ADA Tejas Mark-II/Medium Weight Fighter

[ersakthivel]

ersakthivel , Regarding Tejas Mk2 we need to wait and see till that fighter is in metal and flies and there is enough data on it , P Rajkumar is a old hat on Tejas so he knows the pro and cons when it comes to Tejas.

Right now the focus should be to get the IOC and FOC on Tejas Mk1 and see how it proceeds ......every one is keenly watching it.

Ofcourse Rajkumar is an authority on tejas. But it is an old interview that was published on 2010 much before the design changes that were the result of 2000 odd test flights got incorporated into LSp-7 and 8 which are supposed to be closest to final production version.

Also I believe ADA chief Subramanium who says tejas is still operating within 85 percent of the flight envelope for the IOC.

http://www.business-standard.com/ar...all-sceptical-questioning-111040400035_1.html.

Note the end of 2012 was mentioned as date of FOC by which tejas will open full flight envelope in the interview. because the FOC is delayed it is fair to assume that excess 15 percent performance specs referred to by the chief is indeed the difference between IOC specs and FOC specs.

.And the remaining 15 percent envelope opening is slated for FOC once LSP-6 finishes AOA validation tests.

For example the 20 second vertical loop in aeroindia 2013 was completed with the fighter still restricted to 6gs as per the FCS.
So further relaxing of flight envelope after the critical AOA and departure test done on LSp-6 will give us clear picture of the goals achieved for Mk-1 and goals that will be set for mk-2.

Also I believe the ADA chief when he says that mk-2 will have 40 percent performance increase over mk-1 IOC spec and 15 percent improvement over mk-1's FOC specs,due to higher power engine continued weight reduction effort and refined aerodynamic configuration.

 

[ersakthivel]

The picture shows the complex wing shape of Tejas with cranked delta with high upper wing fuselage blending along with wing twist at the root.

 

[Austin]

Also I believe ADA chief Subramanium who says tejas is still operating within 85 percent of the flight envelope for the IOC.

Designers insist Tejas will belie all sceptical questioning | Business Standard.

Note the end of 2012 was mentioned as date of FOC by which tejas will open full flight envelope in the interview. because the FOC is delayed it is fair to assume that excess 15 percent performance specs referred to by the chief is indeed the difference between IOC specs and FOC specs.

The interview is good as it gives you an idea of what Tejas Mk2 is trying to achieve , 35-40 % improvement over Mk1 is something nice to have.

My only problem with ADA is they tend to over state and under achieve .....if the interview in 2011 is to be verified today we know the IOC and FOC has been delayed by 2-3 years.

Note P Rajkumar in 2010 stated that Tejas Mk2 will start production in 2020 while the ADA chief says its 2018.

So unless Tejas Mk2 flies in metal and we see how it progress which will be known eventually , I would be skeptical in taking ADA claim at its face value.

I would prefer to wait and watch how things progress.

 

[ersakthivel]

The interview is good as it gives you an idea of what Tejas Mk2 is trying to achieve , 35-40 % improvement over Mk1 is something nice to have.

My only problem with ADA is they tend to over state and under achieve .....if the interview in 2011 is to be verified today we know the IOC and FOC has been delayed by 2-3 years.

Note P Rajkumar in 2010 stated that Tejas Mk2 will start production in 2020 while the ADA chief says its 2018.

So unless Tejas Mk2 flies in metal and we see how it progress which will be known eventually , I would be skeptical in taking ADA claim at its face value.

I would prefer to wait and watch how things progress.

35 to 40 percent improvement over IOC specs of tejas mk-1 and around 20 percent improvement over FOC specs of Mk-1 is being targeted by ADA is the correct view.

Delays are too bad for the IAF. But there is no way we are going to sort out niggling troubles without a delay of couple of years.

And the IAF need not wait for the full FOC clearance untill 2020 to induct the mk-2 like tejas mk-1 they can start inducting it once it gets it's IOC.But the critical factor in favour of faster development time of Tejas mk-2 is the availability of tejas mk-1 production line and supplier base on production scale that will lead to faster assembly and availability of higher number of prototype vehicles and LSPS of mk-2 for test flight program.

Also most of the test flight parameters are already validated with mk-1. And it is enough if mk-2 tests the incremental performance.Issues like the grounding of the entire fleet of mk-1 LSPs for the good part of the last year with fuel line issues and pilot seat height with HMDS issues are not going to be encountered again for mk-2.

 

[Decklander]

@ersakthivel, Let me reclarify my stand on LCA. It is one of the most remarkable and redical new design of the world. The tech break thrus made by ADA and DRDO for creating this aircraft are in the same league as that of our nuke and missile breakthrus. The design itself has huge growth potential but in the effort to call it light weight, we have nearly killed its true potential. Can you pls explain as to why have we kept its weight restricted to just 13.5 tons when with 38 sq mtr wing area, this ac can easily go upto 20 tons. Why are we being stupid to restrict its length to just 13.7 meters and why not extend it to 15-16 meters to increase fuel space, bigger and better engine and more hard points to take its weapon load to over eight tons.Wingloading comes into play for turning ability and not in strike roles. We want to make it multirole and yet we have not utilised its true potential. Pls compare the wing area of F-16 with this and tell me if I am wrong. In AMCA thread I had specifically mentioned that we shud shelve Mk-2 version and instead go for stealth Tejas and we dont need much design effort for that. This ac was originally supposed to have cranked delta design like F-16XL but later changed to compound delta as IAF wanted to give priority to aircombat more than its ability for strikes.
I am sure that you too have probably as good knowledge of aerodynamics as I have. How is the drag of an ac effected with increase in Finesse ratio? In its present form this ac is not even as good as what M2K is. But If we come out of the stupid mentality of trying to keep it small and increase its length to 15 meters, we will increase its potential exponantially to go past that of SU-30MKi and also Rafale.

 

[Decklander]

In its present form LCA is a grossly under utilised design constrained not by design but by mentality of its designers and likely operators. Regarding N-LCA, levcons will not help this design as much for carrier landings as the Close coupled canard wud.

 

[p2prada]

This takes us back to the initial early-2000 MCA design.

A redesign is perfect for LCA. This light-wight fighter is passe. But is it realistic considering the timeframe?

 

[ersakthivel]

@ersakthivel, Let me reclarify my stand on LCA. It is one of the most remarkable and redical new design of the world. The tech break thrus made by ADA and DRDO for creating this aircraft are in the same league as that of our nuke and missile breakthrus. The design itself has huge growth potential but in the effort to call it light weight, we have nearly killed its true potential. Can you pls explain as to why have we kept its weight restricted to just 13.5 tons when with 38 sq mtr wing area, this ac can easily go upto 20 tons. Why are we being stupid to restrict its length to just 13.7 meters and why not extend it to 15-16 meters to increase fuel space, bigger and better engine and more hard points to take its weapon load to over eight tons.Wingloading comes into play for turning ability and not in strike roles. We want to make it multirole and yet we have not utilised its true potential. Pls compare the wing area of F-16 with this and tell me if I am wrong. In AMCA thread I had specifically mentioned that we shud shelve Mk-2 version and instead go for stealth Tejas and we dont need much design effort for that. This ac was originally supposed to have cranked delta design like F-16XL but later changed to compound delta as IAF wanted to give priority to aircombat more than its ability for strikes.
I am sure that you too have probably as good knowledge of aerodynamics as I have. How is the drag of an ac effected with increase in Finesse ratio? In its present form this ac is not even as good as what M2K is. But If we come out of the stupid mentality of trying to keep it small and increase its length to 15 meters, we will increase its potential exponantially to go past that of SU-30MKi and also Rafale.

Well it would have been very easy for ADA to reduce the size of the massive wing and reduce the total weight of the fighter , reduce the drag,improve it's thrust to weight ratio substantially thereby improving the AOA and STR even more substantially.But fighter design can be classified as pre- mirage -2000 and post mirage -2000.

if you tabulate the wing loading of all fighters in both the era, you cannot help but notice the increased wing area with higher wing weight ,,low wing loading ang low thrust to weight ratio.


Sure all the fighters right from grippen to RAFALE , TYPHOON , F-22, and FGFA could have followed the F-16 by having,
low wing area and lower wing weight,
high thrust to weight ratio,
high wing loading and higher STR, low ITR,

But they didnot go the F-16 way and all tended to tilt toward the Mirage-2000 way of

high wing weight, highwing area,
low thrust to weight ratio,
low wing loading,low STR, high ITR ,

all in general.

Ofcourse LCA design carried it to the extreme in low wing loading.It has the lowest wing loading among all the fighters that are in service and that are in the drawing board.

WHY?

because the low wing loading deltas excell at ITR, which gradually gained importance over high STR which is the hall mark of high wingloading fighters like F-16.This is because with the advent of DASH and HMDS along with high offboresight missile demanded that the fighter with sharper nose pointing ability meaning high instantaneous turn rate always get to fire the high off boresight WVR missile using DASH.Once the missile is fired high STR fighter cannot escape by turning tighter as eventhough the low STR low wing loading fighter cannot match the STR of high wingloading fighter all it can do is o get a lock on with quick nose pointing ability.

Also with exceptional lift to drag specs these low wing loading fighters always excelled at climbind maneuvers and high altitude where the high wing loading fighter cannot match it.

top speeds of high wing loading fighters were naturally higher than the low wing loading fighter because of the excess drag induced by the massive wing.

But this higher top speed became meaningless with the advent of mach-4 speed BVr and WVR missiles.However higer STR you have you cannot turn tighter than the 40 G turning missile.But higher ITR gave low wing loading fighters a better chance of shaking off the missile in a a high instantaneous turn letting the missile overshoot.How effective this tactic is not proved. But since missile has a way higher wing loading at least in theory the low wing loading fighters may have a better chance of escape. Also according to the write up on F-16XL low wing loading fighters typically pull those Gs much faster than the high wing loading fighters.

But a few high wingloading fighters like SUKHOI plan to use thrust vectoring to effect a high instantaneous thrust.

So ADA choose the same design the world choose for all it's fighters because of the importance world gave to higher ITR.Note despite having may fighters in it's fleet. The IAf always loved it's mirages before the arrival of sukhois.Infact they were ready to buy 126 of them from France in 2005 in FMS route.

But the government of the day decided to not to enter into single vendor situation and gradually the MMRCA circus opened up. The mig-29 has much higher instananeous turn rate for sure , but it was due to the way higher TWR developed with twin engines not by low wing loading design, which is an aerodynamically inefficient solution. For a small fuel load the Mig-29s tend to loose fuel rapidly when it enters aggressive maneuvers.

So the IAF gave ADA mig like dimensions and Mirage like performance for tejas mk-1.The mig-21 like dimensions is to take advantage of the existing facilities created for MIG-21 and at the same time having the performance of the Mirages.That's why even though lacking in topspeed the tejas has higher thrust to weight ratio than mirage and lower wingloading than mirage, reflecting the crucial factors that guided it's development.

That's why like you I am strongly of the view that full potential of tejas platform can be realized only if we develop a twin engined version with 5th gen stealth specs. Because the aerodynamic wing layout has enormous unrealized potential that can be unleashed by excess power we can get from another engine catering to world beating performance specs and internal weapon load and range in a very cost effective manner with marginal alteration to the wing design.

At that time ADA had no choice but to obey. Because the country didnot have a higher thrust engine like F-16's to support a bigger craft.And ADA had no track record to oppose IAf. this is a cruel decision by IAf(or which authority is not clear for me). It should have just specified payload, range and other performance specs instead of specifying stuff like empty weight, MTOW .It would have lead to a superb f-16 weight category twin engined fighter , which the ADA was desperate to develop in it's initial MCA version and flatly booted out by IAF top brass.

the logical development of tejas's wing's aerodynamic potential in a twin engine config would have led to a fighter with superb air to air specs. but times have changed and with the advent of multi role 5th gen stealth IAf wanted AMCA to mirror it's changed priorities.

So the enourmous wasted potential of Tejas's low wing loading is tragic story of slip between the cup.

What levcons will do to the better carrier operation of tejas mk-2 would have been made clear to the navy now. Only time will tell how well n-tejas mk-2 will shape up.

 

[Decklander]

Well it would have been very easy for ADA to reduce the size of the massive wing and reduce the total weight of the fighter , reduce the drag,improve it's thrust to weight ratio substantially thereby improving the AOA and STR even more substantially.But fighter design can be classified as pre- mirage -2000 and post mirage -2000.

if you tabulate the wing loading of all fighters in both the era, you cannot help but notice the increased wing area with higher wing weight ,,low wing loading ang low thrust to weight ratio.


Sure all the fighters right from grippen to RAFALE , TYPHOON , F-22, and FGFA could have followed the F-16 by having,
low wing area and lower wing weight,
high thrust to weight ratio,
high wing loading and higher STR, low ITR,

But they didnot go the F-16 way and all tended to tilt toward the Mirage-2000 way of

high wing weight, highwing area,
low thrust to weight ratio,
low wing loading,low STR, high ITR ,

all in general.

Ofcourse LCA design carried it to the extreme in low wing loading.It has the lowest wing loading among all the fighters that are in service and that are in the drawing board.

WHY?

because the low wing loading deltas excell at ITR, which gradually gained importance over high STR which is the hall mark of high wingloading fighters like F-16.This is because with the advent of DASH and HMDS along with high offboresight missile demanded that the fighter with sharper nose pointing ability meaning high instantaneous turn rate always get to fire the high off boresight WVR missile using DASH.Once the missile is fired high STR fighter cannot escape by turning tighter as eventhough the low STR low wing loading fighter cannot match the STR of high wingloading fighter all it can do is o get a lock on with quick nose pointing ability.

Also with exceptional lift to drag specs these low wing loading fighters always excelled at climbind maneuvers and high altitude where the high wing loading fighter cannot match it.

top speeds of high wing loading fighters were naturally higher than the low wing loading fighter because of the excess drag induced by the massive wing.

But this higher top speed became meaningless with the advent of mach-4 speed BVr and WVR missiles.However higer STR you have you cannot turn tighter than the 40 G turning missile.But higher ITR gave low wing loading fighters a better chance of shaking off the missile in a a high instantaneous turn letting the missile overshoot.How effective this tactic is not proved. But since missile has a way higher wing loading at least in theory the low wing loading fighters may have a better chance of escape. Also according to the write up on F-16XL low wing loading fighters typically pull those Gs much faster than the high wing loading fighters.

But a few high wingloading fighters like SUKHOI plan to use thrust vectoring to effect a high instantaneous thrust.

So ADA choose the same design the world choose for all it's fighters because of the importance world gave to higher ITR.Note despite having may fighters in it's fleet. The IAf always loved it's mirages before the arrival of sukhois.Infact they were ready to buy 126 of them from France in 2005 in FMS route.

But the government of the day decided to not to enter into single vendor situation and gradually the MMRCA circus opened up. The mig-29 has much higher instananeous turn rate for sure , but it was due to the way higher TWR developed with twin engines not by low wing loading design, which is an aerodynamically inefficient solution. For a small fuel load the Mig-29s tend to loose fuel rapidly when it enters aggressive maneuvers.

So the IAF gave ADA mig like dimensions and Mirage like performance for tejas mk-1.The mig-21 like dimensions is to take advantage of the existing facilities created for MIG-21 and at the same time having the performance of the Mirages.That's why even though lacking in topspeed the tejas has higher thrust to weight ratio than mirage and lower wingloading than mirage, reflecting the crucial factors that guided it's development.

That's why like you I am strongly of the view that full potential of tejas platform can be realized only if we develop a twin engined version with 5th gen stealth specs. Because the aerodynamic wing layout has enormous unrealized potential that can be unleashed by excess power we can get from another engine catering to world beating performance specs and internal weapon load and range in a very cost effective manner with marginal alteration to the wing design.

At that time ADA had no choice but to obey. Because the country didnot have a higher thrust engine like F-16's to support a bigger craft.And ADA had no track record to oppose IAf. this is a cruel decision by IAf(or which authority is not clear for me). It should have just specified payload, range and other performance specs instead of specifying stuff like empty weight, MTOW .It would have lead to a superb f-16 weight category twin engined fighter , which the ADA was desperate to develop in it's initial MCA version and flatly booted out by IAF top brass.

the logical development of tejas's wing's aerodynamic potential in a twin engine config would have led to a fighter with superb air to air specs. but times have changed and with the advent of multi role 5th gen stealth IAf wanted AMCA to mirror it's changed priorities.

So the enourmous wasted potential of Tejas's low wing loading is tragic story of slip between the cup.

What levcons will do to the better carrier operation of tejas mk-2 would have been made clear to the navy now. Only time will tell how well n-tejas mk-2 will shape up.

What you have stated now is what is the truth about LCA. It is a wastage of a great design. I will still not support a twin engined version. I wud rather go for 108KN version of F414INS6 and add 0.6 m each ahead of nose, behind cockpit and behind wings. The additional volume ahead of the nose will help installation of bigger AESA and OSF, the volume behind cockpit will help increase internal fuel volume plus allow a far better CFT configuration. The extension of fuselage behind wing TE will help keep the C of G aft while allowing for two additional pylons in the main fuselage.
The MTOW must be increased to atleast 17 tons. The addition of 1.8 meter length will take the empty weight to about seven tons, internal fuel of 3 tons and weapon load of 7 tons. at full load you will still have a wingloading of less than 500kgs/sq m.

 

[ersakthivel]

What you have stated now is what is the truth about LCA. It is a wastage of a great design. I will still not support a twin engined version. I wud rather go for 108KN version of F414INS6 and add 0.6 m each ahead of nose, behind cockpit and behind wings. The additional volume ahead of the nose will help installation of bigger AESA and OSF, the volume behind cockpit will help increase internal fuel volume plus allow a far better CFT configuration. The extension of fuselage behind wing TE will help keep the C of G aft while allowing for two additional pylons in the main fuselage.
The MTOW must be increased to atleast 17 tons. The addition of 1.8 meter length will take the empty weight to about seven tons, internal fuel of 3 tons and weapon load of 7 tons. at full load you will still have a wingloading of less than 500kgs/sq m.

Ofcourse that will be a great configuration,but for some strange reason to this day IAF never expressed any desire for the fully developed GE-414-EPE version for this bird. Why is one of the great mystery to me. because if IAF strongly expressed it's desire for the EPE version then the tejas mk-2 with the alterations suggested by you will become a world class fighter.Because the 120 kn EPE will support this loadout with ease still giving kick ass thrust to weight ratio , while simultaneously exploiting it's fantastic low wing loading.It will simultaneously allow tejas to have higher range and weaponload and sparing more power for it's much bigger swashplate asea radar in front and ew suit almost making it as the most sophisticated 4.5th gen fighter made in Asia.

While the navy has frankly expressed the need for this higher power engine for N-tejas mk-2 and putting down 1000 crores where it's mouth is. IAF is behaving like a hooker.it never wants the potential of the tejas wing form to be unleashed allowing it to exceed Grippen-NG.

WHY?

Then it will close the flood gates of import. There is no other reason for that. because once local talent proves it can make world class fighter GOI will never allow IAF to import any fancy stuff in huge numbers in sky high lifecycle costs.As tejas mk-2 has almost completed all the needed tech development needed for making 5th gen fighters including mastering composites, fly by wire FCS the GOi will force IAF to work with local talent in future. Add the new found strategic ties with US has made it possible for us to source the top level engine tech for our fighters till we master this crucial area.

The TATRA days will be TATA for IAf and IA. That's why the army is also playing hide and seek with the ARJUN program. For it to pretend that it never knew about the 60 ton weight of ARJUn . is same as a young husband confessing that he never knew his wife was pregnant for 9 months because he never looked at her belly in the past nine months.I may sound like a conspiracy theorist by posting like this.

Boeing chief is falling head over heels to offer EPE to india. A production run of close to 400 engines will be in Boeing's hand if only IAf expresses it's desire fir the EPE version making tejas mk-2 a world class fighter with huge export potential and giving indian aerospace industries a chance to seemlessly integrate with global aerospace eco system.

But all the while IAf is behaving like a teenage boy not interested in dating proposal form coolest girl in the college, while Navy has clearly in the driving seat of tejas mk-2 hoping to make something out of it.AFAIK the strong import lobbies at IAf and Indian army don't want any Indian system to outperform the imported system is my suspicion.



The

 

[p2prada]

What you have stated now is what is the truth about LCA. It is a wastage of a great design. I will still not support a twin engined version. I wud rather go for 108KN version of F414INS6 and add 0.6 m each ahead of nose, behind cockpit and behind wings. The additional volume ahead of the nose will help installation of bigger AESA and OSF, the volume behind cockpit will help increase internal fuel volume plus allow a far better CFT configuration. The extension of fuselage behind wing TE will help keep the C of G aft while allowing for two additional pylons in the main fuselage.
The MTOW must be increased to atleast 17 tons. The addition of 1.8 meter length will take the empty weight to about seven tons, internal fuel of 3 tons and weapon load of 7 tons. at full load you will still have a wingloading of less than 500kgs/sq m.

That would make it a Gripen NG.

 

[brahmastra11]

Well then match Gripen NG weight and lenghth and paylod capacity with EFT.. And you will get much advanced EFT right ?

Epic..

That would make it a Gripen NG.

 

[Decklander]

That would make it a Gripen NG.

It will be superior to Gripen NG as it will be able to carry more fuel internally and have better wing area of 38 v/s 30. While matching Gripen NG weapon to weapon and sensor to sensor with higher weaponload.

 

[p2prada]

It will be superior to Gripen NG as it will be able to carry more fuel internally and have better wing area of 38 v/s 30. While matching Gripen NG weapon to weapon and sensor to sensor with higher weaponload.

Are Gripen NG specs available in the open? Only Gripen Demo specs are available and it currently has 10 hardpoints and carries ~3.3 tonnes of fuel while being a dual seater. Gripen has evolved to a Gripen E, instead of the NG variant offered to India. I don't know what's the difference, but specs for the new design is yet to be released. Reports said that they want to retain the same wing loading for the E/F variant as it is for C/D. Meaning even the wing is going to get bigger.

This comparison is moot.

However, is it realistic to induct a LCA NG after the decade compared to Mk2 in a decade? I mean I want your view on how long it would take to test and field a LCA NG and how relevant will it continue to be during that time period if IAF decides to junk both Mk1 and Mk2.

Personally I don't believe small single engine fighters like Mk2 have any real future post 2020.

 

[Bhadra]

Air Force audit says pact for LCA parts unauthorised



Air Force audit says pact for LCA parts unauthorised | idrw.org

The Aeronautical Development Establishment (ADE), one of the agencies working on light combat aircraft — Tejas had struck an agreement with BAE Systems Overseas Inc for supply of 15 ship sets of integrated flight control systems line replacement units costing US$3,06,00,000, without the approval of competent authority, states the audit of the Office of the Director of Air Force Audit.
BAE Systems Overseas Inc was to have delivered the units by March 2009. "Under the contract, ADE received 14 shipments. The consignment containing the 15th set consisting of actuators (total 15 numbers) valuing US$21,27,215 (Rs 10.63 crore) in one case weighing 206-kg was sent via shipper number 54151 dated December 17, 2008 by British Airways. However, the consignment was not received by ADE," the report, completed in 2010 reveals.

Bringing this to the notice of Defence Minister A K Antony, Javed Abbas Technical Officer 'B', retired, in a letter said there are several other irregularities going on at ADE, a lab under Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), regarding appointments, promotions and transfers.

The audit report, annexed in to the letter, further states: "as per documents provided by BAE Systems, USA, the consignment was received by British Airways and the aircraft left the John F Kennedy International Airport (New York) for Heathrow Airport, London on December 12, 2008 by flight number BA 114."

While 40 per cent of the value of these products had already been paid to BAE, payment for balance, amounting to 60 per cent of value was effected in October 2009, well after the deadline for delivering of the units was passed, and, the consignment had not reached ADE.

The auditors point out that as per para 7.2 of Purchase Management procedure, 2006, stores costing Rs 2.5 crore might be insured against loss or damage in transit and that insurance cover will invariably be obtained from the insurance agency before dispatching the consignment by the supplier.

"However, the consignment was not insured by DRDO in contravention of the regulation. On reasons for non-insurance, the ADE stated that the clearing agent Air Consolidation Agent — Balmer & Lawrie & Co did not advise the establishment to do so," the report adds. Observing that the excuse is not tenable, the audit said, onus of deciding on whether the consignment should be insured or not rests with ADE and not the clearing agent.

"Thus, by not insuring the consignment by ADE, as provided in the regulation, the State had to bear loss of Rs 10.63 crore," the report concluded.

DRDO sources said the consignment, eventually never reached the organisation, and it was lost in transit!

 

[pmaitra]

Air Force audit says pact for LCA parts unauthorised



Air Force audit says pact for LCA parts unauthorised | idrw.org

. . .

Interesting. Looks like ADE is negligent in following the procedures. Few questions:
Who is the competent authority to allow this purchase from BAE? Need name.
Who placed the order and released the money? Need name.
Who carried out the audit on behalf of IAF? Need name.
Who was the captain of the British Airways flight BA 114? Need name.

GoI should fully investigate this, and fire anyone who has contravened the rules. On the other hand, British Airways should be asked to offer an explanation. It would help if the full report were available. There are too many unknowns in this story.

 

[Bhadra]

Interesting. Looks like ADE is negligent in following the procedures. Few questions:
Who is the competent authority to allow this purchase from BAE? Need name.
Who placed the order and released the money? Need name.
Who carried out the audit on behalf of IAF? Need name.
Who was the captain of the British Airways flight BA 114? Need name.

GoI should fully investigate this, and fire anyone who has contravened the rules. On the other hand, British Airways should be asked to offer an explanation. It would help if the full report were available. There are too many unknowns in this story.

Put up an RTI with ADE....

 

[pmaitra]

Put up an RTI with ADE....

That is exactly what crossed my mind. File an RTI, and get everything out in the open.

@Bhadra, I had made few typos, which I have corrected, in the original as well as the quote. It should be, "It would help if the full report were available."

 

[Decklander]

Are Gripen NG specs available in the open? Only Gripen Demo specs are available and it currently has 10 hardpoints and carries ~3.3 tonnes of fuel while being a dual seater. Gripen has evolved to a Gripen E, instead of the NG variant offered to India. I don't know what's the difference, but specs for the new design is yet to be released. Reports said that they want to retain the same wing loading for the E/F variant as it is for C/D. Meaning even the wing is going to get bigger.

This comparison is moot.

However, is it realistic to induct a LCA NG after the decade compared to Mk2 in a decade? I mean I want your view on how long it would take to test and field a LCA NG and how relevant will it continue to be during that time period if IAF decides to junk both Mk1 and Mk2.

Personally I don't believe small single engine fighters like Mk2 have any real future post 2020.

It takes very little effort to modify an existing design than a clean sheet design. my suggestions were w.r.t Mk-1. these can be very easily incorporated into MK-2. The ADA & DRDO must dump their mentality of trying to keep it small and go for 14-15 meter length now itself.

 

[ersakthivel]

It takes very little effort to modify an existing design than a clean sheet design. my suggestions were w.r.t Mk-1. these can be very easily incorporated into MK-2. The ADA & DRDO must dump their mentality of trying to keep it small and go for 14-15 meter length now itself.

This length increase is possible if we go for 120 kn version of GE-414-EPE. otherwise IAF will advance the nitpicking argument that due to the weight increase(resulting from the length increase of 14 to 15 meter) LCA Tejas mk-2 is underpowered and obsolete.

That is why ignoring these obvious benefits ADA is just going for 0.5 meter increase in length resulting in much lower increase in range and weapon load, because it is not going to get the 120 kn EPE version.

And in it's place it may get EPE variant giving a thrust of around 110 kn in the GE-414-INS 6 version . So in order to give a much higher Thrust to weight ratio for MK-2 ADA is just going for 0.5 meter increase in length behind the nose cone is my idea.

If only IAF insists on GE-414-EPE with a full 120 kn thrust the modification you have suggested can be effected giving LCA Tejas mk-2 much more powerful radar , EW suit, along with higher weapon load and range while preserving it's high Thrust to weight ratio.it will give tejas mk-2 the option of ten hard point and much more space to put on a CFT and a high number of long range BVRs along with much heavier strike load.

But still with 0.5 meter length increase and 108 KN engine tejas mk-2 will have much better weapon load configuration than mk-1, while improving it's specs due to higher TWR.

What is the correct power out put of GE-414-IN S 6?