 ton will power a 8 ton aircraft now. Had it been EJ 230, it would have been a different case. Power to weight Ration shall be even lower than current Tejas.

If I am not wrong LCA Mk1A will itself be 56cms or .56mts longer than mk1 due to aerodynamic changes to nose cone and to add internal irst. Add to this 1mts and you have 14.76 mts length which is at per with Gripen NG. Now Gripen NG wieghs 8000kgs and LCA Mk2 too will weigh same with same MTOW, hence MCA same as SAAB is peddling Gripen NG.....

BTW engine could be GE F414EPE for both.... For mk2 I would like to have Kaveri engine but if not EJ23O which is anytime better than f414. Let's see what ADA comes up with for prototypes....

 

[Enquirer]

If I am not wrong LCA Mk1A will itself be 56cms or .56mts longer than mk1 due to aerodynamic changes to nose cone and to add internal irst. Add to this 1mts and you have 14.76 mts length which is at per with Gripen NG. Now Gripen NG wieghs 8000kgs and LCA Mk2 too will weigh same with same MTOW, hence MCA same as SAAB is peddling Gripen NG.....

BTW engine could be GE F414EPE for both.... For mk2 I would like to have Kaveri engine but if not EJ23O which is anytime better than f414. Let's see what ADA comes up with for prototypes....

GE F414 EPE exists only as a concept - the project hasn't been funded as yet!

 

[Sancho]

i smell tooo much burning man i can feel you bro.................

And again, understanding is the key, not pretending or smelling. :biggrin2:

 

[Sancho]

Now Gripen NG wieghs 8000kgs and LCA Mk2 too will weigh same with same MTOW, hence MCA same as SAAB is peddling Gripen NG.....

Wrong, not same as Gripen NG / E, but similar to Mirage 2000 back in Kargil, sInce both, the Gripen E and the upgraded Mirage 2000-5 added weapon stations, to carry higher payloads and more missiles during any mission.
LCA MK2 might fall in the medium weight class, but according to all ADA plans so far, it will retain the same weapon stations and that makes all the difference!

The plan was to improve it's payload compared to MK1, to carry additional loads at the centerline station (bombs or fuel tanks), just as MK2 ideally should find space for the integration of the jammer, so that it don't need the MER at the external station anymore. All these improves MK2 way above MK1 and coupled with finally meeting the ASR on flight performance, should give the programme a successful end, but it doesn't make it carry comparable loads as the upgraded Mirage 2000-5 (at least 5 x MICAs in any mission config, centerline cruise missile), or Gripen E (2 x 2000lB bombs + 3400l fuel, or up to 7 x AAMs + 2200l fuel) can.

 

[Sancho]

Stop amusing us with hilarious claims, you keep repeating same even after being debunked.
View attachment 25711

You can only debunk something, that you understand!
The Levcons on NLCA, were added for a specific purpose:
(minute 8:44)

Or from ADA themselves:

So as I said "correctly", it is developed specifically to reduce the speed during carrier landings and can be used in 3 positions!


Always fun to talk to the LCA "experts" here.

 

[Steven Rogers]

You can only debunk something, that you understand!
The Levcons on NLCA, were added for a specific purpose:
(minute 8:44)

Or from ADA themselves:

So as I said "correctly", it is developed specifically to reduce the speed during carrier landings and can be used in 3 positions!


Always fun to talk to the LCA "experts" here.

Ignorance is a bliss, but still you can use some brain cells to scroll down and read the report completely, anyways it require guts to constantly being humiliated with hardly any shame. I have watched thosr videos months ago however it is a peanut to what has changed in the past 8 years, 2010video won't support your false hood. By the by do read the Pic you posted, it says levcon on MK1 improves l/d at high subsonic flight regime.

 

[Steven Rogers]

Wrong, not same as Gripen NG / E, but similar to Mirage 2000 back in Kargil, sInce both, the Gripen E and the upgraded Mirage 2000-5 added weapon stations, to carry higher payloads and more missiles during any mission.
LCA MK2 might fall in the medium weight class, but according to all ADA plans so far, it will retain the same weapon stations and that makes all the difference!

The plan was to improve it's payload compared to MK1, to carry additional loads at the centerline station (bombs or fuel tanks), just as MK2 ideally should find space for the integration of the jammer, so that it don't need the MER at the external station anymore. All these improves MK2 way above MK1 and coupled with finally meeting the ASR on flight performance, should give the programme a successful end, but it doesn't make it carry comparable loads as the upgraded Mirage 2000-5 (at least 5 x MICAs in any mission config, centerline cruise missile), or Gripen E (2 x 2000lB bombs + 3400l fuel, or up to 7 x AAMs + 2200l fuel) can.

Nice theory, but yeah it's theory, all your determined were for the LCA not the MCA, bigger wings and longer fuselage will have a waste of space if the weapon stations are ignored. And anyways the current form of weapon stations won't stay in the MCA since it will attract instability during flight regime, and if they still go with 8, they have to waste a lot of space in the wings only for the stability of the aircraft in the flight,that also means more powerful stores and multiple racks to hold up various ammunition in the single pylon.