Tejas Mk2 (Medium Weight Fighter) - News and discussions

[vstol Jockey]

Kudos, finally some truth.

The under intake pylons will be able to carry 2xBVRAAMs. I can repost what I had written to DRDO on advice of Late Sh Parrikar here. I had posted that on another forum. I had advised them to take the gun above the intakes on the wing glove or bring it on fuselage centerline just behind the nose wheel and create another hard point under the other intake. I also asked them to increase the wingtips to carry 2xWVRAAMs. Your idea of MWF is wrong. If ADA is really able to do it, we will have an MWF which will have 11 pylons of which four will be dedicated for AAMs. Even Mk1 carries a 200 kgs Litening pod on no-8 station under the intake. That part is already stong enough to carry a weight of 250kgs. The fuselage center pylon will be able to carry two BVRAAMs or two bombs upto 500kgs or one rack of 4xSPICE250 equivalent or a D/T that is why the gear track width is being extended. I had also suggested to give nose wheel a retraction system from within the nose wheel bay instead of having it like that of F-18 and in present LCA. This will free up space to install the 23mm gun just behind the nose gear as an alternative.

 

[randomradio]

The under intake pylons will be able to carry 2xBVRAAMs. I can repost what I had written to DRDO on advice of Late Sh Parrikar here. I had posted that on another forum. I had advised them to take the gun above the intakes on the wing glove or bring it on fuselage centerline just behind the nose wheel and create another hard point under the other intake. I also asked them to increase the wingtips to carry 2xWVRAAMs. Your idea of MWF is wrong. If ADA is really able to do it, we will have an MWF which will have 11 pylons of which four will be dedicated for AAMs. Even Mk1 carries a 200 kgs Litening pod on no-8 station under the intake. That part is already stong enough to carry a weight of 250kgs. The fuselage center pylon will be able to carry two BVRAAMs or two bombs upto 500kgs or one rack of 4xSPICE250 equivalent or a D/T that is why the gear track width is being extended.

Not bad at all. I was worried AAMs on the intake pylons will have clearance problems with the landing gear. So, while Gripen E can carry 3 AAMs on the fuselage, MWF will carry 4. Plus, MWF will have 4 underwing stations dedicated for AAMs.

So most A2G loads, the MWF will be able to carry 4 BVR and 4 WVR, plus 3 fuel tanks and 2 CMs. So this the MWF surpasses Rafale's older configuration (9+2 and 10+2) where they had not opened up their outer pylons for any loads for a long the time. And matches Rafale's current configuration of 12+2.

In 10+2, Rafale can carry 2 tanks, 2 CMs and 6 missiles. MWF surpasses this.
In 9+2, Rafale can carry 3 tanks, 2 CMs and 4 missiles. MWF surpasses this.

After 2 pylons were opened up.
In 12+2, Rafale can carry 3 tanks, 2 CMs and 6 missiles. With 3 tanks and 2 CMs, MWF can also carry 6 missiles.

MWF has comfortably matched the Rafale's configuration. The only configuration where Rafale is ahead is in configurations which require the carriage of the LDP or recce pods. Then Rafale will get a 1 or 2 BVR advantage. But that's about it.

MWF utterly demolishes Gripen E in mission loadout.

Damn, had the MWF been designed for 8 tons of payload with a more powerful engine, our Rafale requirement would have dropped considerably. I hope they think of developing the N-MWF with the F110 and bring it up to a much higher standard.

I had also suggested to give nose wheel a retraction system from within the nose wheel bay instead of having it like that of F-18 and in present LCA. This will free up space to install the 23mm gun just behind the nose gear as an alternative.

The gun's been moved into the upper front fuselage, MKI style, so all's good on that front.

 

[vstol Jockey]

Not bad at all. I was worried AAMs on the intake pylons will have clearance problems with the landing gear. So, while Gripen E can carry 3 AAMs on the fuselage, MWF will carry 4. Plus, MWF will have 4 underwing stations dedicated for AAMs.

So most A2G loads, the MWF will be able to carry 4 BVR and 4 WVR, plus 3 fuel tanks and 2 CMs. So this the MWF surpasses Rafale's older configuration (9+2 and 10+2) where they had not opened up their outer pylons for any loads for a long the time. And matches Rafale's current configuration of 12+2.

In 10+2, Rafale can carry 2 tanks, 2 CMs and 6 missiles. MWF surpasses this.
In 9+2, Rafale can carry 3 tanks, 2 CMs and 4 missiles. MWF surpasses this.

After 2 pylons were opened up.
In 12+2, Rafale can carry 3 tanks, 2 CMs and 6 missiles. With 3 tanks and 2 CMs, MWF can also carry 6 missiles.

MWF has comfortably matched the Rafale's configuration. The only configuration where Rafale is ahead is in configurations which require the carriage of the LDP or recce pods. Then Rafale will get a 1 or 2 BVR advantage. But that's about it.

MWF utterly demolishes Gripen E in mission loadout.

Damn, had the MWF been designed for 8 tons of payload with a more powerful engine, our Rafale requirement would have dropped considerably. I hope they think of developing the N-MWF with the F110 and bring it up to a much higher standard.

The gun's been moved into the upper front fuselage, MKI style, so all's good on that front.

Don't even compare MWF to Gripen-E. It is going to be a much bigger beast than that. Only point is can ADA deliver it in time and on time? I had written to them about Mig-21R which had the wingtip extended exactly like MWF to carry wingtip sensor pods for EW. MWF will have an additional spar at the rear which will allow it to have a wingtip with a respectable Reynolds number and also give it strength to carry a 125kg missile. Its not just ASRAAM, but even MICA can be carried on the wingtip pylon.

 

[Sancho]

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.

At least up to 1000lb bombs, will be carried on the wings (just as for Gripen C/D) => 3 x BVR on the centerline + 2 x WVR on the wing tips vs zero BVR for MWF.

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

That's factually wrong, by the fact that there is evidently only 1 station, compared to 3 at the Gripen E centerline. So no made up tandem or side by side config possible.

If it turns out that the outermost underwing pylons can carry BVR,

"If" it turns out! So you admit that it can't.

You think ADA is so stupid that they will not have designed the MWF to exceed the Gripen E?

Which shows the limits of your compression, because Gripen E was never the aim, otherwise they would have used the fuselage changes, to do what Saab did as well and add fuselage stations!
They added a 2nd air intake station, which Gripen doesn't have, they added a 4th wing station, which Gripen E doesn't have either.
They added 3 stations, that didn't required major redesigns, but factually also doesn't make MWF much more capable. So just as you do, they count stations on paper, while ignoring the operational value.

 

[vstol Jockey]

Gripen-E has just four underwing pylons and two wingtip pylons with one big centerline pylon. MWF will have three underwing pylons, two wingtip pylons, two under intake pylons and one big centerline pylon.

 

[randomradio]

Don't even compare MWF to Gripen-E. It is going to be a much bigger beast than that. Only point is can ADA deliver it in time and on time? I had written to them about Mig-21R which had the wingtip extended exactly like MWF to carry wingtip sensor pods for EW. MWF will have an additional spar at the rear which will allow it to have a wingtip with a respectable Reynolds number and also give it strength to carry a 125kg missile. Its not just ASRAAM, but even MICA can be carried on the wingtip pylon.

I just hope they have decided to power all that with the EDE/EPE.

 

[randomradio]

At least up to 1000lb bombs, will be carried on the wings (just as for Gripen C/D) => 3 x BVR on the centerline + 2 x WVR on the wing tips vs zero BVR for MWF.



That's factually wrong, by the fact that there is evidently only 1 station, compared to 3 at the Gripen E centerline. So no made up tandem or side by side config possible.



"If" it turns out! So you admit that it can't.




Which shows the limits of your compression, because Gripen E was never the aim, otherwise they would have used the fuselage changes, to do what Saab did as well and add fuselage stations!
They added a 2nd air intake station, which Gripen doesn't have, they added a 4th wing station, which Gripen E doesn't have either.
They added 3 stations, that didn't required major redesigns, but factually also doesn't make MWF much more capable. So just as you do, they count stations on paper, while ignoring the operational value.

MWF has 5 usable heavy pylons, Gripen E has 4. This alone is a huge advantage, enough to end the discussion.

 

[vstol Jockey]

I just hope they have decided to power all that with the EDE/EPE.

I just hate that engine. I amy be baised. I still maintain that we should scrap the deal for GE414 and go for EJ-230 which a far superior engine for MWF. This shit of L1 which started with MMRCA is going to hurt us for a very longtime.

 

[randomradio]

Gripen-E has just four underwing pylons and two wingtip pylons with one big centerline pylon. MWF will have three underwing pylons, two wingtip pylons, two under intake pylons and one big centerline pylon.

Facts are not his strong suit sadly.

 

[vstol Jockey]

MWF has 5 usable heavy pylons, Gripen E has 4. This alone is a huge advantage, enough to end the discussion.

Gripen-E has only three and not four.

 

[vstol Jockey]

Facts are not his strong suit sadly.

But I like @Sancho.

 

[Sancho]

Even Mk1 carries a 200 kgs Litening pod on no-8 station under the intake.

Your whole post makes no sense, because you only factor in weight, while ignoring length and width limitation's.
Litening is 2m long, even a WVR missile is roughly 3m, BVR missiles over 3.5m and if you had bothered to really understand what the issue is, you might have checked what lies behind the air intakes that could limit the size =>

[/QUOTE]

 

[randomradio]

Gripen-E has only three and not four.

Actually 5 in total. And only 4 are usable at any one time.

The 2 inner wing hardpoints. And 3 centerline hardpoints. And all 3 centerline hardpoints are heavy. But only 2 of the points are usable at any one time, where they can put fuel tanks.

Like this:

What's interesting about this loadout is if HAL manages to put 2 BVR missiles on the LCA Mk1A's centre pylon, then Mk1A itself will match Gripen E's configuration.

 

[randomradio]

Your whole post makes no sense, because you only factor in weight, while ignoring length and width limitation's.
Litening is 2m long, even a WVR missile is roughly 3m, BVR missiles over 3.5m and if you had bothered to really understand what the issue is, you might have checked what lies behind the air intakes that could limit the size =>

View attachment 5630

View attachment 5631

[/QUOTE]

You are comparing a 13.2m long airframe with a 14.7m long airframe.

 

[vstol Jockey]

Your whole post makes no sense, because you only factor in weight, while ignoring length and width limitation's.
Litening is 2m long, even a WVR missile is roughly 3m, BVR missiles over 3.5m and if you had bothered to really understand what the issue is, you might have checked what lies behind the air intakes that could limit the size =>

View attachment 5630

View attachment 5631

[/QUOTE]
What do you know about aerodynamics? What is the head size of a BVRAAM vs Litenfing pod? How will the airflow be for the intakes? What is the length of Litening pod? Can't the BVRAAM extend forward? have you seen how the pkugs are being added to the MWF? Please read. You are an intelligent man and can do much better.

 

[Sancho]

MWF has 5 usable heavy pylons, Gripen E has 4. This alone is a huge advantage, enough to end the discussion.

And even here you are wrong, because you don't understand the basics. LCA/MWF have 5 "wet" stations, but only 3 are heavy/wet stations, that can carry loads beyond 2000lb. That's why you can add 2000lb weapons on the inner station, but are limited to 2 x 800l fuel tanks only.
That is an advantage over the light class Gripen C/D, that is limited to a single centerline fuel tank, when using the heavy stations, but not compared to Gripen E, that still carries 2 x 1700l fuel

 

[Sancho]

You are comparing a 13.2m long airframe with a 14.7m long airframe.[/QUOTE]

No, I am looking at the size restrictions of the intake stations and as you might heard, the airframe extention is behind the cockpit, which takes the intake part further back, so location of the stations and the gearbay doesn't change.

 

[Sancho]

What do you know about aerodynamics?

Caught in a basic mistake and now want to distract? You are learning from people with random knowledge, I assumed that you are better than that and just admit the mistake.

 

[vstol Jockey]

Caught in a basic mistake and now want to distract? You are learning from people with random knowledge, I assumed that you are better than that and just admit the mistake.

I have done no mistake. I can show you hundreds of pictures of missiles fitted and projected ahead of intakes. Do you want to challenge me?

 

[Sancho]

I have done no mistake. I can show you hundreds of pictures of missiles fitted and projected ahead of intakes. Do you want to challenge me?

Or you could simply look at the LCA pics and admit, that any longer payload would interfere with the gearbay, or are you denying that?