Tejas Mk2 (Medium Weight Fighter) - News and discussions

[randomradio]

Most of the base avionics are similar. That's why MK2 is a must before AMCA and yet some morons want IAF to ditch it in favour of MRFA/AMCA(only).

All irrelevant people, so it doesn't matter.

Mk2 is a capability-specific design combining a simple airframe with advanced avionics and engine. For example, it has superior airframe performance compared to the F-16 B70 and J-10C and the engine comes with twice the electrical power, which powers more advanced avionics. No stealth, no unnecessary drama. The development goals are easily achievable that way.

 

[_Anonymous_]

the parts-commonality between Mk1A and Mk2 is merely 25-27%

- whereas between Mk2 and AMCA is 75%+ ..

Credits : Maitya BR
Source : S Jha you tube.

@randomradio @Rajput Lion

Is it ? I'm shocked. I just read pages upon pages of argument stating Mk-2 was basically Mk-1a which was basically Mk-1 by another name. All that was done was introduce a plug in between & Bob's your uncle.

Now I read this . Obviously Jha doesn't know what he's talking about for the member who disclosed the aforementioned information is an impeccable source.

And if Mk-2 & AMCA have a 75% commonality of parts then isn't it obvious AMCA is Mk-2 with 2 TFs as per the same logic. Always knew the impeccable source was truly impeccable.

 

[randomradio]

Nothing special that Ignorants missed post 2000.

 

[Hydra]

All irrelevant people, so it doesn't matter.

Mk2 is a capability-specific design combining a simple airframe with advanced avionics and engine. For example, it has superior airframe performance compared to the F-16 B70 and J-10C and the engine comes with twice the electrical power, which powers more advanced avionics. No stealth, no unnecessary drama. The development goals are easily achievable that way.

MK2 using f414 right, does it have any advantages of F16 engine when comes to electrical power?

 

[randomradio]

MK2 using f414 right, does it have any advantages of F16 engine when comes to electrical power?

The F100 upgrade for B70 wasn't as significant as the one for F414, which was a pretty big upgrade 'cause of USN requirements.

 

[Hydra]

The F100 upgrade for B70 wasn't as significant as the one for F414, which was a pretty big upgrade 'cause of USN requirements.

What is the electrical output from the f414 engine? Is it available in public domain.

 

[randomradio]

What is the electrical output from the f414 engine? Is it available in public domain.

They say twice as much, so we can speculate it's 120 kW.

 

[HariPrasad]

In fact, I would say that specs of MK2 are even more advance than what Dassault has planned for Rafale F4.2/3. Only from F5 version onwards, Rafale will reach MK2 levels of avionics.

Can you highlight Some of these features? How would MWF be compared to Gripen NG? This can be a very interesting discussion. If it matches Gripen in performance, I would be very happy.

 

[HariPrasad]

I assume roll out in next year , 2025
First flight in 2026.

Correct?

Do not assume anything. DRDO has the capability to prove any assumption wrong.

We skipped frontal stealth part to even Tedbf.

Amca nose cone was proposed for tedbf, but changed to Rafale type.

Probably to reduce the length. TEDBF has a very compact nosecone.

Brings back the memories..
Reason Mk1 didn't have Internal probe is because it didn't have space..

I think that with the advancement of chips, lots of space is released in front part of aircraft. We can mount Retractable probe. Even something like F 35 can be considered.

After seeing how many ways Mk1 & Mk1A variant getting delayed, Mk2 will also face obstacles..

Already Macron is offering New 110kn JV engine to Mk2, around 2033.. Time frame.
I think they are predicting things to get delayed that far.

97 Mk1A additional orders could be due to this, rather than being proactive to arrest fall of squadrons.

Another indicator is recent tests at Oneria for the Mk2 Canard & air intake.

move to Ej 200. It is a batter engine with higher dry thrust. Do not trust GE anymore. Our problem is that we do not take any decision. Safran had offered co development since the time of Antony but we remained indecisive. We are still indecisive. Antony had told IN to finalize the specification of new aircraft carrier but still it is not done.

 

[Rajput Lion]

Can you highlight Some of these features? How would MWF be compared to Gripen NG? This can be a very interesting discussion. If it matches Gripen in performance, I would be very happy.

It'll will definitely match or even exceed Gripen-E in most parameters. In fact, Gripen-E is our benchmark for MK2 program. Having a 200+ combat fleet of MK2s would improve IAF's shape & size much more than any import.

 

[Hydra]

It'll will definitely match or even exceed Gripen-E in most parameters. In fact, Gripen-E is our benchmark for MK2 program. Having a 200+ combat fleet of MK2s would improve IAF's shape & size much more than any import.

On what basis you are telling this?

 

[marich01]

more mk2
more mk2

 

[Lolwa]

Can you highlight Some of these features? How would MWF be compared to Gripen NG? This can be a very interesting discussion. If it matches Gripen in performance, I would be very happy.

It will be slower than the gripen E but should exceed in terms of payload capacity. Avionics wise the mk2 should maintain parity as well as in bvr and a2g options. The one place where the mk2 is disadvantaged in is in the anti-ship role and subsonic cruise missiles especially stealth subsonic like the kepd 350 and scalp eg. That's it really.

 

[Lolwa]

On what basis you are telling this?

The IAF wanted mk2 to be a mirage replacement. Gripen E was never the standard to match. It was making a next gen mirage replacement. The mk2 would be positioned favourably against the gripen E, f16 and j-10. If the mk2 could gain an RCS of 0.1 sq m RCS or below f-16 and j-10 will be easily outclassed. Gripen E would still be a problem as it has superior EW and RCS. The raven ES/05 is pretty sophisticated and is the basis for the eurofighter aesa which will become the basis for the Euro GCAP. If the mk2 could achieve radar based EW, maws and drone piloting capability as well as meteor class bvr, we would have a decent fighter. The mk2 is truly needed if IAF are to face the hordes of j-10's and jf-17's. The mk1 would hold decently against older gen jf-17 and j-10's but the mk2 is required.

 

[randomradio]

The IAF wanted mk2 to be a mirage replacement. Gripen E was never the standard to match. It was making a next gen mirage replacement. The mk2 would be positioned favourably against the gripen E, f16 and j-10. If the mk2 could gain an RCS of 0.1 sq m RCS or below f-16 and j-10 will be easily outclassed. Gripen E would still be a problem as it has superior EW and RCS. The raven ES/05 is pretty sophisticated and is the basis for the eurofighter aesa which will become the basis for the Euro GCAP. If the mk2 could achieve radar based EW, maws and drone piloting capability as well as meteor class bvr, we would have a decent fighter. The mk2 is truly needed if IAF are to face the hordes of j-10's and jf-17's. The mk1 would hold decently against older gen jf-17 and j-10's but the mk2 is required.

LCA Mk2 has been designed to exceed Gripen E's capabilities.

LCA Mk1's frontal RCS is 3 times smaller than the M2000's, that's 4 times smaller than the F-16 B50's, so Mk2 is bound to be similar to the Gripen E. Gripen C/D has half the RCS of the M2000. Rafale's RCS is said to be 10-20 times smaller than M2000's, so it's possible that Mk2 can be reduced even further than that. TEDBF is far more stealthy than the Rafale.

Gripen E has a slightly inferior loadout configuration. It has 3 usable wing HPs while LCA has 4.

The main advantage is ECM. LCA Mk2's ECM antennas are located strategically around hotspots like the Rafale while Gripen carries it in wingtip pods like the Typhoon. So the LCA's EW advantage is much higher. And because the Gripen doesn't carry wingtip missiles it lacks some of the dogfighting advantages Mk2 will have.

Mk2 has an extra ton of payload.

Cost is definitely in LCA's favor, even more so if we end up producing the engine in India.

The maintenance trophy is up for grabs. Gripen E obviously has an operational advantage given it's flying and everything.

 

[Lolwa]

LCA Mk2 has been designed to exceed Gripen E's capabilities.

LCA Mk1's frontal RCS is 3 times smaller than the M2000's, that's 4 times smaller than the F-16 B50's, so Mk2 is bound to be similar to the Gripen E. Gripen C/D has half the RCS of the M2000. Rafale's RCS is said to be 10-20 times smaller than M2000's, so it's possible that Mk2 can be reduced even further than that. TEDBF is far more stealthy than the Rafale.

Gripen E has a slightly inferior loadout configuration. It has 3 usable wing HPs while LCA has 4.

The main advantage is ECM. LCA Mk2's ECM antennas are located strategically around hotspots like the Rafale while Gripen carries it in wingtip pods like the Typhoon. So the LCA's EW advantage is much higher. And because the Gripen doesn't carry wingtip missiles it lacks some of the dogfighting advantages Mk2 will have.

Mk2 has an extra ton of payload.

Cost is definitely in LCA's favor, even more so if we end up producing the engine in India.

The maintenance trophy is up for grabs. Gripen E obviously has an operational advantage given it's flying and everything.

Gripen E doesn't have the issue of the typhoon, it can carry missiles on its wingtips. Hardly any difference. The only advantage the gripen has is it's ability to fly at mach 2+.

 

[randomradio]

View attachment 39776
Gripen E doesn't have the issue of the typhoon, it can carry missiles on its wingtips. Hardly any difference. The only advantage the gripen has is it's ability to fly at mach 2+.

I stand corrected on the wingtip missile. I forgot it's the same as the Typhoon. Anyway, it's still just 3 HPs on the wing. So that bit remains the same.

Mach 2.2 is not relevant to operational needs. The standard speed of such jets with afterburner is mach 1.3-1.4.

And I think it's mach 2, not 2.2. It's advertised for a speed less than 2200 kmph, that's mach 2. M2000 is advertised for 2400 kmph, mach 2.2.

 

[HariPrasad]

The IAF wanted mk2 to be a mirage replacement. Gripen E was never the standard to match. It was making a next gen mirage replacement. The mk2 would be positioned favourably against the gripen E, f16 and j-10. If the mk2 could gain an RCS of 0.1 sq m RCS or below f-16 and j-10 will be easily outclassed. Gripen E would still be a problem as it has superior EW and RCS. The raven ES/05 is pretty sophisticated and is the basis for the eurofighter aesa which will become the basis for the Euro GCAP. If the mk2 could achieve radar based EW, maws and drone piloting capability as well as meteor class bvr, we would have a decent fighter. The mk2 is truly needed if IAF are to face the hordes of j-10's and jf-17's. The mk1 would hold decently against older gen jf-17 and j-10's but the mk2 is required.

Mk2 was conceived as Mirage 2000 replacement IAF had Mirage 2000 and not Gripen E. Mirage 2000 is a past now so fair comparison should be against contemporary aircrafts. F16 is capable aircraft but old design. US has put some state of art equipment but basic platform cannot be changed. RCS cannot be reduced beyond certain limit as the plane was not conceived keeping RCS in mind. Its aerodynamics are not very good. It is draggy and less stealthy. J 10 A and B are as good as a good third generation plane. Because of TVC, J 10C has some decent maneuverability like Russian planes. However, it does not have very good aerodynamics, and its design stops it to fully utilize the power of AL31 or its reversed engineered copies. It has Big RCS. Gripen E is batter plane than the F16 and J10. So far as MWF is concerned, it will be close to Gripen E in capability with a bit of inferior electronics and BVR and batter WVR, Ground attack and anti-ship capabilities with Indian, Israeli, French and European weapons. Gripen can go a bit faster, MWF can go higher. Both are likely to have same maneuverability and Both will super cruise. However, If India makes 75/110 Kaveri and makes MWF a frontal stealth, it will lead this class of plane in all the aspects. We need to make it operational fast and produce them in big numbers with batchwise continual improvements.

 

[Sathya]

Any idea if Mk2 roll out is on schedule / delayed / nowhere

@marich01 @Rajput Lion

 

[Sathya]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1887500661006475344