LCA Tejas Mk1 & Mk1A - News and discussions

From which source did you learn that there will be 2 kaveri? Why will anyone with a sane mind make 2 engines, especially when one is an imported core? Don't complicate things by saying imported core. If the core is imported, it is same as engine being imported in terms of technology. Cost is irrelevant in defence as self reliance trumps cost. The concept of 2 Kaveri itself is crazy and most likely misinformation.

K9 and K9+ will have Indian cores, Kabini.
K10 will have imported core, either French or British.

Both are official GTRE programs. Just google.

The Tejas Mk1A can't run in the configuration of Gripen. But unlike what you said, it has 6+1 hardpoint. With enlarged fuselage in Tejas MK2, the hardpoint under fuselage can carry 2 missiles like the picture you showed.

LCA has 7+1 hardpoints. Gripen E has 9+1 hardpoints.

Please show me the pictures of different LCA MK2 (not animated) for AF and Navy. Here too, it is extremely counter intuitive that someone would have a better plane and yet deliberately choose to have a worse one. As a matter if fact, one of the most important demand of IAF is higher internal fuel capacity. So, Tejas MK1A or any similar sized plane without additional fuel will not be acceptable to IAF. Parrikar himself told that the plane was too small but otherwise good. So, it is clear that intention is to get a bigger fuel tank and hence MK2 will be bigger. This is guaranteed

Man, everything in this post is just basic information. You can just google and get the right answers.

2nqxpqw.jpg


LCA%2BNavy%2BBrochure.jpg


IMGP1273%2Bwm%2B(Medium).jpg


4ApTjbL.jpg


fxRRaC5.jpg


AF-Mk2 is 13.7m long. The N-Mk2 is 14.2m long with a wider fuselage and it will have 700Kg extra fuel.

AF-Mk2 will have very marginal fuel increase. It's pretty useless. N-Mk2 will be our Gripen E equivalent aircraft and even then it will fall short of the Gripen-E because of the weapons layout.

Do you see why I ignore your posts?
 
The 4000+L figure is for the N-Mk2, not AF-Mk2. That's why it has a redesigned fuselage and wing. The AF Mk2's fuel load increase will only be enough to compensate for the additional thrust. HAL will deliver most of the AF-Mk2 specs with Mk1A itself.

As for weapons, the Gripen has more hardpoints. In air defence mode, it can carry 7 missiles and 2 drop tanks. The LCA can only carry 4 missiles with 2 drop tanks right now.

8c330c788f3e73e8_800x800ar.jpg


The difference becomes much more if you bring in A2G weapons.

33894_34517.jpg

I don't understand this actually, Compund delta gives enough wing area to carry as many hard points as needed right?
 
I don't understand this actually, Compund delta gives enough wing area to carry as many hard points as needed right?

Most fighter aircraft have only three underwing hardpoints. To compensate, they try and make the best use of the fuselage as they can. That's why you have the F-15E on the one end with a lot of weapon stations on the fuselage and aircraft like LCA, F-16, Gripen C/D, Mig-29 and JF-17 on the other end with barely anything (just 1, typically for fuel).

LCA's fuselage design isn't good for carrying weapons. It wasn't designed for such a purpose, no different from the other four aircraft. But it's a drawback when compared to larger aircraft, even Gripen E.

Saab's fixed the LCA/Gripen D-type loadout on Gripen E by redesigning the landing carriage into the wings. So with the same airframe design, they managed to add 1 more ton of fuel and 2 extra hardpoints under the fuselage.

Among small aircraft, the best weapons layout is the J-10's. Way, way better than the Gripen E's. The fuselage layout competes with the Typhoon's in fact.
 
Here is Gripen oficial hardpoints:
1519413217429.png

Gripen E the smart fighter

The Gripen also has 6+1 harpoints, when centre is carrying a large payload. If the payload is smaller, then it is 6+2 or 6+3 for very small payload like AAM missiles. With expanded fuselage, Tejas MK2 will also be capable of these modes. The contention between Gripen and Tejas Mk2 is only about fuselage hardpoints and not wing hardpoints. Tejas Mk2 with wider fuselage can also hold 3 small bombs like Gripen.

K9 is for Tejas and K10 is for AMCA. AMCA requires 110kN engines. But you are claiming that Tejas Mk2 and Mk1 will have different engines. This was never told anywhere. F414 will be used for TD of AMCA and TD of Mk2. However, it is not stated that final version of MK2 and AMCA will be using same engines. You have yourself told that there are 2 engine projects. But there are 3 planes - Mk1, Mk2 and AMCA. So, it is natural that the engines of two of them must be same. Since MK1 and MK2 are of similar utility, it is more likely that they are using same engine.

K9 and K9+ could simply be the same engine with and without flat rating, going by the name similarity. So, Tejas MK1 and MK2 may have the same engine after all.

About Tejas MK2 for air force being just 13.7 metres while Naval LCA being 14.2 metres, i have never heard them anywhere except from you. Google also does not say that. But, I can assure you that one of the drawbacks was fuel capacity. Air Force had complained about this repeatedly and hence if MK2 does not increase fuel storage, it will not comply with requirements. So, the 13.7m Tejas won't comply with the requirements and will be rejected. Be assured of that.

K9 and K9+ will have Indian cores, Kabini.
K10 will have imported core, either French or British.

Both are official GTRE programs. Just google.



LCA has 7+1 hardpoints. Gripen E has 9+1 hardpoints.



Man, everything in this post is just basic information. You can just google and get the right answers.

2nqxpqw.jpg


LCA%2BNavy%2BBrochure.jpg


IMGP1273%2Bwm%2B(Medium).jpg


4ApTjbL.jpg


fxRRaC5.jpg


AF-Mk2 is 13.7m long. The N-Mk2 is 14.2m long with a wider fuselage and it will have 700Kg extra fuel.

AF-Mk2 will have very marginal fuel increase. It's pretty useless. N-Mk2 will be our Gripen E equivalent aircraft and even then it will fall short of the Gripen-E because of the weapons layout.

Do you see why I ignore your posts?
l
 

Attachments

  • 1519414659530.png
    1519414659530.png
    319.5 KB · Views: 441
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Angel Eyes
Here is Gripen oficial hardpoints:
View attachment 1866
Gripen E the smart fighter

The Gripen also has 6+1 harpoints, when centre is carrying a large payload. If the payload is smaller, then it is 6+2 or 6+3 for very small payload like AAM missiles. With expanded fuselage, Tejas MK2 will also be capable of these modes. The contention between Gripen and Tejas Mk2 is only about fuselage hardpoints and not wing hardpoints. Tejas Mk2 with wider fuselage can also hold 3 small bombs like Gripen.

I would suggest learning to count. The +1 that we talk about is capable of carrying only pods. Gripen's got 9+1, LCA's got 7+1.

Nope. AF-Mk2 is not getting a wider fuselage, it's the same design as Mk1.

LCA%2BAF%2BMk.2-2.jpg


K9 is for Tejas and K10 is for AMCA. AMCA requires 110kN engines. But you are claiming that Tejas Mk2 and Mk1 will have different engines. This was never told anywhere. F414 will be used for TD of AMCA and TD of Mk2. However, it is not stated that final version of MK2 and AMCA will be using same engines. You have yourself told that there are 2 engine projects. But there are 3 planes - Mk1, Mk2 and AMCA. So, it is natural that the engines of two of them must be same. Since MK1 and MK2 are of similar utility, it is more likely that they are using same engine.

K9 and K9+ could simply be the same engine with and without flat rating, going by the name similarity. So, Tejas MK1 and MK2 may have the same engine after all.

The Mk2 cannot handle K9.

About Tejas MK2 for air force being just 13.7 metres while Naval LCA being 14.2 metres, i have never heard them anywhere except from you. Google also does not say that. But, I can assure you that one of the drawbacks was fuel capacity. Air Force had complained about this repeatedly and hence if MK2 does not increase fuel storage, it will not comply with requirements. So, the 13.7m Tejas won't comply with the requirements and will be rejected. Be assured of that.


l

That's because I know more than you.

The 13.7m Mk2 is simply an Mk1 with a slightly longer avionics bay and a higher thrust engine to compensate for the increase in weight. There's nothing special there. It's meant to achieve IAF's ASR. The IN's version is much bigger and much longer. That's why it will come with 700Kg extra fuel. That's why it also looks different.

IAF's not complained about LCA's spec range, they are the ones who asked for it. LCA will outrange the Mig-29A and Mig-21 anyway, while matching the M-2000. So what have they got to complain about? What they have complained about a long time ago is the Mk1's range did not reach spec range, which has been fixed.

IN's complained about the range.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ashwin
You are quoting the brochure of ADA of 2015, written with data from 2014. The TejasMK2 was sanctioned in 2013 and it was only under Parrikar that the requirements were brought out. So, the 53 requirements were finalized in 2015,after the brochure came out. This is also the reason MK2 first flight has been delayed beyond 2018. If you have the latest finalized data, only then you can be sure.

The 2015 brochure has many wrong data like Naval LCA has been said to be 14.56m x 8.9m x 4.6m. However, the final version frozen in 2017 was 14.2x8.2x4.6 metres. So, the data of 2015 was grossly wrong.

There has been a sea of change after Parrikar came and sorted out things. The latest specification is different from the older one
I would suggest learning to count. The +1 that we talk about is capable of carrying only pods. Gripen's got 9+1, LCA's got 7+1.

Nope. AF-Mk2 is not getting a wider fuselage, it's the same design as Mk1.

LCA%2BAF%2BMk.2-2.jpg




The Mk2 cannot handle K9.



That's because I know more than you.

The 13.7m Mk2 is simply an Mk1 with a slightly longer avionics bay and a higher thrust engine to compensate for the increase in weight. There's nothing special there. It's meant to achieve IAF's ASR. The IN's version is much bigger and much longer. That's why it will come with 700Kg extra fuel. That's why it also looks different.

IAF's not complained about LCA's spec range, they are the ones who asked for it. LCA will outrange the Mig-29A and Mig-21 anyway, while matching the M-2000. So what have they got to complain about? What they have complained about a long time ago is the Mk1's range did not reach spec range, which has been fixed.

IN's complained about the range.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Angel Eyes
You are quoting the brochure of ADA of 2015, written with data from 2014. The TejasMK2 was sanctioned in 2013 and it was only under Parrikar that the requirements were brought out. So, the 53 requirements were finalized in 2015,after the brochure came out. This is also the reason MK2 first flight has been delayed beyond 2018. If you have the latest finalized data, only then you can be sure.

The 2015 brochure has many wrong data like Naval LCA has been said to be 14.56m x 8.9m x 4.6m. However, the final version frozen in 2017 was 14.2x8.2x4.6 metres. So, the data of 2015 was grossly wrong.

There has been a sea of change after Parrikar came and sorted out things. The latest specification is different from the older one

Nothing's changed after Parrikar. All that was planned during UPA has continued, Parrikar did nothing special there.

Those 53 "requirements" that you claim were "finalized" in "2015", 45 were fixed by 2013. :LOL:

How about I tell you a nice little secret? The AF-Mk2 will see a fuel increase of only 20Kg. :ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Aditya
Nothing's changed after Parrikar. All that was planned during UPA has continued, Parrikar did nothing special there.

Those 53 "requirements" that you claim were "finalized" in "2015", 45 were fixed by 2013. :LOL:

How about I tell you a nice little secret? The AF-Mk2 will see a fuel increase of only 20Kg. :ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:

I have noted the following points you said:
1) LCA Mk2 can only use F414 and not Kaveri engine
2) The length of LCA MK2 is 13.7m
3) The fuel capacity increase is just 25 litres (20kg)

Let us see how true this will be. If it is true, then ADA are biggest bunch of morons and Indian fighter programme is doomed forever. Else, you loose credibility.
 
I have noted the following points you said:
1) LCA Mk2 can only use F414 and not Kaveri engine

Incorrect. K10 can be used if developed in time. It will be possible to use future versions of Kaveri in MLUs after 2040.

2) The length of LCA MK2 is 13.7m
3) The fuel capacity increase is just 25 litres (20kg)

Let us see how true this will be. If it is true, then ADA are biggest bunch of morons and Indian fighter programme is doomed forever. Else, you loose credibility.

Mk2 will still meet all 53 shortfalls identified by the IAF with the Mk2. So it justifies the addition of 3 squadrons of Mk2 when the options are exercised by the IAF.

Just because Mk2 falls short of your expectations doesn't mean India's aviation programs are doomed.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Aditya
Incorrect. K10 can be used if developed in time. It will be possible to use future versions of Kaveri in MLUs after 2040.



Mk2 will still meet all 53 shortfalls identified by the IAF with the Mk2. So it justifies the addition of 3 squadrons of Mk2 when the options are exercised by the IAF.

Just because Mk2 falls short of your expectations doesn't mean India's aviation programs are doomed.
Can you tell me why it is worthwhile to make a new Mk2 when Mk1A already is capable of satisfying most of the needs? If fuel was not increased, why take the pain for making new fuselage for minor modifications? MK1A is similar to Gripen C. So, there is no reason not to improvise MK2 to be equivalent to Gripen E and carry more fuel. In fact, if payload is increased in Mk2, the range will decrease to very small distance which will make Mk2 pretty much useless. Fuel is a major concern for LCA and there is no excuse to redesigning a new fuselage without fuel addition. Even worse, Naval LCA Mk2 will be having additional fuel and length of 14.2 metres which will require designing of 2 new fuselages - one for AF MK2 and another for Navy MK2, adding to the design time, manufacturing and logistical costs. It is always better to have a single plane with additional modifications for Navy than have 2 different planes- both for design, manufacturing and logistical costs.

If the designers don't have basic common sense as to solve all the problems at once, reduce design, manufacturing and logistical costs then India is definitely doomed with such foolish designers.

PS: I don't think designers will design 2 new planes for IAF and IN with similar capability. The aim will be to make one single design of LCA MK2 and add additional modifications for Navy/AF without changing the key aspects like dimensions, engine, avionics etc. The minor modifications may be limited to LEVCONs instead of cranks (for short landing), toughening of fuselage and a few other minor modifications
 
Last edited:
Can you tell me why it is worthwhile to make a new Mk2 when Mk1A already is capable of satisfying most of the needs?

There isn't. If Mk2 is not ready by the time IAF exercises the options for 3 more squadrons, then Mk2 won't be purchased. But we can still export it.

But if HAL chooses foreign radar and EW suite for Mk1A, then Mk2 with all Indian suite will be a good option to pursue.

But if HAL chooses Indian radar and EW suite for Mk1A, then Mk2 will become utterly useless. Even more so if they also manage to put Kaveri K9+ on Mk1A.

If HAL meets all their objectives, then Mk1A will be better than Mk2.

PS: I don't think designers will design 2 new planes for IAF and IN with similar capability. The aim will be to make one single design of LCA MK2 and add additional modifications for Navy/AF without changing the key aspects like dimensions, engine, avionics etc. The minor modifications may be limited to LEVCONs instead of cranks (for short landing), toughening of fuselage and a few other minor modifications

IAF and IN MK2s are completely different. IN Mk2 will also require 108KN engines.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Guynextdoor
There isn't. If Mk2 is not ready by the time IAF exercises the options for 3 more squadrons, then Mk2 won't be purchased. But we can still export it.

But if HAL chooses foreign radar and EW suite for Mk1A, then Mk2 with all Indian suite will be a good option to pursue.

But if HAL chooses Indian radar and EW suite for Mk1A, then Mk2 will become utterly useless. Even more so if they also manage to put Kaveri K9+ on Mk1A.

If HAL meets all their objectives, then Mk1A will be better than Mk2.



IAF and IN MK2s are completely different. IN Mk2 will also require 108KN engines.
First, it is important important to get out of the mythical squadrons number. But be result oriented - to wipe out anything that is hostile and non negotiable.

War requires indigenous manufacturing as 800-100 planes have never won wars nor ever will. Quantity x Quality is what determines the strength. So, the idea of making mk2 redundant or limiting the squadrons to 3 or putting unreasonable deadlines are not meaningful.

There is no reason to make 2 different LCA Mk2. So, the idea that 2 planes will be made itself is incorrect. There isn't enough resources to waste on making these 2 planes while making AMCA simultaneously. It is always better to make minimal number of planes to reduce the timeline and improve logistics.

When F414 can power Gripen-Es, I don't see a reason why 110kN engine will be needed for LCA Mk2. The MK2 despite being bigger, will have lower empty weight than MK1A and better aerodynamics due to design changes and adjustments. So, if the payload is restricted to 3.5tons in Naval MK2 instead of using the full AF payload of 5tons, it will be possible to take off from carrier. Navy objected to the inability to take off with 3.5ton payload from carrier. So, the naval requirement can be solved by using only 3.5 ton payload capabilities of MK2. I see no reason to ask for 110kN engine for any of the MK2.

The reason why MK2 was started is because the size of MK1 was too small. So, if the MK1 could have been upgraded to MK1A that satisfies the requirements, there would have been no MK2 program and better allocation for AMCA project. So, the idea that MK1A can match MK2 is incorrect. Regardless of whether HAL chooses foreign radars, the radars are changeable components. Indian radars can always be integrated instead of foreign ones in the future production. Since radars and other subsystems are changeable, there is no point making a new design for. MK2 plane
 
First, it is important important to get out of the mythical squadrons number. But be result oriented - to wipe out anything that is hostile and non negotiable.

War requires indigenous manufacturing as 800-100 planes have never won wars nor ever will. Quantity x Quality is what determines the strength. So, the idea of making mk2 redundant or limiting the squadrons to 3 or putting unreasonable deadlines are not meaningful.

There is no reason to make 2 different LCA Mk2. So, the idea that 2 planes will be made itself is incorrect. There isn't enough resources to waste on making these 2 planes while making AMCA simultaneously. It is always better to make minimal number of planes to reduce the timeline and improve logistics.

When F414 can power Gripen-Es, I don't see a reason why 110kN engine will be needed for LCA Mk2. The MK2 despite being bigger, will have lower empty weight than MK1A and better aerodynamics due to design changes and adjustments. So, if the payload is restricted to 3.5tons in Naval MK2 instead of using the full AF payload of 5tons, it will be possible to take off from carrier. Navy objected to the inability to take off with 3.5ton payload from carrier. So, the naval requirement can be solved by using only 3.5 ton payload capabilities of MK2. I see no reason to ask for 110kN engine for any of the MK2.

The reason why MK2 was started is because the size of MK1 was too small. So, if the MK1 could have been upgraded to MK1A that satisfies the requirements, there would have been no MK2 program and better allocation for AMCA project. So, the idea that MK1A can match MK2 is incorrect. Regardless of whether HAL chooses foreign radars, the radars are changeable components. Indian radars can always be integrated instead of foreign ones in the future production. Since radars and other subsystems are changeable, there is no point making a new design for. MK2 plane

Who's making 2 Mk2s?

As of today, IAF is not interested in the Mk2 and IN has no interest in the LCA program itself.
 
Single Engine Fighter Cancellation Provides An Opening For Tejas MK-2


The recent withdrawal of the move to import 114 ‘single-engine fighters’ (SEF) by India’s Ministry of Defence (MoD) opens a window of opportunity for the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA), controlled by the Defence Research & Development Organization (DRDO), to rekindle its effort to develop a MK-II variant of the Tejas light combat aircraft (LCA). Because, even though reports suggest that MoD is planning to replace the SEF competition with a larger competition that will see both single and twin- engined jet fighters in contention (in a manner reminiscent of the failed multi-role medium range combat aircraft (MMRCA) tender from a decade ago), the most realistic way to augment the Indian Air force’s (IAF’s) combat strength continues to be the building of more Tejas variants, as we have argued before. As such, it is now time for DRDO to use its internal allocations to fund the further development of the Tejas MK-II, with full support from MoD, in order to be future ready given that fighter import tenders take a lot of time in India and may never actually reach fruition, judging by recent experience.

The MK-II design must return
ADA, has long proposed a Tejas MK-II with a more powerful engine than the baseline MK-I, as well as aerodynamic refinements, to address the IAF’s 1995 air staff qualitative requirements (ASQR) with respect to kinematic performance. After all, one of the regrets of the IAF has been the fact that the MK-I design does not meet the ASQR in terms of sustained turn rate (STR), transonic acceleration and climb rate. The developers of the Tejas, i.e. ADA, however believe that the MK-II design, which will also incorporate a pair of canards, will be able to address MK-I’s shortfalls in terms of aerodynamic performance. The 1995 ASQR apparently requires a STR of 18 degrees (same as the F-16’s) and Mk-II will close in on that. The climb rate will also be more or less satisfactorily reached. Transonic acceleration is expected to be realized fully. Moreover the Mk-II airframe will be able to reach a top speed of Mach 1.8 at altitude.

Development work on MK-II had been progressed by ADA over the years as part of the overall allocations for the LCA programme. Currently, ADA’s work on the Tejas is being financed via the LCA Phase-III project which was sanctioned in November 2009 with an allocation of Rs 2431.55 crores and is scheduled to be complete by December 2018. Most of this allocation has gone towards developmental activities related to achieving operational clearances for the MK-I design as well general development work on the Tejas design family (Air force version). However, while funds from this allocation have helped advance the Tejas MK-II design to a level where the ‘inboard’ i.e the complete layout for Mk-II is ready and plenty of wind tunnel work into adding a pair of canards has also been done, it is not enough for ADA to develop a pair of MK-II prototypes. For that, fresh allocations are required.

Now while the SEF proposal was in vogue, there was this general belief in the fighter development community in India that there was perhaps no point in pursuing the Mk-II variant, since it was unlikely to receive orders given that the IAF seemed to be keen on importing a fighter in the same class instead. However, with the SEF proposal going nowhere and its successor unlikely to yield early returns either, the time is ripe for DRDO to fund ADA on its own to develop a pair of MK-II prototypes. The finance wing of India’s MoD must greenlight such an effort along with the total support of the Defence Minister. Development work on the MK-II has progressed sufficiently for ADA to achieve first flight with a prototype within 2-3 years of funds being allocated.

ADA’s confidence with respect to this timeline also stems from the fact that modifications to the 98 kilo newton generating F414-GE-INS6 (F414), in order for it to fit the MK-II design, have already been certified by the Center for Military Airworthiness and Certification (CEMILAC). What is more, eight of the 99 F414 engines ordered by ADA earlier have already been delivered to it by GE. Clearly, ADA now has some engines waiting for an airframe, i.e MK-II. The F414-GE-INS6 is course more powerful than the F-404-GE-IN20 engine that currently powers MK-I.
.
Moreover, the Mk-I design has some 25-30 percent commonality in parts with MK-I and these parts (i.e not requiring any modification) are already in production. For the MK-I parts that have to be replaced, thousands of new drawings have being worked upon jointly by DRDO- Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) along with the private sector and these are now ready. Clearly, the stage is set for the early creation of two prototypes that will probably cost some Rs 3000-4000 crores and can be funded by DRDO directly. Once the efficacy of this effort is demonstrated to the ‘user’ i.e the IAF, they can fund the rest of the development effort all the way to certification which is expected to take 2 years from first flight. If sanctioned early this year, Tejas MK-II could be easily be in production by the time HAL finishes producing the last of the 83 Tejas MK-1A for which it recently received a request for proposal from the IAF. The IAF is of course fully aware of the nature of Tejas MK-II given that it has positioned 23 officers to support the overall Tejas program and according to sources ADA has had several discussions with the IAF about it.

Not just more agile
While the Mk-II design is expected to achieve a 5 percent improvement in drag characteristics through ‘production improvements’ related to further streamlining (reduced contour variations etc) of the Mk-I airframe, it is actually a step up from the baseline MK-1 and even the improved MK-1A in other ways as well.

With only 25-30 percent parts commonality with Mk-I or Mk-IA, MK-II will have many modernized line replace units (LRUs) which will serve the purpose of both obsolescence management and improved maintainability. MK-II will also have a higher maximum take-off weight reflected in the carriage of more on-board fuel thereby increasing endurance. (endurance will also be helped by its better aerodynamics). MK-II will have a new indigenous flight control computer and will see refinements in the control law for the LCA design as well.The glass cockpit for the Mk-II is going to be new as well. For one it is going to feature bigger 8 x 12 inch displays rather than the 5 x 5 and 6 x 6 inch displays currently featured in the MK-I cockpit. A prototype of the Mk-II cockpit already exists. The MK-II displays are likely to be supplied by India’s Samtel.

While HAL is looking to outfit MK-1A with an imported active electronically scanned array (AESA) and a foreign self-protection jammer, MK-II should fly with the indigenous Uttam AESA being developed by DRDO’s Electronics and Radar Development Establishment (LRDE) and the ‘unified electronic warfare suite’ (UEWS) created by the Defence Avionics Research Establishment (DARE), another DRDO lab, in partnership with Israel’s Elisra. Uttam, which weighs 120 kg, has been put through extensive ground evaluation by LRDE and is reportedly ready for integration onto a Tejas test vehicle. UEWS is currently undergoing tests on the Tejas PV-6 prototype vehicle.

A modular ‘Make in India’
Not only is MK-II supposed to be a superior product in terms of performance, it will also lend itself to being produced quicker, as is the need of the day. ADA has done of a lot of work together with HCL with the objective of making the Mk-II design ‘modular’. In this modular scheme of things, HAL as the integrator will receive 8-10 Tejas MK-II ‘modules’ as sub-assemblies from domestic private companies such as L&T and will then put them together to build a complete aircraft ready for checkout and flight testing. Each of these module suppliers will therefore be ‘Tier-I’ suppliers to HAL and will receive LRUs from Tier-II suppliers (w.r.t to HAL) for integration into the modules, which will then be dispatched to HAL. According to Dr K.Tamilmani, former Director General Aeronautics, DRDO, ‘The idea is to ‘terminate’ things like electrical looms, hydraulic pipes, fuel line pipes etc. at the module level which can then be connected with other such modules.’

Of course, for the Tejas Mk-II program to be an all-round success in the industrial sense, the time has come for India to get GE to produce the complete F-414 engine on Indian soil in association with a domestic partner. In this light, the setting up of a joint venture between GE and Tata Advanced Systems Limited (TASL) in Adibatla for the manufacture of various components of GE engines looks like a timely development. This JV which will see the setting up of tooling that can produce F-414 parts, can be encouraged by the Indian Government to take on the production of the entire F-414 engine under manufacturing know how transfer from GE.

The F-414 can actually be retro-fitted onto the Mk-I/IA airframes also since the existing intake of these aircraft can can easily handle the additional mass flow from the F-414 as compared to the F-404. Of course, other modifications to the Mk-I/IA airframe will be required for this purpose. In the course of its lifetime any single engined jet fighter needs about 3.5 jet engines. So a hypothetical run of at least 200 Tejas MK-II in addition to the 123 Mk-1/1A (modified to field the F-414) that are on order will mean that the IAF’s future fleet will require north of 1100 F-414 engines in the course of their service life. Clearly, GE should not have any compunctions in transferring know how for even the F-414 core for an order of that size. Perhaps, the India-US ‘joint working group on jet engine technology’ should burn some midnight oil to explore this potential.

Saurav Jha is the Editor-in-Chief of Delhi Defence Review.
 
I don’t think fighter plane guns can turn like a helicopter-mounted gun.

I agree, technology in current LCA(Mk1) is better than JF 17 block 1 and 2… moreover I am not sure how they will upgrade so many Block 1 and 2
Jf 17 Block III will have all new tech, it all depends on how much Chinese ready to invest

I am eagerly waiting for MK1A prototype and hope Mr. Siddique will do some magic in Kaveri project.

Missiles, not guns.