ADA Tejas Mark-II/Medium Weight Fighter

[Suryavanshi]

Sancho is gonna do his shilling, it's his job how else will he thanks Mata Merkel for German citizenship.

 

[zebra7]

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.

And why you keep on judging on the basis of european requirement against the evil russian for their single role aircraft airforce. Do you think only have the brain to suggest IAF what are their requirement.

 

[Sancho]

Ignorance is a bliss

Yes it obviously is, that's why you only see what you want to see, instead of understanding the real purpose of this feature. That's also why your claims remain pointless, while I can show you facts.

The sad thing with you us, that unlike other fanboys you do look for credible infos, which I respect, but then your bias takes over and you mess it up with nothing but pure opinion. That's why you "imagine" NLCAs LEVCONs to be similar to Su 57 movable LERX, when the fact as shown is, that they are meant to act as flaps during carrier landings.

So no matter what you try to spin it, you simply are wrong on this!

 

[Steven Rogers]

Yes it obviously is, that's why you only see what you want to see, instead of understanding the real purpose of this feature. That's also why your claims remain pointless, while I can show you facts.

The sad thing with you us, that unlike other fanboys you do look for credible infos, which I respect, but then your bias takes over and you mess it up with nothing but pure opinion. That's why you "imagine" NLCAs LEVCONs to be similar to Su 57 movable LERX, when the fact as shown is, that they are meant to act as flaps during carrier landings.

So no matter what you try to spin it, you simply are wrong on this!

That fact that you insist claiming on what you planned too despite getting deep meaning in the claims claimed, I had even earlier and probably months ago claimed that LEVCONS on n LCA has primary usage in the takeoff and mostly in landing, but did acknowledge the fact that those surfaces can be converted into active surface as even in the report suggests improved L/D at hi subsonic regime, later the article claims that the surfaces has been converted into active surfaces, what i claimed was specific to the 2nd part and wasn't contradicting to the primary objective of levcons on tejas, you insisted on first part but clearly ignored the next part, that's the problem.

 

[Sancho]

And why you keep on judging on the basis of european requirement against the evil russian for their single role aircraft airforce. Do you think only have the brain to suggest IAF what are their requirement.

Another typical Zebra post, that doesn't make any sense at all.

What European / Russian jugement? It's about the fact that a fighter with more / more useful weapon stations, can carry more loads, than another fighter in the same "weight class", with less weapon stations. That's simple logic, but let me make it even simpler for you.

Mirage 2000-5 in A2A configuration:

9 weapon stations, 6 of them with AAMs, up to 3 additional for fuel


LCA MK2 according to ADAs plans:

7 weapon stations + 1 pod station, in A2A configuration, 4 AAMs and up to 3 fuel tanks are possible


So even if both have an empty weight around 7 or 8t and even if both have a MTOW around 17t, the weapon station layout of the Mirage is better.

 

[Steven Rogers]

Another typical Zebra post, that doesn't make any sense at all.

What European / Russian jugement? It's about the fact that a fighter with more / more useful weapon stations, can carry more loads, than another fighter in the same "weight class", with less weapon stations. That's simple logic, but let me make it even simpler for you.

Mirage 2000-5 in A2A configuration:

9 weapon stations, 6 of them with AAMs, up to 3 additional for fuel


LCA MK2 according to ADAs plans:

7 weapon stations + 1 pod station, in A2A configuration, 4 AAMs and up to 3 fuel tanks are possible


So even if both have an empty weight around 7 or 8t and even if both have a MTOW around 17t, the weapon station layout of the Mirage is better.

Yout contradicted yourself, you posted the graphics of "LCA" mk2 of length 13.7m and other identical parameters and judged the stated specs of LCA with MWF. Without extraweapon stations, the space will be left useless, and will not make a sense of designing a bigger aircraft it only, matches what an LCA can do. Also with 8 w stations, it hardly gonna full fill the criteria of MWF.

 

[Sancho]

Yout contradicted yourself, you posted the graphics of "LCA" mk2 of length 13.7m and other identical parameters and judged the stated specs of LCA with MWF.

And here you see the problem again! Your desperate urge to counter me, instead of understanding what I am talking about!

My whole post is about weapon stations and the resulting load capability and you talk about length specs of an ADA graphic.

Without extraweapon stations, the space will be left useless, and will not make a sense of designing a bigger aircraft it only

Another mistake in understanding the purpose of the changes!
The airframe is meant to get longer, to increase internal space behind the cockpit section, to add avionics and fuel tanks. It was not meant to add additional external weapon stations, since the original idea was to increase payload to carry more loads on the existing 7 stations => a 3rd LGB or fuel tank on the centerline.

matches what an LCA can do. Also with 8 w stations, it hardly gonna full fill the criteria of MWF.

The criteria to be a medium "weight" fighter, is obviously "weight" and not the number of hardpoints. :biggrin2:

 

[Steven Rogers]

And here you see the problem again! Your desperate urge to counter me, instead of understanding what I am talking about!

My whole post is about weapon stations and the resulting load capability and you talk about length specs of an ADA graphic.



Another mistake in understanding the purpose of the changes!
The airframe is meant to get longer, to increase internal space behind the cockpit section, to add avionics and fuel tanks. It was not meant to add additional external weapon stations, since the original idea was to increase payload to carry more loads on the existing 7 stations => a 3rd LGB or fuel tank on the centerline.



The criteria to be a medium "weight" fighter, is obviously "weight" and not the number of hardpoints. :biggrin2:

Yout again did the same, if we remember earlier argument, you said LCA length is increased 0.5 m to make the room for the new avionics and fuel and its not mca, now since their is no hard on MWF so claiming anything is just a theory, not to mention, journalists like Saurav Jha have already indicated a lot of design changes like canards, and without additional weapon stations, the claims of 17, 5tons mtow or 6 tons of payload appears to be contradicting, as those limited stations also limit the payload which is more likely to ne the copy of Mk1 ie 3500 to 4500kg max and not the 6tons.

 

[Sancho]

without additional weapon stations, the claims of 17, 5tons mtow or 6 tons of payload appears to be contradicting

Only if you ignore, that LCA already has an empty weight close to 7t, or that the additional airframe segments increase weight, or that the AESA, EW, avionics and fuel tanks also increase weight, or that the payload is meant to increase to carry additional loads at the centerline as I explained.

You have to take what you know and not what you wish for and compare it to other medium class single engine fighters and then you will understand the difference.

 

[Kshithij]

Only if you ignore, that LCA already has an empty weight close to 7t, or that the additional airframe segments increase weight, or that the AESA, EW, avionics and fuel tanks also increase weight, or that the payload is meant to increase to carry additional loads at the centerline as I explained.

You have to take what you know and not what you wish for and compare it to other medium class single engine fighters and then you will understand the difference.

You have to compare Gripen E with Tejas Mk2. Gripen E has empty weight of 8tons and f414 engine but MToW of 16.5 tons. This 17.5 MToW is the suspect. How does Tejas have 1 ton more MToW when engine ia similar to F414? How will the eztra payload be adjusted? The 2 hardpoints at wing tips are meant for air to air missile only. So, rest 5 hardpoints carrying close to 5.5tons (0.5tons for wing tip missiles) is a bit outlandish. The Gripen E has 4.5 ton payload in 5 hardpoints which is reasonable. 5.5 ton in 5 hardpoints is impractical

 

[Thrishul]

Does anyone know the specifications for the Medium Combat Aircraft version for the Tejas Mk2?
Size and weight specifications.
I know they are saying it will be about 17.5 tonnes, but how much larger in length and wing area are we looking at?

 

[Steven Rogers]

Only if you ignore, that LCA already has an empty weight close to 7t, or that the additional airframe segments increase weight, or that the AESA, EW, avionics and fuel tanks also increase weight, or that the payload is meant to increase to carry additional loads at the centerline as I explained.

You have to take what you know and not what you wish for and compare it to other medium class single engine fighters and then you will understand the difference.

Conboard to gripen, MWF even with 7 tons empty weight will not have that much mtow,8tons gripen is longer and wider than the navy mk2 if it is considered the base of the MWF. If payload is increased, which means during combat the wing loading will also be increased thus strain on theaerodynamic performance of the aircraft, while IAF especially mentioned that their performance related issue will be solved with MWF which are the headache on the LCA platform.

 

[Steven Rogers]

You have to compare Gripen E with Tejas Mk2. Gripen E has empty weight of 8tons and f414 engine but MToW of 16.5 tons. This 17.5 MToW is the suspect. How does Tejas have 1 ton more MToW when engine ia similar to F414? How will the eztra payload be adjusted? The 2 hardpoints at wing tips are meant for air to air missile only. So, rest 5 hardpoints carrying close to 5.5tons (0.5tons for wing tip missiles) is a bit outlandish. The Gripen E has 4.5 ton payload in 5 hardpoints which is reasonable. 5.5 ton in 5 hardpoints is impractical

Gripen E has 10 hard points........

 

[Sancho]

Conboard to gripen, MWF even with 7 tons empty weight will not have that much mtow,8tons gripen is longer and wider than the navy mk2 if it is considered the base of the MWF. If payload is increased, which means during combat the wing loading will also be increased thus strain on theaerodynamic performance of the aircraft, while IAF especially mentioned that their performance related issue will be solved with MWF which are the headache on the LCA platform.

And guess what is the solution for that? Higher thrust!!!
MK2 was never required to be in the medium class, it only needed additional thrust to meet the ASR requirements and enough internal space to integrate modern EW and avionics.

So no matter if you want to hype the medium weight like DRDO is, or if you call it MK2, the key to make it a success is higher thrust to finally cover all shortfalls of MK1/1A, not increased weight.

P.S. Not only the empty weight is planned to increase, the payload too and that adds to the MTOW.

 

[Sancho]

Does anyone know the specifications for the Medium Combat Aircraft version for the Tejas Mk2?

There is no medium combat version of MK2, both are the same. MK2 with the planned changes increase it's weights into the medium weight class, that's all.

 

[Steven Rogers]

And guess what is the solution for that? Higher thrust!!!
MK2 was never required to be in the medium class, it only needed additional thrust to meet the ASR requirements and enough internal space to integrate modern EW and avionics.

So no matter if you want to hype the medium weight like DRDO is, or if you call it MK2, the key to make it a success is higher thrust to finally cover all shortfalls of MK1/1A, not increased weight.

P.S. Not only the empty weight is planned to increase, the payload too and that adds to the MTOW.

Aerodynamic shortfalls will be met with aerodynamics only, close coupled canards will be used that will give performance enhancement in AOA, STR AND ITR, MK1A shortfall is more than one ton of wt than required limit of 5500 kgees. None can be sorted if the new brochure is not released, a smaller fighter can't have 17 tons of mtow.

 

[Sancho]

Aerodynamic shortfalls will be met with aerodynamics only,

Nonsense, higher thrust and drag reduction are the planned fixes to meet the ASR. Once again, go with what you know (and this is widely reported for nearly a decade now) and not imaginary things.

 

[Kshithij]

Gripen E has 10 hard points........

Where are the hard points located in Gripen E that add up to 10?

 

[darshan978]

And guess what is the solution for that? Higher thrust!!!
MK2 was never required to be in the medium class, it only needed additional thrust to meet the ASR requirements and enough internal space to integrate modern EW and avionics.

So no matter if you want to hype the medium weight like DRDO is, or if you call it MK2, the key to make it a success is higher thrust to finally cover all shortfalls of MK1/1A, not increased weight.

P.S. Not only the empty weight is planned to increase, the payload too and that adds to the MTOW.

additional thrust to meet asr?? what how much more thrust you need for 6.5 ton aircrft? a 100kn engine will not be enough for you as you are anti tejas

 

[darshan978]

There is no medium combat version of MK2, both are the same. MK2 with the planned changes increase it's weights into the medium weight class, that's all.

and by your assumption tejas stays lca ??? increase in empy weight automatically makes tejas medium weight we dont need your certificate..live in your dream land...