Tejas Mk2 (Medium Weight Fighter) - News and discussions
- Thread starter Schwifty
- Start date
85Kg/s. But Mk2 should have a sufficient inlet for that.
SFC is obviously unknown.
F414's SFC, IIRC, is 0.84 lb/lbf.h with military thrust.
F404's is 0.81 lb/lbf.h.
And they are claiming anywhere between 2-4% reduction in SFC. So somewhere between F404 and F414. Rather you can say they probably already matched F404 in SFC with the new design.
414 EPE has 0.84 for dry thrust and for Reheat it is over 1.7. The intakes will need massive redesign for EPE as its airflow reqts are more than that of 414 normal engine.
Those figures are for 414-400, not EPE. EPE figures haven't been released.
414-400's airflow requirement is 77Kg/s. EPE's is 85Kg/s. I'll try to find out if MWF can handle that, but I think I'll know only after the prototype is built, so that sucks. Of course, unless ADA themselves say they may go for a higher thrust engine before that, that would be put it to rest.
The thing is ADA/HAL are in discussion with GE for AF-MWF, N-MWF and AMCA's engines. So it won't come as a surprise if the F414 Enhanced Engine is chosen for all three.
414 is a very bad choice as it is neither modular nor has the latest tech. The engine belongs to 3.5th Gen. It will be better to go for EJ-230.
I would most definitely choose EJ230 any day of the week. But this is the hand we have been dealt with, so we are stuck with F414. But the good news is others have also chosen the engine for their future programs, including for Gripen-E and Korea's Phase 1 KF-X. Plus the USN will be flying it well into the 2060s through the SH. So future capabilities are assured.
The Enhanced Engine uses blisk, but there's a new engine in development which will use ceramics matrix composites. They plan to use this in next generation engines as well as current generation engines.
GE Successfully Tests World’s First Rotating Ceramic Matrix Composite Material for Next-Gen Combat Engine | GE Aviation
Otoh, the EJ200's future roadmap is suspect since no one except for the Typhoon fellas use it, and the Typhoon program seems like it's headed towards a dead end. The risk is if we go for it, in 20 years MWF can become like the Jaguar.
As for AMCA, the definitive engine will not be the F414. AMCA will see the development of a new modular engine. The F414 is only for the TDs and first 2 prototypes.
I have to underline somethin here. If you want a really stealthy airframe, you must lower inspection cycles. Which, in itself, mean your engine tolerances must be much way higher than expected performance. Dunno if i was clear .
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.
Can 5 & 7 th station carry any weapons other than dumb bombs ?
Pylon looks small..
It depends on the clearance between the the landing gear and the ordnance. But plenty of small bombs have come into the picture, like the SDB, SAAW, SANT etc, which are mostly smaller than the LDP.
If you're expecting an AAM, then it's quite unlikely, unless you are thinking of something like the CUDA concept.
There are two variants.
EDE : Enhanced Durability Engine. Engine with more life.
EPE : Enhanced Performance Engine. Engine with more performance.
They are both the same engines. EPE simply gives up service life for more power.
The name being used now is Enhanced Engine. Short and simple. You choose whether you want long life or more power, it's just software.
From what I've heard, the EDE is now unbeaten by any 4th gen engine in that regards.
I have no idea the nmber of EDE tactical cycles. Prognostics and modularity are important for sure, but the problematics are different : open the tin can as few as possible.
The hot core life of the EDE is three times higher than the standard F414. The hot section life of the EDE is 6000 hours when spitting out 98KN of thrust.
So the throttle cycle should be far more than 10,000.
And again no understanding, only hot air from you, that's why you only spread misinformation, but no knowledge!And the amount of nonsense you claim, just because you don't want to admit, to what I actually pointed out, that MWF just as any LCA MK1 can't carry BVR missiles in A2G configs!
No matter if 3 stations were added and the payload was increased on paper, the only station that is meant for BVR missiles, is the mid wing station!
As for all stations, size and weight restictions are the key. Air intake stations are not useful for modern A2G weapons, with extended guidance kits, let alone MERs. They are designed and used for pods primarily, see F16, J10.
And the amount of nonsense you claim, just because you don't want to admit, to what I actually pointed out, that MWF just as any LCA MK1 can't carry BVR missiles in A2G configs!
No matter if 3 stations were added and the payload was increased on paper, the only station that is meant for BVR missiles, is the mid wing station!
Yes, it can.
In the standard MMRCA config, the Gripen E and MWF will be able to carry 2 tanks, 2 bombs and 2+2 BVR and WVR. Even if those outermost underwing pylons cannot carry BVR, the centerline will most definitely carry at least 2 BVR missiles. Either tandem or side by side, there is enough space for that.
If it turns out that the outermost underwing pylons can carry BVR, then the BVR capacity of the MWF will double in MMRCA A2G configuration versus the Gripen E.
You think ADA is so stupid that they will not have designed the MWF to exceed the Gripen E? Oh, yeah, forgot that in your world, they will.