Tejas Mk2 (Medium Weight Fighter) - News and discussions
- Thread starter Schwifty
- Start date
Everyone with common sense can make a judgement on that, by understanding what the goal of the MK2 upgrade was, what the limitations of the LCA MK1 design were and what ADA has fabricated at the end. But common sense is not your strong suite.
First and foremost, MK2 was meant to add a 90-95kN engine, to improve the lack of flight performance! That's why the original MK2 design, had hardly any external changes. It was simple and focused on fixing the problems!
Secondly, it was aimed at standard modernisations of radar, EW and avionics, like any fighter gets over 10-15 years. Parts of that are already included in MK1A, while integrated EW, new cockpit display's will had to be added later.
At no point, there were requirements to increase MK2s weight up to the MMRCA class, because that would counter that he initial thrust requirments. It was ment to get lighter if possible, not to add 4t MTOW.
Canards might had been unavoidable, to reach the turn rates that were promised in the original LCA ASR, but useless wingtip stations for additional SR missiles, only add weight that it doesn't needed. Same goes for dual pylon or the 2nd intake station. Everyone who has checked an F16 or Rafale weapon station layout knows, that these stations are intended for a 2nd pod, if at all very light or size restricted weaponry. But since jammers, navigation or ESM equipment are carried internally today, these stations are not used anymore. Rafale doesn't use it at all, the F21 could be offered with an IRST pod on that station as it seems. So why add more useless weight and waste time by repositioning the gun for that? Did anybody asked for that? Surely not. It's just one more feature.
Also the dual pylon for BVR missiles is a compromise, to comply to IAF and IN requirements, to carry 4 BVR missiles + enough fuel in CAP missions. That's why ADA re-designed NLCA MK2 ealier with more internal fuel + centerline fuel tank, to have 4 wing stations free for missiles.
You can still see that in the naval MWF proposal, that uses a dual pylon on the centerline + 2 missiles on the wings + wingtanks. Using dual pylons therfore is unavoidable, to counter the lack of enough useful weapon stations.
The only useful additions, will be the once that were planned all along!
More thrust (but that will depend on the final weight)
Integrated EW (finally in 2025)
Modernised cockpit
And that's what ADA needs another 6 years for, after wasting 9 already??? What a joke.
Such a fail post. The older Mk2 was simply Mk1 done right, like a Gripen C with AESA. The new Mk2 is a significantly enhanced design in the same class as Gripen E. You have no idea what you are talking about.
@randomradio what missile is possible in the outer most wing pylon. Not the wing tip missile ..
Can we house Mica or any other BVR missile ?
Can we house Mica or any other BVR missile ?
It's just a model, so I don't know how much it will actually be cleared for in the end. Flight testing will tell us that.
Yes, that's what I mentioned before and what shows the irony of the whole MK2 mess, the redisign of the NLCA, now offers it the chance, to comply to navy's requirements, of 4 BVR missiles and it also makes it swing role capable, while IAFs version will remain as limited as the MK1 airframes. Btw, according to the weapon load config, it's just a single centerline station, so dual pylon for AAMs.
Exactly, finally you got 1 thing right and that was all that we needed! All IAF wanted, was and LCA with the required performance. Nobody asked for the lighters or smallest fighter in it's class, nobody asked for more WVR missles and nobody asked for another pod station. All these nonsense gimmicks, are the results of ADAs/DRDOs desperate attempt, to make something special. But 9 years were wasted and all they achieved, are some poor models that have 3 more stations on paper, with no operational value.
Give me 20 minutes to finish and I will make even you understand, how pathetic MWF is.
Took more time, but here we go, I took basic mission configs (not maximum load outs!) for CAP or CAS missions as an example, to check the load improvements from FOC, over 1A to MWF =>
FOC starts with the basic configs, but I already added the SPJ, to compare all with EW capabilities as well. Now with SPJ, FOC has only 1 x WVR missile, to counter that problem, 1A will have the dual pylon, while MWF hopefully will have a fully integrated EWS and therefore no need for that dual pylon anymore.
MMRCAs or modern fighters in general, are required to carry 4 BVR missiles in A2A, which Tejas in any version can do only, if a dual pylon is available, by the lack of enough weapon stations.
The real issue however, comes in strike missions, because as any LCA, Tejas has a limited number of weapon stations (7+1 for all Mark 1 airframes). So whenever a mission requires 2 fuel tanks, the mid wing station will be occupied by bombs and no carriage of AAMs is possible anymore. => That means, Tejas in strike config, will require dedicated escorts = higher number of fighters per mission.
MWF on paper, has 3 weapon stations more (9+2), but in reality will have the problem, because the mid wing station remains to be the only one for bombs or BVR missiles!
And last but not least, the logical comparison of MWF to SE MMRCAs =>
MWF on paper has the same number of weapon stations as the F16 and even more than Gripen E, but the real weapon load looks different. F16 benefits from CFTs, that free weapon stations. It can carry 4 to 6 BVR missiles if necessary, without the need of a dual or multi pylon as shown in F21 marketing pictures.
Saabs redesign of the fuselage was the key, to not only add weight and claim it's medium class, but also be also to be able to carry more weapons and fuel, for proper medium class operations. Both F16 and Gripen E, will be swing role capable, because both can carry BVR missiles in strike config, which also increases survivability, while MWF might have 4 x WVR missiles, but still will be dependent on escorts, by 2025!
Freaking 16 years of development for MK2 by then (most likely even longer) and all that, for 3 useless weapon stations. It might be in the medium weight class, but capability wise, will be far behind and if things go bad with the weight, might still not reach the ASR performance of 1985.
FOC starts with the basic configs, but I already added the SPJ, to compare all with EW capabilities as well. Now with SPJ, FOC has only 1 x WVR missile, to counter that problem, 1A will have the dual pylon, while MWF hopefully will have a fully integrated EWS and therefore no need for that dual pylon anymore.
MMRCAs or modern fighters in general, are required to carry 4 BVR missiles in A2A, which Tejas in any version can do only, if a dual pylon is available, by the lack of enough weapon stations.
The real issue however, comes in strike missions, because as any LCA, Tejas has a limited number of weapon stations (7+1 for all Mark 1 airframes). So whenever a mission requires 2 fuel tanks, the mid wing station will be occupied by bombs and no carriage of AAMs is possible anymore. => That means, Tejas in strike config, will require dedicated escorts = higher number of fighters per mission.
MWF on paper, has 3 weapon stations more (9+2), but in reality will have the problem, because the mid wing station remains to be the only one for bombs or BVR missiles!
And last but not least, the logical comparison of MWF to SE MMRCAs =>
MWF on paper has the same number of weapon stations as the F16 and even more than Gripen E, but the real weapon load looks different. F16 benefits from CFTs, that free weapon stations. It can carry 4 to 6 BVR missiles if necessary, without the need of a dual or multi pylon as shown in F21 marketing pictures.
Saabs redesign of the fuselage was the key, to not only add weight and claim it's medium class, but also be also to be able to carry more weapons and fuel, for proper medium class operations. Both F16 and Gripen E, will be swing role capable, because both can carry BVR missiles in strike config, which also increases survivability, while MWF might have 4 x WVR missiles, but still will be dependent on escorts, by 2025!
Freaking 16 years of development for MK2 by then (most likely even longer) and all that, for 3 useless weapon stations. It might be in the medium weight class, but capability wise, will be far behind and if things go bad with the weight, might still not reach the ASR performance of 1985.
Chinese delta canard MWF, with the same limitations
Lack of useful weapon stations, limits BVR missile load. Compromise solution, dual pylon =>
Same problem of no BVR missiles in strike config as well =>
P.S. Also same limited air intake stations for pods and light dumb bombs.
Lack of useful weapon stations, limits BVR missile load. Compromise solution, dual pylon =>
Same problem of no BVR missiles in strike config as well =>
P.S. Also same limited air intake stations for pods and light dumb bombs.
Even Rafale is an example, for stations with no use.
On paper it offers impressive 14 stations, while in reality only 10 are in use. Station 5 is a second air intake station. Station 7, a second centerline station, both are useless. Stations 2 and 13 only useful for MICA, not for Meteor or bombs, not operational for French forces.
On paper it offers impressive 14 stations, while in reality only 10 are in use. Station 5 is a second air intake station. Station 7, a second centerline station, both are useless. Stations 2 and 13 only useful for MICA, not for Meteor or bombs, not operational for French forces.
Last edited:
According to older graphics, it has a weight limit of 150Kg, including pylon. MICA should had been possible, but we probably decided for a cheaper Python V, now maybe Asraam. The fact that the model shows a dual pylon for BVR missiles and the same WVR missiles on external and wingtip station shows, that no BVR missile in the weight class of Derby, Astra, let alone Astra MK2 are possible there.
If you can't add more BVR capable stations on the wings, there are only 3 options.
- dual pylon
- additional fuselage stations
- CFTs with enough fuel, to free wing stations
@Sancho why have you left out centreline fuselage station of MWF ?
Bomb / BVR missile / drop tank s possibility there ?
~~~~~~
Mk2 navY is only short of 1 BVR in fuselage compared to Gripen E .
If air force wanted , they could also have chosen that configuration..
Since it's not , surely they had different plans.
( ? Mica Ng ~ since it also solves Rafale problem)
Bomb / BVR missile / drop tank s possibility there ?
~~~~~~
Mk2 navY is only short of 1 BVR in fuselage compared to Gripen E .
If air force wanted , they could also have chosen that configuration..
Since it's not , surely they had different plans.
( ? Mica Ng ~ since it also solves Rafale problem)
Last edited:
Why is this a problem? A point defense fighter is for point defense.Exactly, it was "marketed" with Brahmos and only know nothings like you, will fall for such cheap marketing.
As if IAF with Su 30 and Rafales would ever choose an underpowered LCA, that can't even carry BVR missiles in that config, for a strategic mission.
Of course it is silly, because the dual rack solution adds drag and weight, but only an SPJ as part of the EW. Using ECM pods instead, you can add more EW equipment, instead of waiting for MK2 by 2025 to integrate EW and would have no need for the dual pylon anymore.
Since Gripen E has so far only tested GBU 10, Iris-T and Meteor, you won't find a single dual rack picture of it, unless you base your "knowledge" on old Gripen NG concepts, which wouldn't surprise me though. But it once again shows your lack of understanding.
The difference between Saabs and ADAs solution is, that Saab added AAM stations at the centerline, while ADA only added wingtip stations. That's why a Gripen E can carry more Meteor than Rafale now, while MK2 only adds more WVR missiles, but is dependent on the dual pylon for BVR missiles, which is not available in strike config.
Since you suffer from the usual lack of understanding, I will put something together as soon as I can spare some time, to make it easier for you.
I have always stated that Mk2 will fall way short of its requirements with GE414 engine. It will need at least a 70/105KN engine and will need better wing planform.
As expected, IAF made a mess of Mk1 then Mk1A drama and now Mk2. They just dont want it to succeed, very happy with substandard foreign fighters.
Your conclusions are completely wrong.
The IAF had 2 separate requirements for single engine fighters.
6 squadrons of LMRCA, 9-12 squadrons of SE MMRCA.
The LMRCA was supposed to be 2 squadrons of LCA Mk1 and 4 squadrons of LCA Mk2 (older design).
The SE MMRCA was supposed to be Gripen E/F-16.
Now LMRCA has changed to 2 squadrons of LCA Mk1 and 4 squadrons of LCA Mk1A.
The SE MMRCA has become MWF.
That's about it. Everything that you see here is IAF's decision. While the LCA was initially expected to fulfil only the LMRCA requirement, now it fulfils both LMRCA and SE MMRCA.
And your MWF loadout is pretty dumb. You haven't understood it at all. Your duplicitous nature is evident for all to see, the way you deliberately kept columns 5 and 6 empty on MWF. And the fact that you haven't allowed MWF to carry more than 1200L in fuel.
What you've listed as 5 and 6 can also be weaponised. In a standard MMRCA build, the Gripen E and MWF have pretty much the same loadout. What you've listed as 3 and 9 are heavy hardpoints that can even carry Brahmos NG. And logic says 2 and 10 can also carry BVR, particularly when 3 and 9 are equipped with A2G ordnance.
The fact is Gripen E has 9+1 hardpoints whereas MWF has 11. And what's worse is one of the Gripen's central hardpoints cannot be used with A2G ordnance and tanks, so it drops down to 8+1. Meaning, the Gripen can be loaded with 2 fuel tanks and 2 Brahmos/SCALP, alongside 4 AAMs. Whereas the MWF can carry 2 Brahmos/SCALP with 3 fuel tanks, alongside 4 AAMs. Even without weaponising 5 and 6, the MWF loadout is superior to the Gripen E's loadout. Where the Gripen E loses out is it has only 3 underwing hardpoints versus MWF's 4. Even the J-10 has only 3 underwing hardpoints. With 6 being weaponised, MWF will be able to carry 2 fuel tanks and 3 Brahmos/SCALP, which Gripen E will never be able to.
The same with the F-16. It has 9+1 hardpoints versus MWF's 11. However it can match the MWF's loadout of 2 fuel tanks and 3 Brahmos.
Which means the Gripen E's loadout is the least capable among the three jets. It has only 4 usable heavy hardpoints versus 5 on MWF and F-16. MWF will also be able to carry 4 drop tanks for buddy refuelling, whereas Gripen E can carry only 2.
So stop peddling your horseshit here, it goes nowhere.
If you are really interested, make a new loadout list with 5, 6 and 7 weaponised, with 6 being able to carry fuel tanks, SCALP, Brahmos etc. And then compare.
He's made a good thing sound bad.
Someone tell him the requirements of Mk1 and Mk1A for a total of 123 jets remain unchanged. The MWF has been created in order to stop Gripen/F-16 imports.
The opposite. The MWF will kill the chances of Gripen/F-16's import. The MWF has also allowed the IAF to bring back focus on Rafale/Typhoon requirement.
There is the new F414 EDE that can be uprated all the way up to 116KN. The engine is a new design with a 6-stage compressor compared to the older one with 7 stages.
They are calling it the F414 Enhanced Engine, and has reached production maturity.
The F414 Engine | GE Aviation
https://www.geaviation.com/sites/default/files/datasheet-F414-Enhanced.pdf